close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20100807041431/http://ronbeas2.blogspot.com/search/label/Scooter%20Libby
Showing newest posts with label Scooter Libby. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label Scooter Libby. Show older posts

Sunday, July 08, 2007

George W. Bush - Coward in Chief

The younger Mr. Bush’s cowardice is arguably more responsible for the calamities of his leadership than anything else.
Frank Rich looks into the eyes of George W. Bush and sees above all else a coward.
A Profile in Cowardice(TS)
THERE was never any question that President Bush would grant amnesty to Scooter Libby, the man who knows too much about the lies told to sell the war in Iraq. The only questions were when, and how, Mr. Bush would buy Mr. Libby’s silence. Now we have the answers, and they’re at least as incriminating as the act itself. They reveal the continued ferocity of a White House cover-up and expose the true character of a commander in chief whose tough-guy shtick can no longer camouflage his fundamental cowardice.

The timing of the president’s Libby intervention was a surprise. Many assumed he would mimic the sleazy 11th-hour examples of most recent vintage: his father’s pardon of six Iran-contra defendants who might have dragged him into that scandal, and Bill Clinton’s pardon of the tax fugitive Marc Rich, the former husband of a major campaign contributor and the former client of none other than the ubiquitous Mr. Libby.

But the ever-impetuous current President Bush acted 18 months before his scheduled eviction from the White House. Even more surprising, he did so when the Titanic that is his presidency had just hit two fresh icebergs, the demise of the immigration bill and the growing revolt of Republican senators against his strategy in Iraq.

That Mr. Bush, already suffering historically low approval ratings, would invite another hit has been attributed in Washington to his desire to placate what remains of his base. By this logic, he had nothing left to lose. He didn’t care if he looked like an utter hypocrite, giving his crony a freer ride than Paris Hilton and violating the white-collar sentencing guidelines set by his own administration. He had to throw a bone to the last grumpy old white guys watching Bill O’Reilly in a bunker.

But if those die-hards haven’t deserted him by now, why would Mr. Libby’s incarceration be the final straw? They certainly weren’t whipped into a frenzy by coverage on Fox News, which tended to minimize the leak case as a non-event. Mr. Libby, faceless and voiceless to most Americans, is no Ollie North, and he provoked no right-wing firestorm akin to the uproars over Terri Schiavo, Harriet Miers or “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

The only people clamoring for Mr. Libby’s freedom were the pundits who still believe that Saddam secured uranium in Africa and who still hope that any exoneration of Mr. Libby might make them look less like dupes for aiding and abetting the hyped case for war. That select group is not the Republican base so much as a roster of the past, present and future holders of quasi-academic titles at neocon think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute.

What this crowd never understood is that Mr. Bush’s highest priority is always to protect himself. So he stiffed them too. Had the president wanted to placate the Weekly Standard crowd, he would have given Mr. Libby a full pardon. That he served up a commutation instead is revealing of just how worried the president is about the beans Mr. Libby could spill about his and Dick Cheney’s use of prewar intelligence.
That's right, Bush doesn't give a rat's ass about Libby or even what little might be left of his base. His only interest was in making certain that Libby wouldn't or couldn't sing. To make sure that Libby couldn't be put under oath once again and forced to document the lies and deceptions that led this nation to war. The commutation rather than pardon did that. While his conviction is still under appeal Libby can take the 5th. If he had been pardoned that would not have been an option. Bush from the very beginning has been an adolescent, cowardly playground bully. Rich's own paper touched on that cowardice it it's editorial today advocating a withdrawal from Iraq.
It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor.
But Rich has other examples of Bush's cowardice.
People don’t change. Mr. Bush’s failure to have the courage of his own convictions was apparent early in his history, when he professed support for the Vietnam War yet kept himself out of harm’s way when he had the chance to serve in it. In the White House, he has often repeated the feckless pattern that he set back then and reaffirmed last week in his hide-and-seek bestowing of the Libby commutation.

The first fight he conspicuously ran away from as president was in August 2001. Aspiring to halt federal underwriting of embryonic stem-cell research, he didn’t stand up and say so but instead unveiled a bogus “compromise” that promised continued federal research on 60 existing stem-cell lines. Only later would we learn that all but 11 of them did not exist. When Mr. Bush wanted to endorse a constitutional amendment to “protect” marriage, he again cowered. A planned 2006 Rose Garden announcement to a crowd of religious-right supporters was abruptly moved from the sunlight into a shadowy auditorium away from the White House.

