For those of you interested in the Scooter Libby trial, Tom Maguire unspins the spin being put out by Media Matters.
Maguire has tirelessly unpacked the entire case—which has resulted, rather predictably, I think, in a travesty of justice—all in the service of a feverish Bush hatred.
As the editors at National Review put it:
Because Bush’s stubbornly ill-informed political opponents persist in basing their attacks on discredited statements from the discredited Joe Wilson, a brief recounting of the facts is necessary yet again. New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote on June 13, 2003, that President Bush’s claim that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa “had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of the Vice President.†In fact, the claim wasn’t discredited by the envoy, who wasn’t sent at the behest of the vice president. These two old, false assertions form the basis of the accusations Harry Reid leveled yesterday.1
Reid doesn’t have to take our word for it. At the recent trial it was revealed that Valerie Plame recommended that her husband be sent to Niger before the vice president even inquired whether there was any additional intelligence about the uranium claim.
As for manipulating pre-war intelligence, Senator Reid should run his poisonously partisan version of events past his former colleague, Sen. Chuck Robb. In its March 2005 report on pre-war WMD intelligence, the Silberman-Robb commission wrote, “The United States government asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production facilities, and had stockpiled and was producing chemical weapons. All of this was based on the assessments of the U.S. Intelligence Community.â€Â
The commission found no evidence that policymakers pressured intelligence analysts, but did find that the unpressured analysts poorly served policymakers. According to the commission, the intelligence community failed to explain to policymakers “how much its assessments were driven by assumptions and inferences rather than concrete evidence.â€Â
In his closing statement, Patrick Fitzgerald talked darkly about “a cloud over the vice president.†Fitzgerald has his weather patterns wrong. It is Joseph Wilson and the partisans echoing his lies who should have a cloud over them. They manufactured a case that the Bush administration manufactured WMD intelligence. The administration understandably tried to defend itself by explaining that Joe Wilson wasn’t on a mission from Vice President Cheney, and by declassifying a National Intelligence Estimate so that the rest of us could see the legitimate if faulty intelligence they had relied on.
These appropriate efforts gave rise to the appointment of a special counsel, and the travesty of a case Harry Reid now touts as vindication of his partisan fantasy.
Well, as I’m sure some people will be quick to remind you, this case is not about “partisanship.” Instead, it’s about justice—though it’s a rather peculiar bit of “justice,” given that those who continue to support this risible prosecution do so based on their gut feelings that something deeper and darker lies beneath the surface, and that somebody—anybody—must pay. And given that it won’t be Rove or Cheney or Bush, they’re just going to have to make do with Libby—whose transgressions they must necessarily hyperbolize to mask the shame of their failed feverish pursuit of larger conspiracies.
Frankly, it sickens me. But as I say, I think it unfair to call it “partisan.” After all, “true” conservative Andrew Sullivan—in a move that absolutely no one could have predicted—breaks, for once, with his conservative brethren, and shows that he is no Administration stooge:
Something is rotten in the heart of Washington; and it lies in the vice-president’s office. The salience of this case is obvious. What it is really about—what it has always been about—is whether this administration deliberately misled the American people about WMD intelligence before the war.
The risks Cheney took to attack Wilson, the insane overreaction that otherwise very smart men in this administration engaged in to rebut a relatively trivial issue; all of this strongly implies the fact they were terrified that the full details of their pre-war WMD knowledge would come out.
I’ll allow you to pause here to take in the staggering presumptuousness of these two paragraphs. The conviction of Scooter Libby, it seems, is not about Libby allegedly lying or misremembering. Because, well, that isn’t quite meaty enough. So what it is really about—by Sullivan’s own admission—is finding a scapegoat for the persistent fantasy that the Administration cooked intelligence, feared the TRUTHINESS of Joe Wilson, and, in a scorched-earth response, launched a super-secret reprisal attack that had the effect of placing superspy Valerie Plame in peril.
Of course, all of this has been thoroughly and consistently debunked, but, well, people like Sullivan just feel it to be true—and such is their arrogance that somebody has to pay for their fevered conjectures.
After all, the cumulative effect of all this debunked stuff—if true—would, according to Sullivan, imply a deeper conspiracy. And if a deeper conspiracy can be inferred, it follows, then, that said deeper conspiracy must necessarily be “true”—if not in fact, at least in spirit. Indeed, that no one seems able to prove it in a court of law only makes it even MORE true, because such is the way with deep dark conspiracies: they become deeper and darker by virtue of how cleverly they’re covered up.
