"Sordid the episode is, but not because of anything Libby did. And "a troubling picture" of Washington it is-but not of this Administration. The Bush crowd is guilty only of terminal naiveté and the foolish idea that high standards of probity will ever beat the opposition's utter unscrupulousness and willingness to misuse the legal system to their own partisan ends, even if it means the ruination of an innocent and capable man and enormous hardship to his family."
Good luck in calling for justice from the mainstream media. After all they are "unbiased" right? That word seems to have a different meaning in their lexicon though. Even mentioning that there might be another angle to a story seems to qualify.
I even found nuggets of truth in the Washington Post, but I had to look real hard:
washingtonpost.com
"Fitzgerald was overzealous," Zelnick says, and "the effect is serious and adverse. It's going to take a long time for reporters and their sources to figure out how to deal with each other in a way that doesn't risk contempt citations and imprisonment."
and...
blog.washingtonpost.com
"The reality that Armitage was the original leaker doesn't change the fact that Libby subsequently dined and whined with reporters to push the bosses' agenda. But Armitage is not a Cheney guy, and his revealed role does question the presumption of White House conspiracy and Cheney guilt.
The truth is that everyone at the top gossips. I hate to say leak for that suggests a piece of information of greater importance. Gossip fuels Washington, and the relationship between the top reporters and the top officials shape the news and fuels the ship of state.
Saying everyone gossips also isn't meant to excuse Libby or the government cesspool: My attitude is always that it is a great day for America when a government official is led away in handcuffs. These people are not above the law.
But they are above it all. "
An editorial gets it right. How did THIS slip through:
washingtonpost.com
"Mr. Libby's conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations.
The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance."
But then, when you think about previous administrations, this is small potatoes. We can't be sure what goes on in other people's minds, only what they actually do. This man will go to jail for what hist intentions MIGHT have been, while others will get book deals and speaking engagements even though we KNOW they did wrong. How is this a good thing again? Because it will warn future administrations not to get caught?
From the same editorial:
"Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in their handling of classified information. Mr. Libby's subsequent false statements were reprehensible. And Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess.
Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby's conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq."
Much less difficult to get this other angle from bloggers:
powerlineblog.com
"The whole Libby affair remains something of a mystery. President Bush ordered all executive branch personnel to cooperate with the Fitzgerald investigation. Other people, apparently including Dick Cheney, told investigators that they had discussed Wilson and Plame with Libby. It's hard to understand why Libby's testimony was so out of step with that of the other Executive Branch witnesses. At the end of the day, imperfect memory seemed as good an explanation as any. But the jury didn't see it that way."
No comments:
Post a Comment