Sunday, March 11, 2007
Steyn Goes Bitter
Mark Steyn is witty but humorless as he recounts the many instances of disgraceful conduct by the real players in the Plame kerfuffle. And he doesn't even mention the huge damage Fitzgerald has done to journalists. It was a very sad day when David Corn speculated (wrongly it turns out) that the White House conspired to punish truth telling (yeah, right) Joe Wilson by 'outing' his CIA wife, and not just for Libby.
Money quote:
The prosecutor knew from the beginning that (a) leaking Valerie Plame's name was not a crime and (b) the guy who did it was Richard Armitage. In other words, he was aware that the public and media perception of this ''case'' was entirely wrong: There was no conspiracy by Bush ideologues to damage a whistleblower, only an anti-war official making an offhand remark to an anti-war reporter. Even the usual appeals to prosecutorial discretion (Libby was a peripheral figure with only he said/she said evidence in an investigation with no underlying crime) don't convey the scale of Fitzgerald's perversity: He knew, in fact, that there was no cloud, that under all the dark scudding about Rove and Cheney there was only sunny Richard Armitage blabbing away accidentally. Yet he chose to let the entirely false impression of his ''case'' sit out there month in, month out, year after year, glowering over the White House, doing great damage to the presidency on the critical issue of the day.
So much of the current degraded discourse on the war -- ''Bush lied'' -- comes from the false perceptions of the Joe Wilson Niger story. Britain's MI-6, the French, the Italians and most other functioning intelligence services believe Saddam was trying to procure uranium from Africa. Lord Butler's special investigation supports it. So does the Senate Intelligence Committee. So Wilson's original charge is if not false then at the very least unproven, and the conspiracy arising therefrom entirely nonexistent. But the damage inflicted by the cloud is real and lasting.
As for Scooter Libby, he faces up to 25 years in jail for the crime of failing to remember when he first heard the name of Valerie Plame -- whether by accident or intent no one can ever say for sure. But we also know that Joe Wilson failed to remember that his original briefing to the CIA after getting back from Niger was significantly different from the way he characterized it in his op-ed in the New York Times. We do know that the contemptible Armitage failed to come forward and clear the air as his colleagues were smeared for months on end. We do know that his boss Colin Powell sat by as the very character of the administration was corroded.
Money quote:
The prosecutor knew from the beginning that (a) leaking Valerie Plame's name was not a crime and (b) the guy who did it was Richard Armitage. In other words, he was aware that the public and media perception of this ''case'' was entirely wrong: There was no conspiracy by Bush ideologues to damage a whistleblower, only an anti-war official making an offhand remark to an anti-war reporter. Even the usual appeals to prosecutorial discretion (Libby was a peripheral figure with only he said/she said evidence in an investigation with no underlying crime) don't convey the scale of Fitzgerald's perversity: He knew, in fact, that there was no cloud, that under all the dark scudding about Rove and Cheney there was only sunny Richard Armitage blabbing away accidentally. Yet he chose to let the entirely false impression of his ''case'' sit out there month in, month out, year after year, glowering over the White House, doing great damage to the presidency on the critical issue of the day.
So much of the current degraded discourse on the war -- ''Bush lied'' -- comes from the false perceptions of the Joe Wilson Niger story. Britain's MI-6, the French, the Italians and most other functioning intelligence services believe Saddam was trying to procure uranium from Africa. Lord Butler's special investigation supports it. So does the Senate Intelligence Committee. So Wilson's original charge is if not false then at the very least unproven, and the conspiracy arising therefrom entirely nonexistent. But the damage inflicted by the cloud is real and lasting.
As for Scooter Libby, he faces up to 25 years in jail for the crime of failing to remember when he first heard the name of Valerie Plame -- whether by accident or intent no one can ever say for sure. But we also know that Joe Wilson failed to remember that his original briefing to the CIA after getting back from Niger was significantly different from the way he characterized it in his op-ed in the New York Times. We do know that the contemptible Armitage failed to come forward and clear the air as his colleagues were smeared for months on end. We do know that his boss Colin Powell sat by as the very character of the administration was corroded.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 10:33 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Rog,
When considering the conduct of Mr. FitzGerald, I will remind you of 2 words: Kenneth and Starr.
T
When considering the conduct of Mr. FitzGerald, I will remind you of 2 words: Kenneth and Starr.
T
# posted by 
: 3:16 PM
: 3:16 PM
We all agreed that special prosecutors were a bad idea. Why did we bring one back? Oh, that's right, the left was sure there was a conspiracy at the White House and only a special prosecutor could get to the bottom of it. More fools they.
What I enjoyed about the whole sordid thing was that it was the MSM papers, notably the NYT, who pushed the Administration into appointing Fitzgerald. But then he went and threw Judith Miller in jail until she would testify before the GJ. And, lo and behold, it turns out that there is no federal press shield law. And no special 1st Amdt. privilege that would allow a journalist to refuse to testify.
I don't think that we have seen the end of this. And as long as the CIA, et al. keep leaking in order to discredit the Administration, you can also be assured that no federal press shield law is going to be enacted into law.
The MSM are really on the wrong side of history here, as bloggers are erasing the lines between "journalists" and everyone else. How do you realistically draw the line that would protect print and TV journalists, but exclude bloggers? You really can't, and that means that everyone would ultimately be protected by such a press shield law - which is another reason that it won't be enacted.
I don't think that we have seen the end of this. And as long as the CIA, et al. keep leaking in order to discredit the Administration, you can also be assured that no federal press shield law is going to be enacted into law.
The MSM are really on the wrong side of history here, as bloggers are erasing the lines between "journalists" and everyone else. How do you realistically draw the line that would protect print and TV journalists, but exclude bloggers? You really can't, and that means that everyone would ultimately be protected by such a press shield law - which is another reason that it won't be enacted.
I hadn't considered that aspect. I blog therefore I am shielded. Very good. What's frustrating to me is the lack of zeal with which the Bush Administration's Justice Department is going after the leaks in the NYT. That is, there appears to be no investigation at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home
