Scooter Libby is indicted--and resigns.
Libby has been indicted on five counts, including persjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators. And the latest reports say that he has resigned.
Good freakin' riddance.
I know that all the wingers are going to say that none of the indictments concern the original alleged crime, or, stated differently, that there was no violation of law until after Fitzgerald started his investigation. Next will come cries that this is just a political witch hunt, that Fitzgerald is out of control, that this has taken two years and not turned up anything, and on and on...
Anyone who wants to take up that argument on this blog is hereby forewarned of the distinct possibility of getting shredded and utterly ridiculed.
Here's a preview of what to expect...
First, the argument that two years has been long enough and since Fitzgerald has not brought indictments on the outing of Valerie Plame, he should close up shop is, as the Bush administration would say, a non-starter. The investigation has taken this long in part because Judy "Shiller" Miller refused to testify until recently. It was not until her testimony that many of the pieces started to fall into place. Also, having people at the highest level of government, in this case Libby--and don't even try to claim he is not at the highest level of government--lie, mislead, and obstruct the investigation is prima facie evidence that the investigation could not have been completed by this time.
Second, two words: Ken Starr. Starr's investigation of Clinton started with Whitewater--and found nothing, went to campaign finance--and found nothing, and eventually ended up with an extra-marital blow job. I have news for everybody. The fact that Clinton lied under oath about that blow job did not in any way affect national security. Nor did it in any way threaten the physical well being of even one person (except maybe Bill having to face Hillary after that). Anyone who wants to argue that Ken Starr's actions were O.K. but Fitzgerald is merely on some sort of political witch hunt is seriously misguided, to say the least.
Third, Starr's investigation led to nothing substantive about government and its performance. Fitzgerald's investigation is definitely all about that. I submit that this is just the start, and it could very well expose all the lies and bullshit that this administration has delivered that have directly and significantly harmed this country.
Perhaps Fitzgerald should not be the one to carry out such task. As others (Josh Marshall and Laura Rozen among them) have said recently, Sen. Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Seante Intelligence Committee, promised that there would be a Congressional investigation after the 2004 election into the issue of the forged documents that were at the very core of the administration's claim that Saddam was buying uranium from Niger--and that issue is also at the very core of Wilson's investigation, meaning it is also essential to his wife status being leaked. Has anything been done by the Senate Intelligence Committee? Hell no. Is the Republican Congress likely to ever do any more investigation into anything that could harm the Bush White House? I pretty much doubt it.
And I repeat that this is just a preview.
UPDATE: I wrote this before watching Fitzgerald's press conference. As David Gergen just said on MSNBC (at 2:28 PM CST), that was one of the most impressive press conferences by a special prosecutor.
UPDATE 2: Get a copy of the indictment here.
UPDATE 3: Transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference here.
Good freakin' riddance.
I know that all the wingers are going to say that none of the indictments concern the original alleged crime, or, stated differently, that there was no violation of law until after Fitzgerald started his investigation. Next will come cries that this is just a political witch hunt, that Fitzgerald is out of control, that this has taken two years and not turned up anything, and on and on...
Anyone who wants to take up that argument on this blog is hereby forewarned of the distinct possibility of getting shredded and utterly ridiculed.
Here's a preview of what to expect...
First, the argument that two years has been long enough and since Fitzgerald has not brought indictments on the outing of Valerie Plame, he should close up shop is, as the Bush administration would say, a non-starter. The investigation has taken this long in part because Judy "Shiller" Miller refused to testify until recently. It was not until her testimony that many of the pieces started to fall into place. Also, having people at the highest level of government, in this case Libby--and don't even try to claim he is not at the highest level of government--lie, mislead, and obstruct the investigation is prima facie evidence that the investigation could not have been completed by this time.
Second, two words: Ken Starr. Starr's investigation of Clinton started with Whitewater--and found nothing, went to campaign finance--and found nothing, and eventually ended up with an extra-marital blow job. I have news for everybody. The fact that Clinton lied under oath about that blow job did not in any way affect national security. Nor did it in any way threaten the physical well being of even one person (except maybe Bill having to face Hillary after that). Anyone who wants to argue that Ken Starr's actions were O.K. but Fitzgerald is merely on some sort of political witch hunt is seriously misguided, to say the least.