Continues Sullivan:
Fitzgerald could smell this. He was right to pursue it, and to prove that a brilliant, intelligent, sane man like Libby would risk jail to protect his bosses. What was he really trying to hide? We now need a Congressional investigation to find out more, to subpoena Cheney and, if he won’t cooperate, consider impeaching him.
To people like Sullivan, there can be no outcome but the one they want, and they will justify getting there any way they can, even if a few pawns need be sacrificed along the way.
Libby won’t indict Cheney / Rove? He must be covering up. Indict him and keep going.
Cheney won’t admit to any wrongdoing? He must be covering up. Impeach him.
Fitzgerald won’t bring any charges against Rove or Cheney? He doesn’t have enough power. Start a Congressional investigation.
Such witchhunting would be amusing to watch if it weren’t for the fact that people’s reputations are being ruined along the way. Although not Sullivan’s, and not Tim Russert’s. Because evidently it pays to be on the side of the angels. Though Andrew is absolutely gobsmacked to find that, having reached political heaven, he is standing alongside Arianna Huffington and Pat Buchanan:
It’s come to this? I’m watching Scarborough and see both Buchanan and Huffington agreeing that the Congress needs to take the Libby verdict from here on. Both opposed the war. I didn’t. But at this point, I agree with them. Why are those of us who favored the war not as eager to investigate whether we were deliberately misled? Weren’t we potentially conned as well?
Sullivan has a point. Why haven’t their been any investigations into pre-war intelligence?
Well, I mean, investigations into pre-war intelligence that come back with the conclusion he’s already reached?
By all means, let’s keep starting new ones until somebody has the good form to prove Andrew correct!
****
1Reid yesterday: “It’s about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable [sic] for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics.â€Â
Andrew’s vaguely redolent of something . . . I can’t quite put my finger on it . . .
Oh, yeah. Horsehit.
Horseshit.
What I don’t understand is why there is such a heated call for Presidential Pardon when all Libby has to do is spill his guts to avoid prison time. Simple even for a macaroon like myself.
Wait…you’re telling me that you’re willing to live with the outcome that actually *did* occur? Not holding my breathe on intellectually honesty from you on that one.
Is that like a . . . macaca and an octoroon?
Who outed Plame? What did Wilson actually report about Niger? Why did they claim that Cheney’s office sent him?
Because, see . . . if they lied about that, they must be covering something up.
What on earth does that have to do with whether Scooter Libby lied to the grand jury/special prosecutor/FBI? Hint: Absolutely nothing.
What was Libby trying to hide? A crime? Was that the “leak” of Valerie Plame’s name?
Richard Armitage, then, is your boy, not Scooter Libby. We all know it, as does Patrick Fitzgerald. Why don’t any of these leftists (and yes, you’re one of them Sully) have any interest in prosecuting the guy WHO DAMN NEAR KILLED VALERIE PLAME WHILE BETRAYING OUR VERY NATION!!!? Or something…
What part of “travesty” has you confused, Andrei?
For the record, I think I noted somewhere that this case would, in the end, look much like the Martha Stewart conviction—also a travesty, if you ask me, though I did get some useful material out of it.
During a conversation with a co-worker this morning, we were talking about this case and I mentioned that the outcome was unfortunate, to say the least. His response was that this is “what you reps get for trying Bill Clinton for lying about a bj”. He went on to assert that this case is even worse because lying about a bj is not nearly as bad as lying to take a country to war.
He did concede that he thought Libby was the fall guy for Rove and Cheney, an idea that I did not bring up.
When you wish to believe something badly enough, as is the case here, there is no amount of logic or reason that can change your mind. That being the case, I simply smiled and re-stated that I thought the whole situation was unfortunate adding that I hope Bush does the right thing and pardons him before the appeals process.
It is this kind of crap which will keep some our best and brightest from ever considering working in government.
There is a long standing tradition of Presidential Pardons stretching all the way back to W Jefferson Clinton and that oil trader fellow, you know, Marc something or other. Semenclit. No. It’ll come to me.
His memory of conversations differed from other people’s memory of those conversations. He wasn’t the only one who had that problem; Judith Miller forgot an entire conversation when she was in front of the grand jury, only to remember it when she was in court.