Nowhere is this president’s non-courage more evident than in the “signing statements” The Boston Globe exposed last year. As Charlie Savage reported, Mr. Bush “quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” Rather than veto them in public view, he signed them, waited until after the press and lawmakers left the White House, and then filed statements in the Federal Register asserting that he would ignore laws he (not the courts) judged unconstitutional. This was the extralegal trick Mr. Bush used to bypass the ban on torture. It allowed him to make a coward’s escape from the moral (and legal) responsibility of arguing for so radical a break with American practice.

In the end, it was also this president’s profile in non-courage that greased the skids for the Iraq fiasco. If Mr. Bush had had the guts to put America on a true wartime footing by appealing to his fellow citizens for sacrifice, possibly even a draft if required, then he might have had at least a chance of amassing the resources needed to secure Iraq after we invaded it.

But he never backed up the rhetoric of war with the stand-up action needed to prosecute the war. Instead he relied on fomenting fear, as typified by the false uranium claims whose genesis has been covered up by Mr. Libby’s obstructions of justice. Mr. Bush’s cowardly abdication of the tough responsibilities of wartime leadership ratified Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to go into Iraq with the army he had, ensuring our defeat.

Never underestimate the power of the unconscious. Not the least of the revelatory aspects of Mr. Bush’s commutation is that he picked the fourth anniversary of “Bring ’em on” to hand it down. It was on July 2, 2003, that the president responded to the continued violence in Iraq, two months after “Mission Accomplished,” by taunting those who want “to harm American troops.” Mr. Bush assured the world that “we’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.” The “surge” notwithstanding, we still don’t have the force necessary four years later, because the president never did summon the courage, even as disaster loomed, to back up his own convictions by going to the mat to secure that force.
George W. Bush will have a legacy - that of a coward. People see that already. The latest Newsweek Poll shows Bush's approval rating nearing Nixonian levels at 26% with only 60% of the members of his own party giving him a positive rating.

Thanks to memeorandum for making this a featured post.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Tuesday, July 03, 2007

‘Routine’

Via Think Progress

During the White House press briefing this morning, spokesman Tony Snow characterized President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison term as “routine.”
If it's not just "routine" for rich white men who are members of the Bush/Cheney tribe David Boaz over at Cato At Liberty has some suggestions for additional commutations that Mr Bush might consider "routine".
  • Mandy Martinson — 15 years for helping her boyfriend count his drug-dealing money.
  • DeJarion Echols — 20 years for selling a small amount of crack and owning a gun, causing Reagan-appointed federal judge Walter S. Smith, Jr. to say, “This is one of those situations where I’d like to see a congressman sitting before me.”
  • Weldon Angelos — 55 years for minor marijuana and gun charges, causing the George W. Bush-appointed judge Paul Cassell, previously best known for pressing the courts to overturn the Miranda decision, to call the mandatory sentence in this case “unjust, cruel, and even irrational.”
  • Anthea Harris — 15 years when members of her husband’s drug ring received sentence reductions to testify against her, although she had not been directly involved in the business.
And Mr Boaz has a couple of other examples.
A compassionate conservative should also use the pardon power to head off the DEA’s war against doctors who help patients alleviate pain. He could start by pardoning Dr. Ronald McIver, sentenced to 30 years for prescribing Oxycontin and other drugs to patients in severe pain. Or Dr. William Hurwitz of Virginia, sentenced to 25 years but then granted a retrial, convicted again, and awaiting sentencing, which could still be 10 years.
Of course they have a problem - they are not members of the Bush crime family.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Monday, July 02, 2007

No hard time for Libby

Bush spares Libby from 2 1/2-year prison term

WASHINGTON - President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case.

Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

"My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said in a statement. "I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive."
This of course is no surprise. Bush had nothing to lose by commuting Libby's sentence and risked losing some of the 26% who still support him if he didn't. Is it an outrage? Of course, but what does the Bush administration do that isn't.