Third, Starr's investigation led to nothing substantive about government and its performance. Fitzgerald's investigation is definitely all about that. I submit that this is just the start, and it could very well expose all the lies and bullshit that this administration has delivered that have directly and significantly harmed this country.
Perhaps Fitzgerald should not be the one to carry out such task. As others (Josh Marshall and Laura Rozen among them) have said recently, Sen. Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Seante Intelligence Committee, promised that there would be a Congressional investigation after the 2004 election into the issue of the forged documents that were at the very core of the administration's claim that Saddam was buying uranium from Niger--and that issue is also at the very core of Wilson's investigation, meaning it is also essential to his wife status being leaked. Has anything been done by the Senate Intelligence Committee? Hell no. Is the Republican Congress likely to ever do any more investigation into anything that could harm the Bush White House? I pretty much doubt it.
And I repeat that this is just a preview.
UPDATE: I wrote this before watching Fitzgerald's press conference. As David Gergen just said on MSNBC (at 2:28 PM CST), that was one of the most impressive press conferences by a special prosecutor.
UPDATE 2: Get a copy of the indictment here.
UPDATE 3: Transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference here.
posted by WCharles @ 10/28/2005 01:08:00 PM
12 Comments:
Clinton, Scooter--both lied. You can make a lot of arguments against Clinton on National Security, like why not take out bin Laden when you had the chance? Why not provide proper armor in Somalia? (The failure to do so emboldened our terrorist enemies since our subsequent rapid withdrawal from the theater demonstrated national weakness and inspired 9/11.) And on and on. You get the point.
What about the forged documents used in a feeble attempt to bring down a President? I guess since there's no special prosecutor involved there's no crime. OK.
You can start you shredder now.
Yes, both Clinton and Libby lied (assuming the allegations against Libby are true). However, lying about a sexual affair and lying about matters of national security are nowhere close to being of the same magnitude.
Clinton's failures on national security--such as the failure to take out bin Laden--have nothing to do with whether members of the Bush administration have broken any laws.
I mentioned Ken Starr and the Clinton investigation in order to show that 1) any arguments that Fitzgerald is only on a political witch hunt are baseless when compared to Starr's work, and 2) Fitzgerald's investigation deals with matters that are actually of great importance to this nation.
Let me put it another way. If you want to claim that Fitzgerald's investigation is only politically motivated, then how do you differentiate Starr's investigation of Clinton?
And speaking of armor, why send our troops to Iraq with an appalling lack of armored vehicles?
I'm not quite sure of your point on "forged documents used in a feeble attempt to bring down a President," but I will say that my point is that forged documents were used to take this country to war, and there is a good possibility that the Bush administration knew they were forged.
I don't believe I ever claimed Fitzgerald's investigation was illegitimate or politically motivated. I haven't even heard that claim in the mainstream media. By all accounts Fitzgerald's a respected, competent, thorough and tough prosecutor.
I'm also not quite sure how you construe Libby's alleged lies to be about national security. A bit of a stretch?
Revisionist history, whether Clinton's or Bush's, depends on who's revising and how you revise it. Insufficient armor in Iraq differs greatly from no armor, and a flat denial of its provisision, in Somalia.
I'm not sure how you triangulate Libby's indictment with forged documents and a war. I'm certainly willing to listen. Further, I'm not aware that any documents have been proven forgeries. Forged intelligence documents aren't even part of the current discussion, to my knowledge.
Everyone knows and agrees that there was bad intelligence, and disagreements over intelligence. Again, did the first Bush foster this vacuum of HuMint in Iraq? I don't think so. Did the Clinton Pentagon? Regardless, the result was bad intelligence and now we're in a situation where we can't just leave because Scooter Libby lied to investigators about how he learned the identity of Valerie Plame. And I don't think we need to leave.