If it’s acceptable to assume there’s more to this story than that, then isn’t it also acceptable to assume Ted Kennedy was conspiring against the US president with the Soviets? There’s more evidence of Kennedy’s involvement there than there is of a purposeful campaign to out Plame.
What part of the guilty on four counts has you confused? You claim a guy like Sullivan would not have been happy unless he got the outcome he wanted, and yet your entire post is complaining in exactly the same manner.
Travesty?
Here’s a thought experiment: What post would you have written had Libby been found not guilty on all five counts? Something claiming justice was served? Since clearly justice was not served with the current outcome. No travesty would than exist in that alternate reality, right?
It’s fine to want a particular outcome, but to sit there and claim guys like Sullivan will be placated only if they get their outcome while writing a blog post that is a complaint at its core about the actual outcome is just nonsense.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, is it possible that this whole thing is nothing more than a clever sting operation, a hit job planned, co-ordinated and executed with brilliance for political gains?
Joe Wilson’s assigned role was to set the hook. His OPEd piece and his subsequent “frog marching” comments were designed to provoke the White House into taking some action, any action.
The rest of the supporting players, MSM, Schumner etc then duly played their parts, generating and maintaining the outrage and demanding the appointment of an independent counsul.
The rest is history, all the fawning coverages on Fitzgerald made it impossible for him to not proceed. The lead FBI investigator didn’t have to do much to supply him with the basic MSM narrative. Who wouldn’t want to be this generation’s Archibald Cox or Elliott Richardson, the one that brings down a hated administration. George Clooney will probably play him in a future movie.
The only problem is that at this moment the West is facing an existential threat. To paralyze the White House for several yrs in time of war for petty political gains or turf wars is simply unconscionable.
NOT another thought experiment…
Bottom line, when you hire someone to hunt witches, they’ll usually find a witch.
The people who hired them will cheer.
The bitch(es) burned at the stake probably had it coming.
Considering Andrew’s personal predilections and supposed understanding of history, he might be a little less sang-froid about witch hunts, but hey.
Um, because, given that there was no underlying crime, the prosecution never should have gone forward? Because ther basis of the charges was simply that Libby’s recollection of events differed from the equally undocumented recollections of others who were not being prosecuted for the same sort of crime? Because, you know, “travesty” has an objective meaning that actually describes this outcome?
I can think of more, but you get the idea. Or maybe you don’t.
No, I’m pretty sure you don’t.
So, because Libby lied there is some arrow pointing to Cheney even though the identity of the leaker is known and it isn’t Cheney. So Sullivan will only be happy if someone pays the price for the leak, as long as it’s not the leaker, not Libby and looks speaks acts, smells, etc just like Cheney. It’d be even better if it actually was Cheney. Even though it isn’t him.
The outcome is a travesty because the investigation turned up the leaker, but the trial was against someone who had a bad memory for telephone conversations and a crummy lawyer.
Well I would have written a post about the whole trial being a travesty and shouldn’t have taken place in the first place.
Kind of like..you know..the one that was written.
There was an inability to get to the facts due to Libby’s conflicting testimony to the grand jury, which Fitzgerald has stated numerous times now. And which was the reason Libby was brought to trial.
Perjury exists as a crime because if it didn’t, there’d be no way for prosecutors to ever get to bottom of any case since everyone could lie through their teeth without consequence.
Further, you have no idea if there was or if there wasn’t an underlying crime. Neither do I. Neither does Fitzgerald even though he probably knows a lot more than either of us about the facts surrounding the case. How that point keeps getting lost on guys like you amazes me.
Apparently, the jury agreed with Fitzgerald and even went so far as to think Libby was perjuring himself. You can try and change this outcome, but that’s how it actually happened.
Yes, but you still haven’t answered any of my questions put to you, Andrei.
KEEP THE FAITH BRUTHA! WE’LL GET THAT ROVE BASTARD SOME DAY!
What scares me is that this doesn’t scare the absolute shit out of you. Quick, someone dig up Jefferson so we can watch him spin.
And which facts was there an inability to get to? We know who the “leaker” was.
Andrei,
Do you know who Richard Armitage is? Seriously.
Even about sex or sexual harassment? Or is there a “Bubba exception” to the perjury law?
TW:except61
So nice that Andrei—his little thought experiment having failed—is now demonstrating Jeff’s point about conspiracy theorists right here in the thread.
