It’s Not Exactly the Trial of the Century, But . . .
There is an anticlimactic air surrounding the perjury trial of L. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, which gets under way tomorrow in Washington.
For one thing, to the dismay of lefties and overeager journalists everywhere, White House consigliere Karl Rove skated despite having his dirty hands all over the Joseph Wilson-Valerie Plame affair.
For another, President Bush, who repeatedly called leakers of secret government documents traitors, has acknowledged that he was the key leaker, and it has become obvious that he is the greatest danger to national security.
For yet another, Wilson and Plame have not exactly survived unscathed the scrutiny their actions have been given, and it is evident that their motivations since the leak that outted Mrs. Wilson as a CIA operative have not been entirely altruistic.
And then there’s the Iraq war itself, the consequences of which are now so immensely catastrophic that the trial of Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, even with a cameo appearance by the veep himself, seems pretty penny ante.
I do not want to downplay the importance of the trial for hopefully revealing more dirt on how the administration has dealt with critics of the war, let alone how the case prepared by independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald holds up.
But for this journalist, the most important legacy of the affair is the blow to its credibility that The New York Times took because of the actions of Judith Miller, its rogue WMDs reporter, and her compliant editors, up to and including the Times‘ executive editor and publisher.
We depended on the Times to tell us what was really going on as the Bush administration’s rationales for the war began to unravel. But the Gray Lady not only let us down, it bought into the White House’s game until long after it became obvious that Miller and the American people had been diddled.
It is probable the Bush will grant Libby a pardon if he is convicted. But for me what the Times did was unpardonable and has diminished its greatness.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “It’s Not Exactly the Trial of the Century, But . . .”
I thought the point of trials was to determinate legal guilt or innocence. It is disturbing when one side of the political spectrum seeks to use legal proceedings for purely vengeful political ends, especially when they feel so emboldened in doing as as to allow an unreflective post like this. Such behavior raises the spectre of criminalizing politics, where those who disagree with a particular majority view are subject not only to electoral defeat, but also to imprisonment.
This was dangerous during the Clinton administration and is no less so now.
LOL Comparing Patrick Fitzgerald and Ken Starr is crazy. The ‘moonbats’ shed tears when Fitzgerald didn’t overstep his asigned duties. Ken Starr was like a rabid Pit Bull going after Clinton for anything he could find. SP like Fitzgerald allow an investigation to uncover the ‘truth’ and any possible criminal activities. Ken Starr allowed Ann Coulter to gain a public stage. Let Scooter go to trial and let the facts speak for themselves. I hope Scooter doesn’t own a blue or purple dress – LOL.
“I thought the point of trials was to determinate legal guilt or innocence.”
That is correct as far as it goes.
I do not suggest that the prosecutor, in this case a Republican appointee who cut his teeth prosecuting organized crime figures, would use either the grand juries that took testimony prior to the trial or the Libby trial itself for vengeful means.
Do you?
The White House sought to brand people as unpatriotic who questioned its rationales for the war at a time when those rationales began coming under scrutiny. It sought to punish others, including a clumsy effort at the direction of the vice president to out Plame through a syndicated columnist who was a Bush administration syncophant. Libby lied about that effort before a federal grand jury. That is why there is a trial in the first place.
Do you understand that?
I am puzzled by your view that the post was “unreflective” when in fact I:
(1.) Noted that something that once was considered to be a huge deal by lefties and the MSM seems far less significant when put into perspective.
(2.) Noted that Wilson and Plame have not exactly covered themselves with glory.
(3.) Excoriated the leading MSM rag for its outrageous behavior and stated that no matter of outcome of the trial, its reputation remains sullied.
If that isn’t reflective, I don’t know what is.
Do you?
That is in fact EXACTLY what you suggested when you said that the “importance” of the trial lay in “hopefully revealing your dirt”. I am not putting words into your mouth to twist your intent here nor am I doing as some have done recently and just making stuff up and then falsely attributing it to you, I am quoting the words you CHOSE.
If the left had a pit bull like Ken Starr going after the Bush administration instead of the moderate Mr. Fitzgerald, there would be a lot more of the administration on trial for Plamegate, that’s for sure! I could never prove it, but what makes you so sure that Gonzales didn’t intercede for Rove? It was reported that he had been indicted, but then the indictment disappeared mysteriously.
An argument from lack of evidence is always a sure sign of a neutral, sober assessment free from bias….
Never claimed it was a neutral, sober, assessment. But Rove did testify five times in front of the grand jury, the last time for 3 and 1/2 hours. He himself was terrified that Fitzgerald was going to indict him. There was a lot more to that case than the public was allowed to know about. Is Bush pardoning Libby because he took a hit for the team?
That ax swings both ways.
AP? Or maybe it was reported, by the AP, as this was today,
And I thought a senate resolution in the late 90′s killed that one.
Funny. I interpreted this
“I do not want to downplay the importance of the trial for hopefully revealing more dirt”
to mean an *after the fact* assessment of its important, not a before the fact statement of intent. Seems to me a big part of analysis of historical events is to examine the relationship between the explicit stated purpose of something, and what actually happens.
It was reported on blogs on the internet that Rove had been told that he had 24 hours to get his affairs in order. There were multiple sources inside the WH for the report. Then…….nothing. Of course it leaves questions. Then a week later Fitzgerald states that there wasn’t enough evidence to indict. Imo, Libby and Rove both lied to Fitzgerald- Bush felt the results of the ’08 elections depended on Rove and he was also a key policy advisor- so he had the DOJ intervene.
Speculation? Absolutely. It can’t be proven. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe it.
The same way many on the right believe that Sandy Berger took original documents- its speculation and can’t be proven, but its been argued recently on this site.