The job is getting done. Progress is being made. We are fighting terrorists, not insurgents, in their backyard, not ours. The equation in the Middle East will be changed, and is changing daily, in the best interest of everyone (except Islamofascists). Libby's indicted, not convicted.
Sure, he probably lied. If he was indicted for revealing the name of a secret agent per the '82 (?) statute, I wouldn't be writing this. But he's not. He got caught in a serious lie. It's embarrassing for him and the White House. Can't you be happy with that?
" I don't believe I ever claimed Fitzgerald's investigation was illegitimate or politically motivated."
I'm glad to hear that, and my apologies if I previously jumped to a conclusion.
"I'm also not quite sure how you construe Libby's alleged lies to be about national security. A bit of a stretch?"
If it is a stretch, it is one made by Fitzgerald in his press conference. Moreover, it is not a stretch. Fitzgerald's investigation is primarily about the disclosure of the classified nature of a CIA operative working on WMD. That clearly concerns national security. Libby allegedly lied about what he knew about Plame, when he obtained that information, and how he obtained it. In other words, Libby lied about matters directly relevant to an investigation expressly about a national security matter.
"Insufficient armor in Iraq differs greatly from no armor, and a flat denial of its provisision, in Somalia."
I'm not sure the soldiers who have been injured or the families of those killed because of the lack of adequate armor in Iraq would agree with you. Inadequate armor can be just as deadly as having no armor. Furthermore, going into a major combat situation while equipping your troops with inadequate armor is not really different from a denial of its provision. See the following links:
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2004/12/rumsfeld-armor-and-reactions-part-1.html
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2004/12/rumsfeld-armor-and-reactions-part-2.html
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2005/01/rumsfeld-armor-and-reactions-part-3.html
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2005/01/rumsfeld-armor-and-reactions-part-4.html
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2005/01/dont-take-my-word-for-it.html
"I'm not sure how you triangulate Libby's indictment with forged documents and a war."
This investigation concerns the outing of a CIA operative after her husband publicly criticized the nuclear weapons rationale for the Iraq war. Part of that rationale was the alleged purchase by Iraq of yellow cake uranium from Niger, a matter addressed by Wilson in his public criticism. The claim for such purchase was based largely on the forged documents. Libby was directly involved in the effort to discredit Wilson, which included the outing of his wife, which is part of Fitzgerald's investigation, during which Libby allegedly lied, which resulted in his indictment.
This does not mean that this indictment or any future indictments will deal directly with the war. However, evidence and facts exposed through this investigation could certainly lead to other, separate actions.
"Everyone knows and agrees that there was bad intelligence, and disagreements over intelligence."
You have are missing a few key points. There was plenty of intelligence--from DoE, CIA, DIA, the Air Force, the State Department, and others--showing that Iraq had no viable WMD. The Bush administration cherry picked the intel and built a bogus case for the war. Only after the various intelligence agencies did not give the Bushies what they wanted was the Office of Special Plans created to "reinterpret" the existing intel. OSP was headed by Doug Fieth, called by Tommy Franks, the dumbest m.f. he had ever met. This was not merely a case of disagreements and bad intel. See the following links:
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2004/08/nie-generally-speaking.html
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2004/08/air-forces-position-on-iraqs-uavs.html
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2004/08/dia-and-chemical-weapons-long-post.html
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2005/01/search-for-wmd-is-officially-over.html
http://cosmicwheel.blogspot.com/2005/04/iraq-and-wmd-quick-go-back-and-check.html
"...and now we're in a situation where we can't just leave because Scooter Libby lied to investigators about how he learned the identity of Valerie Plame."
I never said we should leave for that reason. Come to think of it, I never said we should leave.
"And I don't think we need to leave."
We can't leave. We have no choice but to stay until we can leave without the country descending into chaos. That became reality as soon as we invaded.
"If he was indicted for revealing the name of a secret agent per the '82 (?) statute, I wouldn't be writing this. But he's not."
Not yet. The investigation is ongoing. There is still the possibility that he and others will be indicted on that charge.
Your views are the "job getting done" deserve a separate discussion. Suffice it to say we disagree.