Update
I hadn't even thought of this but Digby reminds us just how convenient this is:
So Bush did it. The bastard commuted little Scooter's sentence, leaving the conviction in place. I'm not a lawyer, but I have to assume that this means he can still appeal --- which means he can still take the fifth if the congress calls him to to testify. Very convenient.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Novak on Bush, Libby and Gonzales

After six years the Republicans are discovering that the sorry man-child they have been supporting like a pack of sycophants for the last six years doesn't care about anyone but himself. Robert Novak explains:
Standing by the Wrong Guy

Just when it seemed George W. Bush's sinking prestige with his Republican base had bottomed out, his stock hit new lows. The president's seeming indifference to the sentencing of Scooter Libby was bad enough. But it coincided with Bush's apparent determination to retain his friend Alberto Gonzales as attorney general against congressional pressure to depose him.

Prevailing opinion among Republican office holders, contributors and activists could not differ more from Bush's posture. They regard Libby as a valuable public servant who faces serious prison time thanks to prosecutorial abuse made possible by Bush administration decisions. They see Gonzales as an embarrassment to the party who presides over a hollow Justice Department while presidential staffers search for Senate votes to block a no-confidence motion.
We know how the Base feels about Libby but how do they really feel about Gonzales. Novak is in a good position to know.
In contrast, Republican insiders are enraged by Bush's retention of Gonzales, whom they consider a political and governmental disaster. Beyond his affection for Gonzales, the president is reported to fear that a new attorney general could not be confirmed without pledging to name a special prosecutor to investigate the firing of U.S. attorneys. That explanation suggests a lame-duck regime, preferring to stay with a crippled, leaderless Justice Department.
And the Libby-Gonazales flap is not all.
The Gonzales-Libby equation is symbolic of Republican discontent with the president. He failed utterly to narrow the divide within the party over his immigration reform. Time is running out -- to less than three months -- on GOP forbearance on Iraq. In the closing months of the administration, key posts are unfilled and what old hands call "children" fill others. Facing multiple investigations, Bush aides without personal fortunes are threatened by daunting legal fees.
So it took the Republicans six years to figure out what the rest of us know in 2001. George W. Bush doesn't care about the country, he doesn't care about the Republican party, he doesn't care about people who have been loyal to him - he only cares about George W. Bush; the 60 year old adolescent.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Saturday, June 09, 2007

David Broder - Rapist?

I found this blog post via memeorandum under 5 Myths About Scooter and the Slammer. The blog, Mercury Rising is one I don't think I've seen before and the post, David Broder Is A Rapist is a classic.

Is he? Literally? Probably not.

But he has the moral vacuity, and the cognitive dissonance, of a serial rapist. Just examine his latest piece of amoral tripe, ”Judge Walton’s Lesson“.

The money quote from Broder:
This whole controversy is a sideshow — engineered partly by the publicity-seeking former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife and heightened by the hunger in parts of Washington to “get” Rove for something or other.

Like other special prosecutors before him, Fitzgerald got caught up in the excitement of the case and pursued Libby relentlessly, well beyond the time that was reasonable.
Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you:

What sort of amorality does it take to ignore the fact that:

1) Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame in a fit of pique over her husband’s column “What I Didn’t Find In Niger”, and:

2) Outing Valerie Plame not only destroyed her career, but obliterated the far-flung network of Middle Eastern and Iraqi field operatives and contacts she had spent years - decades - nurturing? And does anyone think that the field operatives in Iraq, once Cheney made sure the whole world knew that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent, escaped the notice of the local Sunni insurgents?
You are on the money Phoenix Woman. Good Job.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Friday, June 08, 2007

Hypocrites R Us

The Republicans are the "law and order" party unless of course we are talking about white Republican men. The multiple calls to pardon convicted felon Scooter Libby or commute his sentence are just the latest example. The outcry over the release of Paris Hilton should be a warning that a majority of Americans don't like selective justice. As E.J.Dionne points out this morning the Republicans have to decide between loyalty to one of their own or loyalty to the law.

A Defining Choice for The GOP

The argument among Republicans over whether President Bush should grant Scooter Libby a quick pardon amounts to a battle between the past and the future.

The Republicans most eager to end the Libby case immediately are those who were most deeply invested in the Iraq war and were willing to do whatever was expedient to commit American troops to a venture they were certain would turn out well.

