More on Libby (updated)
Here's a link to David Ignatius' take on the Libby affair. He's basically saying that the real "crime" in Libby/Plamegate was the White House battle with the CIA over intelligence. I'll have to say that for the most part, I do agree with that assessment, though it wasn't a crime. What it really was was a lack of clear communication between the two, and it was allowed to turn into a pissing contest.
The CIA feeling they were being questioned about their work, and the White House folks feeling like they weren't getting enough info, and that the press was getting too much.
The problem is, that neither group acted like adults, for whatever reason, and worked it out face to face. It ended up being a behind the back, "gotcha game" for the two sides. Not a great way to run a government.
I think when Bush leaves office George Tenent will probably write a book similar to the one Louis Freeh wrote about the Clinton years at the FBI.
For more on the infighting, and whole proceeding, here's a link to Time Magazine's article on the indictments, it's pretty balanced, which isn't always the case with them.
The CIA feeling they were being questioned about their work, and the White House folks feeling like they weren't getting enough info, and that the press was getting too much.
The problem is, that neither group acted like adults, for whatever reason, and worked it out face to face. It ended up being a behind the back, "gotcha game" for the two sides. Not a great way to run a government.
I think when Bush leaves office George Tenent will probably write a book similar to the one Louis Freeh wrote about the Clinton years at the FBI.
For more on the infighting, and whole proceeding, here's a link to Time Magazine's article on the indictments, it's pretty balanced, which isn't always the case with them.
posted by Crazy Politico at 9:31 AM
4Comments:
I believe the real crime is the Vice President's continued involvement in matters that were not his concern.
I suspect had he stayed out of the CIA and not been trying to skewer intelligence info to shore up his desire to invade Iraq, none of this would have occurred.
The real liar in the White House is Dick Cheney. He lied about not knowing who Valarie Plame-Wilson was. He lied about not knowing who Joe Wilson was (did he really think most of us can't remember he and Wilson were both activly involved in the first Gulf War), he lied about Iraq having WMD's, then he lied about having claimed Iraq had WMD's. He lied about never having met John Edwards. I could go on and on, but you get the picture. The man is a pathalogical liar.
Cheney needs to take a page out of Rove's book. Never leave fingerprints and never expose yourself. Instead he's like the fat kid turned loose in the candy shop, he just can't help himself. He fancy's himself the power behind the thrown. He's so bloated up with the power that [he thinks] came with his office he's out of control.
I can only imagine what he must have promised Scooter in order to get him to throw himself on the sword for him.
I have always believed the evil in the White House emminated from the VP's office. Without Cheney, Bush probably would have been a halfway decent president.
Wanda, you might want to take a deep breath. That rant had to run you completely out.
Why would Cheney find out who VPW was? I don't know, maybe because her husband lied (In print, read the NY Times) that Cheney sent him to Africa? If someone were to write a smearing article about me, and claim I was the catalyst for it, I'd want to know who really was.
You also ought to read Pat Fitzgeralds wonderful press briefing. Short version, this investigation is the wrong place to get answers about the war, that isn't what he was looking at.
BTW, did you notice no one is charged with outing Valerie, it wasn't a crime, she'd been a desk jockey for 6 years.
Bob, the premiss that Wilson lied doesn't change the fact that CHENEY lied. If I'm not mistaken isn't now obvious that Wilson didn't lie?
You are right about what Fitz said, and he is right in his assertion that 'this' investigation was not the place to address the war or the causes leading up to it.
You are also right in that no one was indicted for the 'outting' of Ms Plame-Wilson. Which makes it all the more puzzling as to why Libby would bother to lie during the investigation. He had every right to be discussing her, her status, and her involvement in Wilson's being sent to Niger. So why bother to lie about who told him and when? Of course there is the train of thought that MAYBE he simply forgot exactly who told him what and when they told him. In which case, that will come out at trial and he will be exonerated.
Again none of this changes the fact that Cheney KNEW who both Plame and Wilson were. He was Libby's orgininal source (verified by Libby's notes) on Plame, and he worked along side Wilson during the first Gulf war. Now obvioulsy when questioned by investigators Cheney owned up to knowing both otherwise he too would have been charged with impeding an investigation.
As for this investigation, what I don't understand is "IF" Valarie Plame was indeed as you say a "desk jockey" at the CIA, then why in the world did Fitz waste two years and millions of dollars investigating a crime when there was NO crime?
I guess the answer is much the same as why Starr spent years and $40+million only to reveal that the President got a blow job from an intern. Both were a colossal waste of time and money.
By the way, thank you for visiting my blogs and for your comments. I love a good debate. And as long as we respect each other's right to our opinions I think we can have some very interesting ones.
Does it really surprise you that Cheney would tell his Chief of staff that Wilson's wife, who works at the CIA seems to be the guy who sent him to Africa?
The bigger question would have been, why wouldn't he tell the Chief of Staff that?
And of course the $64K question is why the hell did Libby lie? I've read the indictment, Miller and Coopers stories, and Fitzgerald's press releases, I think that there wouldn't have been anything if Libby had just told the truth.
(No indictments would have caused a completely different debate).
I actually agree on the waste of time thought, I think sometimes these investigations end up almost goading someone into lying under oath. When Fitz was sure there was no violation of the 1982 espionage act, I think he should have packed it in.
And thanks for coming back. I get so tired of "drive by posters" who drop a load, and take off.
Post a Comment
<< Home