We are a group of friends and acquaintances -- a merry band of pranksters indeed -- who have been arguing about politics on-and-off, then really on, then a little off... since 1998. On email. But that meant literally thousands of emails a year. That was too many. So here's the blog dedicated to carrying on that spirit of political and pop culture argument and dialogue. You might think of us as "schmoliticians", because while we take politics seriously, we try not to take ourselves quite so.
Admittedly, Scooter Libby has been thrown under the bus by equally culpable, senior political colleagues, but its nice to know somebody is getting nailed for this horrific example of dirty politics (even if his conviction for perjury does have the same ring as convicting Al Capone for tax evasion). Too bad they couldn't get Cheney. I guess those types slip away every time.
posted by Pete @ 3/06/2007 12:25:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I wouldn't worry about Scooter, however. After a few years in the Country Club Klink, he'll have a long, lucrative career as either a conservative talk show host (I'm looking right at ya, G. Gordon) or as an SVP/EVP for whatever Halliburton or Halliburton clone Cheney takes over after 2008.
Sadly, Libby owes his prosecution to the visceral hatred from the shouting, frothy Left directed at the Bush Administration, chiefly at lightning rods Cheney and Rove.
Why else is he staring down a 25 year sentence when the publicly admitted leaker-in-Chief remains uncharged for being the one who actually outed Valerie Plame? (Story here on Schmolitics). I would tender the suggestion that Richard Armitage's retirement from public service places him too far removed from the true intended targets of the firing squad.
It is outrageous that Libby faces such a sentence, especially when compared to Clinton advisor Sandy Berger’s $50,000 fine for destroying classified documents he stole from the National Archives in a cover up from the 9/11 Commission's investigation.
Well, as most news outlets point out, Libby isn't facing nearly 25 years under the Sentencing Guidelines, more like 18 months. I completely agree that heads, in addition to Libby's, should have rolled. The folks you mention - Rove, Cheney, Armitage - are prime candidates, and in fact potentially more culpable targets for the leak.
In fact, the lone juror to speak about deliberations made clear that the jury felt bad because it was clear to them that Cheney, Rove, et al deserved jail as much or more than Libby. They felt bad for him, but he did the deed so they convicted. But when you get a GOP prosecutor going after Republicans, the big fishes tend to get away (unlike National Security Advisor Berger - the big fish who received his punishment himself and didn't push his Chief of Staff under the bus).
Of course, Libby was not on trial for the leak. He was on trial for lying to federal investigators and covering it up (the ghosts of Presidents Nixon and Reagan must be smiling down on this new generation of G. Gordon Liddys and Oliver Norths). That's all on him. Not doubt Cheney and Rove told him to lie and cover up with the promise of solidarity and a "wall of silence" from the Admin, but Libby should have known they'd yank the rug the minute the U.S. Attorney got too close.
On the upside, Libby's attorneys can probably stall enough on appeal to make sure he doesn't serve a day before an outgoing W can pardon him, a la Gerry Ford. C'est la vie. On to the lecture circuit and GOP fundraisers as the loyal Christian solider.
Can you say Medal of Freedom? Hell, if Tenet got one...
Well, not to be argumentative (haha), but I would offer that Libby owes his prosecution not to "the visceral hatred from the shouting, frothy Left" but to the fact that he lied to a grand jury. And, as Pete points out, he was not on trial for the leak, but for his perjured testimony. From what I understand, the laws concerning the outing of covert agents are a little murky and that Fitzgerald has not pursued indictments against Armitage, Rove, Cheney, Fleischer, et al because he doesn't think he can get a conviction. The evidence against Libby, however, was substantial enough to warrant a trial.
Actually, this works out well for the Bush Administration. Libby was convicted of lying to a grand jury--a crime, as Pete puts it, that's "all on him." The public gets its conviction and can leave feeling that its notion of justice has been served, while no wrongdoing on the administration's part in the leak/outing of Valerie Plame has been substantiated legally: a win-win (unless you're Scooter Libby.)
I like the way the editorial board at the Richmond Times Dispatch summed it up:
----------
The Libby Whimper
Richmond Times-Dispatch Mar 8, 2007
Lewis "Scooter" Libby has joined the ranks of Martha Stewart and a few others (Bill Clinton?) who have been hung out to dry for lying in an investigation that never produced a prosecution for any underlying crime. This doesn't justify the lying, and might even make it worse: Why lie when the truth is a good defense? But it does illustrate the extent to which such charges can be used in the political arena to fight proxy wars over other subjects.
In Stewart's case, the subject was greed. In Libby's case, the subject is the Iraq war. The irony of the Libby trial is that it produced none of the bombshells opponents of the war hoped it would: The person who leaked Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee turned out to be the State Department's Richard Armitage, and he did so because he is a gossip, not because he was trying to compromise a clandestine agent. There never was any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. There also was never any violation because Plame was not a covert agent.
Speculation was that the Bush administration wanted either to out Plame as revenge for her husband Joe Wilson's public challenge to the case for the Iraq war (thereby warning others who might consider opposing the president) or to suggest his trip to Niger was little more than a dilettante's junket. But as it turned out, Wilson discredited himself, and two subsequent inquiries determined the president's assertion about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Africa was well-founded.
Plenty of grounds for criticizing the conduct of, and even the case for, the Iraq war still exist. But those who were hoping the Libby trial would produce explosive new ones find it has ended with a whimper, not a bang.
----------
Holy cow, is that filled with inaccuracies. Bush's Africa claims were exonerated? Not that I've heard. Plame not covert? Other than random claims that "people knew", I know of no basis for that idea, legal or otherwise. Speculation that the Bush Admin wanted to paint Wilson's trip as a dilattante's junket unfounded? I'm pretty sure this was actually testified to by Bush Admin folks at trial!
Amazing how when its your guys, all prosecutions are just "proxies" for a political fight. I noticed no "proxy" topic listed for Big Bill after tossing his name out at the beginning to try to "bi-partisanize" a partisan editorial. Sad and transparent.
Thankfully, its on the Editorial page. You guys need a new major newspaper down there. How does The Richmond Post sound? How about The Washington Post South?
Post a Comment
<< Home