The editorial board at the WaPo is a bit more sane:
Because the way this looks to me, it’s as though Monica gave someone a blowjob in the oval office, and Carville got convicted of lying about it.
“When I returned Mary Jo and the car were gone.”
“No, really….”
PS: The WaPo editorial is only a bit more sane, as a reading of the excerpt above demonstrates that the scandal “was propelled
not by actual wrongdoing butby inflated and frequently false claims” of Wilson, and the BDS sweeping certain segments of the public.A macaroon is a cookie.
You are an idiot.
Big difference.
It’s been written and demonstrated that the language of the statute on covert operatives disallowed any prosecution as Ms. Plame was not actively involved in covert operations. The CIA forwarded the case to the Justice Department as a matter of course and Fitzgerald didn’t realise until well into his investigation that the base charges were, well, baseless.
After the hue and cry that the Rove indictment was coming ANY DAY NOW this result, based upon who remembered what for someone on the relative periphery of the core case, is a joke. Your attempt to invalidate Jeff’s post on that very same issue is, ergo, also a joke.
Semanticleo: you are a joke no matter what the circumstances of the case.
Hey cleo, when’s Fitzmas? I’m getting tired of sitting in this damn pumpkin patch.
Bush should call a press conference and with Libby standing beside him, grant Libby a full pardon. Then Bush should demand that Fitz be prosecuted for misconduct. Then Bush should demand that the Berger case be investigated – if not to punish Berger (ship has sailed) than to ascertain who gave Berger such a fluffy deal and why they did. Then Bush should call for Reid’s real estate escapades to be examined. Then Bush should get Gonzales to pursue those that published classified information. Then Bush should call Armitage a sack of shit from the Presidential podium…
Bush should make it two hour presser and name names, clean house, and generally put an end to all these squishy offenses by putting the hurt on those that actually break the law.
Poor reactionary leftists.
They kept waiting and waiting and waiting for that pony to show up under the Fitzmas tree, and all they did get was a pile of horseshit.
Or, perhaps, they wanted a Harley (Cheney) for Fitzmas and got a Mo-Ped (Scooter), instead. Imagine the disappointment.
Just got back from Super Target, where I went to get my son a few more SpongeBob pushup pops, and see that this has already been ably answered.
And of course I think it was already answered in the post by those willing to follow the links. Of whom, I’m guessing, Andrei wasn’t one.
Libby turned me into a newt!
So how long before St. Andrew begins to lament the narrow range of interrogation techniques available to those who are investigating this deep, dark, conspiracy?
Did you get better?
If anyone should have been charged with a crime it is Joe Wilson, the self-aggrandizing fraud who is willing to let someone go to jail in exchange for his newfound celebrity.
If I believed in hell, I’d wish a special place in it for people like Wilson.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Andrew is insane. To this day I won’t take seriously anyone who still makes the claim that Bush lied about Iraqi pre-war intelligence. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Even Hans Freaking Brix admitted that Saddam had not come clean, and he was anything but a supporter of the Bush admin. Every single senator said the same things- no one is accusing them of lying. All of the international intelligence estimates said the same thing, and in some cases hyped Saddams capabilities even more than Bush did- I must have missed the “UNSC Lied!-People Died!” bumperstickers.
What to me is the worst part of this whole shebang is neatly encapsulated by the WSJ editorial page today– here is an excerpt-
And as usual, the big loser in this whole mess is the truth.
BECAUSE OF THE ………..yeah, I think you know..
Apparently Armitage outed Plame, which is presumably why he’s named in the civil case the Wilson’s are bringing to court. As for your questions in general, they have nothing to do with the *perjury* case that was brought against Libby. Rule of law? You do understand how that operates, correct?
There it is finally… intellectual honesty on display! At least we know where you stand on the moral issues.
I’m having trouble getting over the fact that Sandy Berger got his wrist slapped for absconding with (and destroying some) top-secret documents, while Libby is now a felon for at worst doing some opposition news spinning.
And of course that lying sack of s**t Joe Wilson and his cash-cow-pseudo-covert-pencil-pusher are milking the talk circuit. Even the Washington Post is sick of that particular sideshow.
