Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Still A Class Act | Main | "The Foaming Dutchman" »

"A Political Exercise"

"...pure and simple."

There’s a notion on the left that the president commuted Libby’s sentence, rather than give him a pardon, in order to keep him quiet; with his appeal going forward, Libby can decline to appear before congressional committees because his case is still in court. Perhaps that argument would make sense if Libby had kept quiet. But he appeared twice before CIA-leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury. That testimony was, of course, secret, but later all eight hours of it were played at Libby’s trial. Anyone who wants to can read it today. Given the aggressiveness with which Fitzgerald pursued his investigation — does anyone believe a congressional committee would send reporters to jail if they refused to testify? — it’s hard to imagine that Congress would find key facts that Fitzgerald didn’t.

No, the reason Democrats want to question Libby, and the reason Chairman Conyers invited Joseph Wilson to testify today, is that this hearing is a political exercise, pure and simple.

And the notion that that brain-damaged Congressman from my home state, John Conyers, would be in charge, just makes me want to weep. One of the many reasons to regret the Dems getting power.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2007 08:27 AM

Comments

Of course, every word published by the NRO is written with political objectives in mind. Pot, meet kettle.

EVERYONE inside the Beltway plays politics.

Why should Libby be exempt from politics, especially when his lawyer said Libby was being made the political scapegoat by master political player Karl Rove?

No unilateral political disarmament. The Rove-ians play politics and so will the Democrats.

No biggie, either way.

Posted by Bill White at July 11, 2007 08:52 AM

So politically motivated legal proceedings conducted by the United States Congress and a political editorial by an on-line magazine are the same thing?

You are hopeless Bill.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 11, 2007 09:42 AM

...with the possible item being left out of all the rhetoric Bill ,is that he was convicted of a crime that never happened. The perjury charges and obstruction charges were originally leveled because the Grand Jury thought he lied when he said he didn't out Valerie Plame.

Novak has said repeatedly that Libby WAS NOT the source. But the truth very rarely if ever counts for anything in politics.

If he beats this on appeal, what will the Dems scream about then, jury tampering?

Posted by Steve at July 11, 2007 09:43 AM

Nice of you to blow off what, 300 committee hearings about the administration. So it's okay with you if the Dims waste time on a grand scale to attack their political enemies when that's exactly what they said they wouldn't do. I'm sure it's okay with the BDS crowd. The rest of us would like them to do what they are paid to do.

The Dims had a special prosecutor and because you didn't get "Fitzmas", you can't let it go.

Posted by Bill Maron at July 11, 2007 09:57 AM

Nobody claimed National Review was non-partisan, Bill, nor would they - they themselves don't claim to be, which is more than I can say for the people holding these hearings, who claim only to be investigating The Horrible Crimes Of The Administration for the Good Of The Republic, yes?

National Review is openly and frankly partisan, in a way almost nobody in Congress will admit to being. (The same is true of publications like The Nation, of course - punditry is all about that!)

But they're not wasting public money and Congress' time* on hearings that are pure political theater, are they?

(* Actually, I kinda like it when Congress wastes time on hearings, even if they are just kabuki for the true believers, on whichever side. It means they're not wasting time passing idiotic laws.)

Posted by Sigivald at July 11, 2007 11:14 AM

If Lewis Libby was convicted on trumped up charges WHY does Patrick Fitzgerald continue to serve as US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, apparently within the good graces of George W. Bush.

Why did Libby lie and obstruct justice? I believe to provide political cover for his superiors. He lied and obstructed justice for political reasons.

Of note: President Bush has NEVER challenged the legitimacy of Libby being convicted and even had praise for Fitzgerald. He merely said the sentence was excessive.

Why did Libby lie and obstruct justice? Those questions have not been answered.

Posted by Bill White at July 11, 2007 02:12 PM

If Lewis Libby was convicted on trumped up charges

Oh, please, Bill. At least try to play at being a lawyer. No one has claimed that the charges were "trumped up." The claim is that that Fitzgerald abused his prosecutorial discretion.

WHY does Patrick Fitzgerald continue to serve as US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, apparently within the good graces of George W. Bush.

Because the administration doesn't need a pointless political firestorm? What good would firing him do? Think, Bill, think.

Why did Libby lie and obstruct justice?

It's really quite simple, Bill. Even a dim-witted lawyer ought to be able to understand it.

It's because at the time he feared that he may mistakenly have broken the law by telling Judy Miller and/or Tim Russert her name, since he was as confused about it as everyone else, and probably panicked. In retrospect, I'm sure that he now regrets it, since as it turns out, he didn't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2007 02:20 PM

Thanks Rand, that was my answer on that too.

Posted by Steve at July 11, 2007 06:36 PM

Rand, name calling may make you feel good however it does not advance your argument.