The Libby case put their generation on trial, to use Alistair Cooke's evocative phrase about a very different trial in an earlier age. The verdict against Libby was a verdict against them.
While Scooter may be the only one threatened with jail it was the world view of the neocon war hawks that was on trial. It's not surprising that they are the ones demanding that Scooter not see the inside of a cell.
But for those who advocated hard for the war, what matters is that Libby loyally did all he could to advance the effort and push back against its critics.

It was thus not surprising that one of the most ferocious calls for an immediate pardon came from William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq invasion.

Responding to a White House statement that the president was, for the moment, declining to intervene in the case, Kristol declared: "For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage -- well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?"

Kristol's sharpness underscored the tribulations that Bush will face if Libby is required to go to prison while his appeal is pending. If Bush blocks prison time for Libby, either through a pardon or by commuting his sentence, the action would amount to the repudiation of a jury verdict -- as well as the decisions of federal Judge Reggie Walton, one of the president's appointees. Commuting Libby's sentence would not, as some have suggested, be a happy compromise because doing so would still involve setting aside a formal punishment on behalf of an administration favorite.
While Bush may face a dilemma...
Yet if Bush allows Libby to go to prison, he will alienate his dwindling band of supporters, particularly those most vociferous in standing up for the administration's Iraq policies.
It is an even greater dilemma for the Republicans trying to get the Presidential nomination. To win that nomination they need the pro war necons but by supporting a pardon they risk alienating the majority of the voters in the general election.
That's why the leading GOP candidates ducked the pardon question at their debate this week, though in revealing ways. John McCain was crisp ("He's going through an appeal process. We've got to see what happens here."), while Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney offered rambling responses aimed at sounding pro-Libby without committing themselves.

[.....]

Fred Thompson, who many conservatives hope will enter the race, has been a leader of Libby's legal defense fund. Perhaps ironically for the man who plays a prosecutor on "Law & Order," Thompson has unequivocally endorsed a pardon.

Thompson's clarity may pressure other Republicans to support a pardon -- Giuliani seemed almost there during the debate -- but their decisions would come at a high cost. At times, a single legal case can come to embody an entire controversy, even an entire era. To support pardoning Scooter Libby has come to mean endorsing an approach to politics and a way of governing that most Americans have come to reject.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Pandering to the neocons

I suggested below that George W. Bush had nothing to lose if he pardoned Scooter Libby and in fact might actually be able to salvage some of his diminishing base if he did. We sad and angry Bill Kristol proves my point in
Who, Me?
Bush evades his responsibility with respect to Libby.

I FEEL TERRIBLE for Scooter Libby's family. Millions of Americans feel terrible for Scooter Libby's family. But we can't do anything about the injustice that has been done. Nor can we do anything to avert a further injustice looming on the horizon--Judge Reggie Walton seems inclined not to let Libby remain free pending appeal.

Unlike the rest of us, however, George W. Bush is president. Article II, Section Two of the Constitution gives him the pardon power. George W. Bush can do something to begin to make up for the injustice a prosecutor appointed by his own administration brought down on Scooter Libby. And he can do something to avert the further injustice of a prison term.

Will Bush pardon Libby? Apparently not--even if it means a man who worked closely with him and sought tirelessly to do what was right for the country goes to prison. Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, noting that the appeals process was underway, said, "Given that and in keeping with what we have said in the past, the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and he is going to decline to do so now."

So much for loyalty, or decency, or courage. For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush. Can one respect him still?
In fact it would appear that not pardoning Libby could actually cost Bush the base that hasn't already abandoned him as a result of immigration.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

30 Months

I guess having friends who are also international felons like Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, and John Bolton serve as character witnesses didn't help Scooter Libby.
Libby Gets 30 Months in Prison in C.I.A. Leak Case

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison Tuesday for lying and obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, stood calmly before a packed courtroom as a federal judge said the evidence overwhelmingly proved his guilt.

"People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of nation in their hands, have a special obligation to not do anything that might create a problem," U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said.

[.....]

Walton fined Libby $250,000 and placed him on probation for two years following his release from prison. Walton did not immediately address whether Libby could remain free pending appeal.
So will he have to go to jail at once and will George W. Bush give him a pardon? At this point Bush has little to lose by granting a pardon and in fact would increase his faltering support among the base.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Thursday, March 08, 2007

What happened?