My vote could be bought. Any Democrat willing to say Sandy Berger should be behind bars, and that whoever leaked the SWIFT monitoring story to the press should be behind bars, and that whoever leaked the incoming international cell call datamining should be behind bars, well, that Democrat would have my vote. Because that Democrat might have the well being of the country as a higher priority than cheap-ass oppo-scalp hunting.
Ok, maybe I’m extra dense today, but, assuming that I read Andrei’s comments correctly, I don’t see anything wrong (at least at face value) with them. However, based on reaction, I may be missing something.
What I think he’s saying is:
1) Folks on both sides of the aisle are about equally serious about reading lots of portents into this as an manifestation of BDS – either that it is proof of the malfeasance of the Bush Administration or that it is proof that those in the grips of BDS won’t accept any rational or reasoned argument that runs contrary to their narrative.
2) Regardless of who did or didn’t leak or unleak or didn’t unleak or whatever, the charge of perjury is relatively freestanding outside of the question of how this whole deal may or may not connect with Iraq, WMD, tea, tea in China, Chinese tea drinkers or anything else. On that front, the indictment means exactly what it means, no more no less.
In any case, if someone could take the trouble to clue me up right quick, I’d appreciate it.
BRD
What. The. Hell?
Except for that one pesky little detail: She wasn’t covert. Why is anyone else named in that suit, though? With, you know, there being no evidence that anyone did anything to them, but plenty that Joey has been lying his ass off about others.
Yeah, I’m not quite sure what to make of that, either.
Do you think Andrei read the WaPo editorial Karl excerpted above? Do you think he read the Senate Intelligence Committee report noting Wilson’s lies? Or followed the trial enough to know that Wilson’s suggestion that the Bushies (Richard Armitage) “outed” his wife was another lie?
Me neither.
But “morally,” instigating a series of lies that ends with a guy being convicted for lying is…well…
Oh, why bother.
BRD,
I see it the same way as you do.
Fitzgerald exercised poor prosecutorial judgment (bordering on prosecutorial misconduct) in continuing to investigate a something he knew was not a crime.
But Libby took an oath upon entering the grand jury room. That oath was no less binding simply because the investigation itself was bogus. If Libby lied to the grand jury, he should have been convicted. (I don’t think it was proven that he lied beyond a reasonable doubt).
The conviction says nothing at all about pre-war intelligence, or “outing” a CIA analyst, or anything else other than the rather unsurprising proposition that lying do a grand jury (even in trivial or mis-guided investigations) is and should be a crime.
According to Dante’s report, there is one, and you have to get there on Geryon’s back.
But as to lying, the NYT’s headline is:
Libby, Ex-Cheney Aide, Guilty of Lying in C.I.A. Leak Case
Is it a CIA leak case?
Correction: “… lying to a grand jury…”
Uh, wasn’t that the point of my post—that Sullivan was suggesting this was ABOUT something it wasn’t?
Libby never should have been put in this position in the first place. And as Maguire points out, if everyone else can be forgiven for their misrememberings, why not Libby?
All that was shown was that his statements—and apparently his recollection—differed from the statements of other people. If that’s now what constitutes “perjury”, we’re in a load of crap:
1. Someone accuses you of a murder committed ten yeas ago.
2. While testifying to the grand jury, you state you never met the victim of the murder, never heard their name before, wasn’t in the location where they were murdered at the time of the murder. You have no documentation or other evidence to back up these claims.
3. Someone else testifies that, yes, you did know the victim, and were present during the murder. They have no documentation or other evidence to back up these claims.
The prosecutor, left with no real evidence you were involved in the murder, charges you with perjury.
Didn’t mean to express disagreement with your post. Quite the opposite.
However, I think he forgiveness ought to take the form of a pardon. If the 11 jurors believed Libby lied, he ought to have been convicted. If the president believes, as I do, the overall circumstances of the case, the investigation, and the double-standards that exist, warrant a pardon, then that’s what should be done.
RC,
You’re making a point about the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the jury. I agree that the case was weak and would not have persuaded me that Libby was guilty beyond a reaonable doubt.
My only point was that IF Libby did indeed lie to the grand jury, his conviction on that charge is not surprising.
I agree, Angler. I am not calling for a retrial, certainly, and I’m willing to live with the jury verdict.
Easy for me to do, though, as it’s not my reputation being trashed.
I’m just a bit bothered that BRD wouldn’t see anything wrong in Andrei’s posts, which begin by questioning my intellectual honesty.
