American Thinker: I Call for Justice

"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."

A New Campaign Tactic: Manipulating Google Data

Indeed, if all campaigns were doing it, the playing field might well be leveled.

Mr. Bowers said he did not believe the practice would actually deceive most Internet users.

But of course for the left, it's OK to try deception, while admitting that it might not work. Ever wonder why? Whether it is a stunt like this, or a misleading Oreo cookie analysis of the economy, or a parade of misleading victim testimonials on TV, the left will do anything to get their full power back.

Their goal: to trade the principles that made this country great for the principles that caused the Soviet Union to collapse. Oh, but to paraphrase John Kerry, they'll do it better than the Soviets.

Now when I confront a liberal with that comparison to the Soviets, there is always a denial that the goal is anything like Communism, or even Socialism. But what other label fits? "Progressivism" is meaningless, describing a state of perpetual change rather than an actual ideal state of being. Look at the specific goals:

To marginalize all religious practice and engender a total reliance on federal government solutions to every problem.

To bring down those filthy capitalists who run billion dollar companies (the rhetoric always leaves out what should be done about top sports and move stars and somehow you get the notion that its OK for them to make big bucks).

To take away almost any freedom of choice in personal matters (with the sole exception of course of those things that go on in the bedroom).

To install political correctness as the primary state sanctioned religion. This is thought control in as blatant a form as ever envisioned by George Orwell. they do it in their campaigning (as this stunt is a perfect example) and they'll carry the notion to its conclusion if empowered to do so. You can bet that the "Ministry of Education" will simply instruct Google and other such providers where certain search terms should take you. No need to "Google bomb".

The air-head actors of Hollywood threatened to leave the country when Bush got elected, but as far as I know none of them did. Of course they had plenty of places they could have moved that were closer to their ideal of an all-powerful central government, Canada simply being the closest, while the countries of Europe being more ideal. Why didn't any of them leave?

Where will you go when there is no freedom of thought (at least not that can be expressed openly) in America? Will there be pockets of such freedom in such places as Australia? Don't count on it.

Marx understood that for his theories to work, all avenues of escape must be cut off. World Communism wasn't just a nice goal, it was an absolute necessity for the system to succeed. There are those among us who have the same idea regarding our countries founding principles. They don't like states rights, which are all but gone thanks to judicial activism. States rights allow pockets of freedom to shine forth and attract those who love it. The existence of private (to their way of thinking) schools makes it impossible to make public education work, just as the existence of medical people who opt out of government subsidies make their ideal of health care impossible to achieve.

Where will you go after the revolution?

Not Facing Reality

In his interactions with both secularists and Christians after writing his first book, he notes "my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world … despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

"I don’t know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate."

and

The one group which speaks with moral clarity about the war in the Middle East is the religious right, Mr. Harris notes, while admitting he disagrees with that group over almost every other political issue.

"Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies," he concludes.