Sidney Blumenthal writing in Salon points out that something happened, something changed during the Scotter Libby trial.

The opening statement of Libby's attorney seemed to augur a presentation of the "fall guy" scenario. "They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb," Theodore Wells said, recalling Libby's words to Cheney. "I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected." Rove, after all, had disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife, covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, to two reporters, conservative columnist Robert Novak, who first put her name into print, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. Rove told MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews that Plame was "fair game." And he offered as his motive for attacking Wilson to another reporter: "He's a Democrat."

In a note entered as a trial exhibit, Cheney expressed his concern that his chief of staff was being thrown to the wolves while Rove was being protected. "Not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder," the note read. Despite the dramatic opening, Libby's defense made no reference to the note during the trial. In yet another mysterious lapse, although Libby's lawyers repeatedly gave every indication to Judge Reggie Walton that both Libby and Cheney would testify, neither did. In a perjury trial, if the defendant does not look the jury in the eye and say he did not lie or that he made an honest error, it's difficult to win. But Libby never appeared as a witness on his own behalf; Cheney was not called; and the defense rested on the thin reed of Libby's weak memory and the supposed impeached credibility of journalists. The feeble defense amounted to a verdict foretold.

But why was Libby virtually passive? If Libby knew he was going to offer the barest defense, why didn't he do as Rove did, amending his grand jury testimony to reflect the truth? Why didn't Libby do as former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer did, turning state's evidence and being granted immunity in exchange for his testimony? What stopped Libby from risking indictment? What prevented him from making more than a minimal defense that invited conviction?
So why did Libby decide to fall on the sword? The administration did not want a pathological liar like Cheney testifying under oath. Yes, he would lie opening an entirely new can of worms. A Libby conviction was not without advantages for the White House. The appeals could last for years making it impossible for Libby to testify in front of congressional committees. So why did Libby take the fall. I see a couple of possibilities.
  1. He was promised a pardon and that he would be taken care of.
  2. Libby truly believes in the cause and the party so was willing to play the part of the loyal Samurai.
In all probability it was a combination of both.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

What the Libby conviction means

Sidney Blumenthal does the best job yet of summing up the implications of the Scooter Libby trial and conviction. It shines a light on the unchecked executive power that is the Bush/Cheney cabal.

The conviction of I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, on criminal charges of obstruction of justice and perjury brings only a partial conclusion to the sordid political tragedy that is the Bush presidency. Yet the judgment on this matter goes to the heart of the administration. The means and the ends of Bush's White House have received a verdict from the bar of justice.

Foreign policy was and is the principal way of consolidating unchecked executive power. In the run-up to the Iraq war, professional standards, even within the military and intelligence agencies, were subordinated to political goals. Only information that fit the preconceived case was permitted. Those who advanced facts or raised skeptical questions about sketchy information were seen as deliberate enemies causing damage from within. From the beginning, the White House indulged in unrestrained attacks on such professionals. Revealing the facts, especially about the politically-driven method of skewing policy, was treated as a crime against the state.
All those who questioned Bush, Cheney or the neocons were attacked as the enemy. That included Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki and counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke. And it went beyond the war and foreign policy.
For exposing the absence of rational policymaking in economics as well as foreign policy, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill was threatened with an investigation for allegedly abusing classified material. Once he was intimidated into silence, the probe was dropped.
But of course the greatest effort went into discrediting the man who posed the greatest threat.
In the aftermath of former ambassador Joseph Wilson's revelation that the most explosive reason given for war against Iraq - that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium in Niger to fuel nuclear weapons - had no apparent basis in fact, the Bush White House revved into high gear against the critic. Wilson, however, was even more dangerous than the others because he was a witness to the false rationale for the war.
And yes, the Libby conviction will supply the legacy for the Bush/Cheney administration.
Libby's conviction not only indelibly stains neoconservatism. It is a damning condemnation of the Bush White House belief that the ends justify the means and its aggrandizement of absolute power. Ultimately, this is a verdict that can never be erased from the history of the Bush presidency.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Pardon My [lack of] Outrage

Digby is outraged.

