Archive for the ‘Scooter Libby’ category

One Pint In A 10 Gallon Hat

November 9, 2010

Another revisionist is alive and walking amongst us.  Former President George W Bush, for uncertain reasons, has authored a book that highlights some of the great decisions he says he made during his two terms.  It would seem his intent is to revise our memories of history and cast his presidency in a much more favorable light.  Will he be successful?

It helps to begin at the beginning.  Bush was elected the 43rd President when the US Supreme Court step in (with its conservative majority) and stopped the Florida count thereby insuring Bush the majority of the electoral college.  I do not blame Bush but it highlights his lack of legitimacy.

The first six months of his first term were uneventful although the commander-in-chief appeared tp be the skipper of a boat without a rudder.  Even then, the back rooms were buzzing with the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearle, Libby, Wolfowitz, and Feith, already planning on how to invade Iraq.  Then while the Bush Administration was asleep at the switch, 9/11 took place and the world changed.

With the full advantage today of history, “W” still defends the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.  It matters not at all whether the invasion was justified under International  law or whether the costs (monetary or lives) support the overthrow of the Iraqi Government.  Not a single weapon of mass destruction was found nor has any connection between Iraq and 9/11 established.  So, once again, why should the US have invaded?

It is said that Karl Rove tried to market George W Bush to the American electorate as much more manly version of his father, George H W Bush.  (This is a clear clue that nothing Rove says should be trusted.  “H W” was a legitimate war hero while “W” did all he could to keep out of harms way.)  Rove said “W” grew up in Texas where people are naturally tougher.

“W’s” 8 years and now his book make one thing perfectly clear.  “W” may have worn a 10 gallon hat but he was barely a pint of man with the intellect to match.

 

Advertisements

Pardon My Libby

November 21, 2007

Rumors are all around that instead of a Thanksgiving goose, our President will give Scooter Libby a “free and clear” pardon, ending the neoconservative melt down.  There is nothing clearer to show why this group’s thinking is dangerous.  The man was found guilty of perjury by a jury of peers and yet the right wingers say he was a patriot so he should be excused.  Does the ends justify the means sound familiar?

Libby’s conviction is not about an over worked public servent who inadvertantly forgot some key piece of information.  Scooter was a willing participant in a conspiracy to teach a whistle blower and all future whistle blowers who they were screwing around with.  Darth Vader Cheney is a mean hombre.

The right wing whiners cry that Libby’s conviction was not about a conspiracy but about perjury in an investigation of a non-crime.  In other words, the prosecutors did not charge Scooter with any conspiracy or actual violation of the law with regards to Valerie Plame.  This is true but as usual only a fraction of the truth.  Prior to that, Scooter’s boss, Dick Cheney, had declared all relevant information sought by the prosecutor as “classified” and therefore unavailable to the Justice Department.  Now who’s setting the rules?

There will be no surprise in the pardon of Scooter.  The only question is when.  There are many more dark, embarassing, and disgusting secrets about Cheney, Rove, and Bush’s  exploits that the inner circle is keeping quiet.  If it is seen that Scooter has gotten shafted, watch out, the flood gates will open.

Scooter Again

August 6, 2007

Robert (Bob) Novak was interviewed today on the Diane Rheams radio talk show and brought some light onto his outing of Valerie Plame.  In this interview, Novak claimed

1. Richard Armitage told him that Ms Plame worked for the CIA and had suggested that her husband travel to Niger to investigate whether the Iraqi government and the Niger government were conspiring over the sale of Uranium yellow cake to Iraq.  Novak claimed it was an innocent exchange (meaning it was not planted).

2. Novak claimed that the Special Prosecutor knew that Armitage had leaked the information to Novak right from the beginning yet continued to question others until finally poor Scooter Libby slipped up and had a memory lapse.  Then “gotcha”.

3. This lead Novak to be disappointed with President Bush for commuting Libby’s sentence when he should have issued a full pardon.  Novak justified the pardon on the basis that there was no underlying crime.  He claimed Plame was not covert and was not working at that time in a covert operation.

This is roughly the same justification other conservative and White House supporters have used even though they were content with the impeachment of Bill Clinton for much less.  But who said politics is fair or even accurate.  What should be of interest is that Novak is a highly distributed columnist who’s opinions are heard by many either written or on television talk shows.  Novak seems to completely overlook:

1. Cheney and Rove organized a direct effort to discredit Joseph Wilson when he claimed that there was no evidence that Niger had sold yellow cake to Iraq.  One of their actions was to arrange calls by their aids (and themselves) to a hand full of reporters for the sole purpose of smearing Wilson.  How does Novak know that his contact with Armitage was not related to these activities?

2. At the most basic level, the evidence is all in and the Niger claim was patently untrue and the White House knew all along it was untrue.  Also after 5 years of fighting, not one WMD has been found. 

You are left with only a few possible conclusions

1. Cheney, Rove, and their supporting cast were either hugely incompetent and acted the way they did because they thought the information was correct, or they were as they appear to be, conspirators who cobbled up a reason to fight a war they wanted for other reasons and would not allow anyone to cast light on their cover up.

2. The list of reporters (Novak, Woodard, Cooper, Miller, and Russert) who would purport to share important and exclusive information (implied through their hard work) were actually co-opted and duped by the sinister White House leaders.  Since this put them in a compromised light, they have contributed to keeping the discussion on “who said what” rather than “why did they say what they said”.

Scooter Spin

July 7, 2007

It has been amazing to hear the supporters of Scooter Libby speak out in the defense of President Cheney’s pardon (announced by George Bush).  They claim there should never have been a trial since Scooter was not the source of the original leak.  Since there should never have been a trial, they reason, he should not have been put in a position where his faulty memory could lead to perjury.  And to slam dunk their point, they immediately jump to Bill Clinton and claim he lied twice to congress.  With a smug “so there!”, they rest their case.

There are a few important points this view overlooks:

1. The office of the Vice President along with Karl Rove orchestrated the outing of Valerie Plame.  They could not be sure that one leak would work, so they sent out multiple contacts to the willing press.  This is like an assassination where there is more than one shooter to insure the victim is shot, should the first shooter miss.  All invloved are guilty of the same offense.

2. An independent jury sitting before a Republican appointed judge found that Libby lied and perjured himself.  The Judge claimed the evidence was over whelming.

3. Former President Clinton was impeached on the basis of his alleged lies but he was not convicted by the Senate.  Scooter was convicted and Bill was not. 

4. I would gladly free Scooter of all charges if I could substitute the draft dodging Chicken Hawk Dick Cheney in an open and fair investigation of his role in this mess.  Scooter’s perjury was about shielding the Office of the Vice President and not faulty memory.

5. Now when it comes to lying, there is none better than George Bush.  His assertion of WMD in Iraq and the orchestrated nature of how his Administration sold the justification of the war can only be described as lying to Congress and the American people.  A defense that he really thought there were WMD is a hard sell.  But if the Republicans insist on claiming the President was incompetent, that brings you to the charge of malfeasance.  Lying is a high crime and together with malfeasance are classical grounds for impeachment.  

Thanks Scooter for helping to make this clear.