I caught one typo so far...
Meant to say regarding bad intelligence, "You are missing a few key points."
A little slow in catching another typo...
Should have typed "Your views about the 'job getting done'..."
Despite a differing of opinions on the facts and the tea leaves, I was going to at least compliment you on your blog and the forum you provide. However, your proof reading of comments for typographical errors, and calling them out, is indicative of the size of your ego, is rude, petty, unprofessional, antisocial, and frankly, small. No wonder nobody else comments on your blog.
It's a shame. I like a good debate, but not with playground brats. Too bad there really is no deep-seated corruption in this White House to be unearthed. You'll have to suffer through 3 more years of slinging pebbles in righteous indignation. Feel free to proof this, if you're not too busy chasing ambulances or litigating some meritless ob/gyn case, or whatever it is you do.
I am proofing and correcting my own comments. If I could edit my own comments after posting them, I would. In other words, I'm admitting my own errors and then correcting them so there is no misunderstanding. How is that so bad?
I do not proof and correct anyone else's comments. That would be petty and small.
Allow me to clarify. Once I read my lengthy comment, I saw an error in one sentence THAT I WROTE, and then found that another sentence THAT I WROTE had an error. The sentences as originally written did not fully make sense, and I wanted to make sure my intended meaning was clear. I am not aware that there is an "edit" function for comments like there is for original posts, so the only way for me to correct MY ERRORS in MY COMMENTS is to do so in additional comments. I did not proof or try to correct any of your comments, nor have I done that to anybody's comments EXCEPT MY OWN.
I thought Republicans were all about accepting personal responsibility, but apparently calling MYSELF out and admitting MY MISTAKES makes me a "playground brat."
Anonymous, I respect WCharles for his thoroughness and documentation. He doesn't spout mere opinion, but also backs up his statements with supporting cross references. I appreciate his willingness to admit his errors and provide corrections so we better understand his position.
That said, as a conservative Christian, I often disagree with WCharles's liberal positions, though we have found common ground. My concern with recent developments is it could be the tip of the iceberg or several icebergs. When Bush was elected, he promised a complete ethical turn around from the previous administration. No more concerns about improper use of cigars and stained blue dresses. Not his style. While Libby has only been indicted and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, it doesn't look good for him. Even Republicans are critical. But, does the buck stop with him? In my world if my assistant makes a mistake, my boss holds me accountable because I should have had better control and should have known what was going on. He screams at me, not her. If any of us on the management team screws up the company president takes responsibility in the eyes of the workforce. It's been 2 years since the Plame incident. Tell me that no one else knew that Libby had lied. No, I mean really convince me. You mean Cheney had no clue that Libby had perjured himself repeatedly? And Cheney and Bush never discussed what happened and all the ramifications? I find that hard to believe. Libby could be a mere fallguy.
When liberals like WCharles draw parallels to Clinton's lies and make statements that his lie only affected the two consenting adults and their immediate families whereas Bush's alleged lies about WMD have caused 2000 military deaths and loss of American credibility abroad, it is hard to argue against them. Bush has not sold himself well. Us conservative Christians had high expectations from Bush - he was supposedly one of us. And granted he has done some good - faith based initiatives. But, this black stain could put him in company with Nixon, a man whose accomplishments were overshadowed by corruption. I think Bush's number one mistake was putting trust in the wrong people.
And Anonymous, thank you for calling me a nobody. At least I have the courage to sign my name.
Ray, thank you for your comments in this thread AND for all the discussions we have previously had. I would say that you are a real credit to conservatives, but I wouldn't want other Republicans to "reid" too much into that and then have you get "miered." :-)
It's nice to know that even Yankees and Red Sox fans can be civil to each other.
To be more serious, I want to say more about the respect I have for Ray. Although we have found some common ground, in other areas we have widely differing views. Ray has always stated his views clearly and taken me to task when he felt it necessary to do so, and he has done so in a non-pejorative manner. He has also brought to my attention other sources of information and other viewpoints.
So, thanks again, Ray.
Post a Comment
<< Home