Except no evidence was presented that he lied; it was purely his recollection against someone else’s. There was no equivalent to a stained dress; no physical proof.
I’m not quite so sure that no evidence was presented that Libby lied. There was some evidence, but I think it was weak.
I thought one of the main allegations was that Libby lied to the grand jury when he told the grand jurors that he had heard about Plame’s identity from Russert (on a Thursday) and was surprised by that information. The prosecution offered uncontradicted evidence that Libby in fact had been told about Plame’s identity the preceding Monday or Tuesday, arguing that it was not reasonable to believe that having learned something rather significant on a Monday you would forget by Thursday and be surprised by the information you just forgot.
Again, I think there was enough reasonable doubt do aquit. But in these cases rarely is there physical proof or a stained dress.
Yeah, it’s a moral outrage that Joe Wilson is a lying sack of shit.
And is seemingly getting away with it.
Andrei writes:
To write this, he has to ignore that his original point was decimated by gahrie, who noted that the objection is to the fact of the prosecution, regardless of its outcome.
If Andrei were actually a Plamologist, he would know that the FBI and the DoJ were aware that Armitage was the leaker before Libby committed any of the acts with which he was charged. It was also apparent to them by that time that the IIPA was inapplicable and that no one in their right mind would have pursued a case under the Espionage Act.
So what happened is what seems to invariably happen when a special or independent prosecutor is appointed—the rather meaningless pursuit of of perjury or obstruction charges.
At least in the Clinton case, there was a colorable case that Clinton had engaged in sexual harrassment, based on the treatment of females who had sex with him versus those who refused (which is why a settlement was ultimately reached, even after Clinton won summary judgment; he knew that would not stand on appeal).
In this case, there was no underlying legal wrong, as shown by Fitz’s refusal to indict anyone under the IIPA or Espionage Act. There was merely the outrage of BDS sufferers that Wilson was exposed as a liar and the beneficiary of nepotism.
Could a rational jury have found Libby guilty? Yes (though the inconsistency in the verdicts this particular jury rendered is disturbing). What Andrei refuses to acknowledge is the rather dangerous precedent being set when people start getting convicted of obstructing an investigation into a non-crime.
As Andrei is fond of thought experiments, here is one:
Suppose the investigators, the DoJ and Fitzgerald had stated all along that there was no violation of the IIPA or the Espionage Act in this case. Would Libby have told them something different? If so, why was the sword of Damocles dangled over those who became the focus of the investigation?
I never caught that Joe Wilson had been “discredited.”
Only that he had been smeared.
alphie,
He lied about having seen documents. He lied about who sent him. He mischaracterized what he actually told his debriefers.
Of course, this doesn’t discredit him, because it’s obvious that Bush and Cheney lied us all into supporting this unjust war.
A sane person might say something like:
Andrew Sullivan is an idiot and I sincerely hope that congress does open a highly partisan, high profile witch hunt against Cheney. Not because I think it will backfire against the Dem’s, I just want to see Dick Cheney’s cock testify in front of congress. Poor Nancy Pelosi may never blink again.
Hold on let me just feed this through my moontardese nonsense translator so I can get it translated into non-moron……OK, translation:
There you go.
Big E—that translation is good, but leaves out the uncontrolled drooling and nose-picking.
The only thing being smeared here is the collective IQ of Jeff and the commenters herein when you show with shit like this, alp.
You’re fucking pathetic.
Every single statement Wilson has made has been thoroughly discredited by the Robb-Silverman report, British Intelligence (who still stand by their claim), and the 9-11 commission. Only petty, ignorant little cretins like you would think Wilson was “smeared.” Now be a good little boy and head back to DU. Your presence makes the place reek.
I haven’t followed this, beyond an occasional foray over at Maguire’s to marvel at semanticleo. My acquaintance Dorothy Heydt says that when reading a bad book, she eventually arrives at the Ten Deadly Words: I Don’t Care What Happens To Any of these people. Whereupon book meets wall and lies there… I long since said the Ten Deadly Words.
The only thing I even see as something to hope for is the discrediting of the extraConstitutional “special prosecutor” system. It’s been clear for a long time that anyone who could characterize Fitzgerald as “apolitical” with a straight face is bogarting some serious shit and should be ostracized on those grounds alone. I mean, that kind of selfishness is just wrong, y’know?