Okay, suppose you are right about why Libby obstructed justice. Its simple. Just swear Libby under oath and have him give that explanation on the floor of Congress.

As for "pointless political firestorm" there is that old adage that "crime does not pay".

Unless there is a "pointless political firestorm" then in Libby's case his crimes will have accomplished their objective of avoiding political controversy. And letting crime pay is a bad thing, right?

Libby is a FELON and Bush let him off easy to save himself a political firestorm. That is the essence of corruption.

= = =

Anyway, here is the essence of the "Bush problem" right here:

Leahy: And then you said, I took an oath to the President, and I take that oath very seriously. Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?

Taylor: Uh, I, uh, yes, you're correct, I took an oath to the Constitution. Uh, but, what--

Leahy: Did you take a second oath to the President?

Taylor: I did not. I--

Leahy: So the answer was incorrect.

Taylor: The answer was incorrect. What I should have said is that, I took an oath, I took that oath seriously. And I believe that taking that oath means that I need to respect, and do respect, my service to the President.

Loyalty to the President or loyalty to the United States and the Constitution?

I choose the United States and the Constitution. Others have a different view, it would seem.

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2007 07:03 AM

Libby is a FELON and Bush let him off easy to save himself a political firestorm. That is the essence of corruption.

Horsesh!t. You can repeat you paranoid conspiracy theories till the cows come home, but that doesn't render them valid.

I choose the United States and the Constitution. Others have a different view, it would seem.

Again, horsesh1t.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2007 07:07 AM

Rand does Sara Taylor saying her oath was to the President disturb you?

If not, I ask that you discuss the issue with Jim Bennett in the context of what makes the Anglosphere exceptional.

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2007 07:10 AM

Rand does Sara Taylor saying her oath was to the President disturb you?

Yes. I'd be happy if he fired her. I must have missed the post where I expressed any interest in, or support for, Sara Taylor.

What that has to do with Scooter Libby, I have no idea.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 12, 2007 07:20 AM

What that has to do with Scooter Libby, I have no idea.

Sara Taylor and Lewis Libby are BOTH refusing to come clean to protect the Administration from political damage. And both see their loyalty as being owed to their political patrons rather than the Constitution of the United States.

Birds of a feather.

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2007 10:05 AM

Since Nixon every Administration, both Democratic and Republican has been plagued by stupid political witch hunts.

I fail to see how this benefits the Republic or demonstrates loyality to the U.S. Constitution.

Fitzgerald should never have been appointed as a Special Prosecutor. Those appear to be as poisonous to the Republic as an Inquisitor to Catholicism.

That said, Libby should serve his prison sentence if his appeals fail. We can't have people lying under oath, panicked or not, underlying crime or not. We need to have prosecutors who make sure there is no underlying crime, and when people lie under oath that compromises their ability to do so.

Furthermore we do not need prosecutors who stop as soon as one piece of exculpatory evidence comes to light, so it doesn't make any sense to say Fitzgerald should have stopped as soon as he learned about Armitage. Prosecutors are supposed to be a bit like bulldogs.

As for the notion that Libby was protecting someone else? Hogwash. He sang like a canary, including saying he learned about Plame from Cheney.

Sara Taylor and Lewis Libby are BOTH refusing to come clean to protect the Administration from political damage.

The above sentence is typical conspiracy theorist tripe. Serve it to someone who likes organ meats. Hey! I like organ meats! I've never tried tripe though. Is it tasty?

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at July 12, 2007 02:49 PM

One question remains for me, why was no one charged with the crime that Libby supposedly
covered up?

Posted by Boglee at July 12, 2007 09:13 PM

Boglee the CIA doesn't seem to feel any need for it and probably weren't all that happy about the Democrat-instigated public witchhunt in the first place.

The following are just some standard possiblities as to why the CIA could feel that way.

"Shit happens": one likely explanation could be that the agency has evidence or strong suspicion that the agent either willingly or unintentionally managed to "out" herself through action or inaction, i.e. she broke her own cover.

"The fart belongs to whoever mentions it first": she might even have been put in such a situation by the errors of her superiors or systemic failure.

"It's a mess": another likely explanation could be that the agency is at least at odds with itself about whether or not she was covert at the time.

"We screwed up, don't look under the rug": yet another likely explanation could be that the agency fears more scrutiny into their selection processes and criteria both in regards to agents and the use of their spouses.

"Good riddance": self-explanatory (and having met too many diplomats and their spouses I have to say this one is extremely likely).

All those can be mutually complimentary/inclusive. I wouldn't be surprised if all of them apply but I have no way of knowing.

Then again perhaps Armitage is simply too popular with everyone ^_^

p.s. I'm going to congratulate myself if this post passes the filter...

Posted by Habitat Hermit at July 13, 2007 01:48 AM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?