I have to say that I think the conservatives are winning the spin war on this. By the time they are done, everyone in the country is going to believe that poor little Scooter was railroaded and that it's perfectly normal for a president to immediately pardon his aides when they are found guilty in a court of law. Hell, he can hire him back!

Republican administrations always break the law and when they are caught they always pardon their own. I guess we've just become so used to it now that people don't even find it shocking anymore.

If this happens, from this day forward, Republican administrations know they have no obligation to uphold the law while in office, ever. Why should they?
I don't care about Scooter, I don't care if everyone thinks he was a fall guy, he was. And I don't care if he gets pardoned.
I have to say that I think the conservatives are winning the spin war on this.
They may be winning the spin war on Scooter but they are losing it on Cheney - that's what's important. Scooter may have been a high ranking officer but the ultimate source of the evil is the General, Cheney. When Libby told his lies he thought Ashcroft would be handling the case. Would he have lied if he knew there would be a special prosecutor? Libby knew however he was taking a chance which would indicate he was attempting to cover up something really big, probably involving Cheney himself. That's what we should be concerned with not Libby. There are plenty of reasons for outrage but Scooter is way down the list.

Update
More Above

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Guilty

Scooter Libby was not the only one found guilty on Friday. Of course we have Dick Cheney, his shady dealings will be investigated in the press and congress if not in court. And then there is the press, they too were found guilty. So it's no surprise that the Washington Post should sound as defensive as Cheney and the White House. And defense is what we got from Fred Hiatt and the WAPO editorial board in
The Libby Verdict
The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal
In fact they were even more indignant than Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters.
Think Progress reminds us that Post editorial was nothing more than a regurgitation of right wing talking points. Head over their for the details but they conclude with this.

The Post editorial concludes: “The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby’s conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq.” This naïve comment is hardly surprising, coming from a publication that bought the false Iraq intelligence that Cheney, Libby, and company were trying so hard to sell prior to the war. More distressing, however, is that the Post has been an accomplice in the White House’s effort to cover up what it knew.
The Washington Post and much of the MSM was found guilty as charged.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

It still has little to do with Scooter

Howard Fineman agrees:
Libby verdict really about Iraq War and Cheney
Question now arises: What - and whom - was Libby lying to protect?

WASHINGTON — The ramifications of the stunning, vehement verdict in the Scooter Libby trial - that he lied, repeatedly, big time - aren't really about Scooter Libby at all. They are about how and why we went to war in Iraq, and about how Vice President Dick Cheney got us there. Loyalty is everything to President George W. Bush, and I don’t expect him to march into Cheney’s office to demand a resignation. But the veep is a liability as never before, and even Bush has to know that.
For those on the right who say it's unfair and really doesn't matter, it does - in fact it's "stunning".
Expect the Democrats and their anti-war allies to do something that they have not quite had the specific legal justification to do until now: use the “L word”. They will conflate two things – lying about evidence for war and lying to Patrick Fitzgerald – but no matter. They will use the Libby verdict to pump up the volume.

But the biggest burden will fall on Cheney himself. His own Hobbesian view of the world – that life is nasty, brutish and short – is becoming all too personal. He had to be relieved that Prosecutor Fitzgerald described his investigation as “inactive.” That would seem to mean that Cheney is in no legal jeopardy.
But if we have the “L word” can the I word be far behind?

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

It has little to do with Scooter

BERJAYAThe Scooter Libby verdict has little to do with Scooter and everything to do with Dick Cheney. Andrew Sullivan gets it right:

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 over-reaction that otherwise very smart men in this administration engaged in to rebut a relatively trivial issue: all this strongly implies the fact they were terrified that the full details of their pre-war WMD knowledge would come out. 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.
As I said earlier congress should not be wasting it's time with George W. Bush. Dick Cheney is the source of all evil. He should be questioned under oath and then impeached when he is caught in lies.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions

Libby Guilty - Yawn!

Well Scooter may be guilty but that's been overshadowed by Prosecutor Purge Scandal. Head over to TPMmuckraker.com for the details. That brings us to the Quote of the Day from Josh Marshall:

Lesson of the day: running the administration as a criminal enterprise is much harder when the opposition controls Congress.

Submit to BuzzFlash Buzz it

Sphere: Related Content

View blog reactions