Regards,
Ric
That’s like saying a translation from the original French doesn’t include the gratuitous sneering and the body odor.
He lied about who sent him, Dan?
That was the smear Cheney and Co. cooked up that got Libby into trouble.
Here’s Wilson’s original article, looks straightforward to me.
<blockquote>I never
caughtabsorbed into my Action Chimp™ brain the information widely disseminated that Joe Wilson had been “discredited,†being I was too busy recycling Huffpo talking points.There, fixed that for you and stop trying to poke the balloons!
Kelly, BigE, et. al., you’re forgetting the special leftie meaning of “smear”.
“Smear”, v.t. & n: [to utter] an inconvenient truth about a leftist.
Regards,
Ric
alphie has no grip on facts; I’m shocked.
Try reading Section II of the unanimous report by the Sen. Intell Cmte on the Niger intell, in which you’ll get to read about Wilson flopping around like a fish in the bottom of the boat under examination by cmte staff. Moreover, the facts established therein are directly contrary to Wilson’s op-ed on almost every point.
It’s a free download. Not that alphie will bother, as—iirc—I’ve linked this before.
And, as noted above, the record of the Libby trial itself shows that the DIA and CIA were working up the Niger trip before Cheney was interested in the subject.
You know, Nixon is still one of my favorite presidents. And there’s no doubt in my mind that he was the ritual sacrifice for the Vietnam War. That said, if you get caught, you’re screwed, and (looking back on the fate of Nixon and his crew), that’s unfortunately the way it has to be.
I remember, when I was a kid, being a bit incredulous that Al Capone was got for income tax and Alger Hiss for perjury. But those were, of course, just the charges that stuck, not what it really was about.
Leaving Andrew’s over-emotionalism aside, I don’t think there’s any question that Scooter is the sacrificial lamb for the War in Iraq, on a meta level. People are highly pissed, and this whole thing was just a reflection of that.
At the same time, if he lied under oath, well, he got caught. That simple.
The real question to me at this point is: is the anger in the country sufficient to catapult this into a drive to remove Cheney, and/or even remove Bush ahead of schedule. I don’t pretend to know.
I do think the odds of things going that way would be enhanced if there was a quick pardon.
Is that some kind of a smear, ric?
Only if it’s inconvenient. I mean, you give your name as “BJ” —
Regards,
Ric
Best comment I’ve read today on Scooter:
He’s 20% innocent.
Incidentally, I’m having a conversation with a good friend who happens to possess “progressive” views, ergo, Bushco are all “criminals” etc., etc.
I’ve yet—either in that conversation or in this thread—to find that there’s any perspective or balance justifying this conviction. The final word is simply that the Left finally got somebody, damn the ethics, values, escapees, laws, terms, conditions, morals, broader issues, and kitchen sink.
This affair is therefore partisanship and arm-waving. It all comes down to revenge and prescience about [insert Instant Leftist Boilerplate here.[ The White House is evil because it’s criminal. Spoken with a straight face, while frantically inverting cause and effect and jamming pieces together that do not fit.
I guess you could say that not knowing the case inside side out, one could be more than persuaded by this highly consistent phenomenon that there’s simply no there there.
But if feels so good.
Precisely, if inadvertently: there’s little question that Scooter is the sacrificial lamb for the war on the War in Iraq because leftists are highly reactionary and irrational and this whole thing was just a reflection of that.
The real question is will that malaise be sufficient to catapult this into another witch hunt capable of driving Bushco from office because we’ve so lost our way.
Isn’t the fact that this case has finally crossed the line from “justice” to open political revenge and acting out any clue?
No need, Karl. Ends justify means, prescient leftism is self-fulfilling, and moral outrage trumps reason.
Libby broke a window and was subsequently hauled off for jaywalking. The crowd roared as justice was done. We don’t need no steengkeeng balance.
Are you sayinng the Bush administraion are leftists, JHoward?
They’re the ones who hired Fitzgerald to investigate this matter.
As predicted, alfie ignores the link and changes the subject.
JHoward:
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
Dear Mr. Crawford:
My translation methods involve the use of scientific methodologies and I do not approve of you making light of them via your commentary on Alphie’s questionable hygene practices. We save commentary like that for sociology majors. I am doing very important work translating the never ending stream of fantastically retarded nonsense being spewed by our less intelligent but hyper self-esteemed, emotionally unbalanced fellow citizens. If I had to take time to note every time they stopped to pick their ass, masturbate to the Gap catalog, smoke a bong hit or help their mom bring in the grocieries I wouldn’t be able get very much work done. In fact I’d still be translating comments from the original days of usenet.
AND … are also in violation of my patent re: The Liberal Progressice Translation Dynamic Device©. I have been successfully (if painfully) translating the Action Chimpâ„¢ for many months now.
You will be hearing from my lawyer.
Good day to you, sir!
I’ve read that report before, TomB. I lack the special glasses required to alter the text to make it say what the right thinks it says.
I think a more important line is the right claiming the Libby trial is somehow a leftist plot when it was a Republican show all along.
It’s like the Coulter matter, an own goal from start to finish.
Ok, let’s run this through the moontardese nonsense translator……
Goddammit Alphie you broke it.
**sigh**
Let the mocking begin…
Ric, Ric, Ric.
Those sorts of cheap shots I expect and even embrace from the Prog Troll Patrol but from you?
Et tu, ric? Et tu?
I feel so empty.
So all the charges stem from the investigation itself, correct? That is, the investigation didn’t uncover some crime for which Mr. Libby was charged with, but rather he was charged with crimes that occurred as a result of the investigation itself.
Am I wrong about this?
Because if not, then I cannot understand how this was allowed to happen. What’s more, I cannot understand how ANYONE would be pleased by this.
Not really. This kind of political gamesmanship has been going on forever. However, if you get _caught_ breaking the law, then, you’re toast.
Think back to Iran-Contra. Compare that to Watergate. Compare that to Bill Clinton’s impeachment and compare both of those to these.
What’s going to drive this thing is the progress of the campaign in Iraq, but, above all, public opinion. I have no idea where either are right now.
You can call off the hounds, Alphie broke it with his lame ass commentary. It looks like I am going to have to calibrate the stupidity tolerance waaaaayyy down which is odd because it was working fine during it’s test phase. I installed the prototype at a support group for advanced stage alzheimers patients and it worked fine.
Uh huh. Just like Sandy Burger, right, steve?
Well,
Maybe someone could explain to me how the Lbby trial was a Leftist Plot?
Novak outs Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative.
Bush call for a criminal investigation in the matter.
Ashcroft hires a prosecuter.
Libby gets convicted.
Where da lefties?
Well, he was convicted. The main reason it created little flap is because both he and the administration he served were long out of office.
But, yes, I agree, Berger should have been punished much more severely for his actions.
Seeing as how you’re the only one saying so, I guess you need to explain it to yourself.
Perhaps, Action Chimpâ„¢, you missed this paragraph in sectionII, as described by Karl above:
Darn those Senate Intelligent spinners…
What it is really aboutâ€â€what it has always been aboutâ€â€is whether this administration deliberately misled the American people about WMD intelligence before the war.
While I enjoy alternative history scifi as much as the next guy, but you’ve got to make the premise at least somewhat plausible.
Remember when Sully used to be someone worth reading? Sadly, I do. Now, though, I simply wish that people would ignore his pathetic ass. Then again, I just mentioned him, so my example probably isn’t the greatest.
Alphie,
I’m not sure anyone has characterized the actual special prosecutor appointment, his investigation, or the trial itself as a leftist plot. It all started out innocently enough. The name of a CIA analyst was made public, the CIA complained, and the DOJ made a decision to look into whether any crime was committed.
But once it became evident to the investigators, Fitzgerald in particular, that the reason for the investigation ceased once it became clear that there was no crime in the public identification of Plame, it all turned into a political game, rooted on mostly by leftists who decided to couch the issue from whether a crime had been committed in “outing” Plame to whether the Bush administration cooked up evidence to go to war and attempted to retaliate against its enemies, etc., etc.
I don’t know why Fitzgerald decided to continue his investigation after he knew no underlying crime was committed. But it seems reasonable to me that he heard the same rooting from the left, and felt pressure to not wrap up the investigation completely empty-handed.
Non sequitur much, alp?
Hey, who am I kidding? That’s your whole schtick, actually. Maybe I’ll give it a try:
When did you lose your taste for stewed puppies, alphie?
Are you saying misspeaking and faulty memory are only excuses that the right can use, BJ?
Amoxicillin….
Amoxicillin. Amoxicillin and clavulanate potassium. Amoxicillin side effects. Amoxicillin acne….