“Where is Karl Rove?” is one of the things the only member of the jury I watched talking to journalists said the jury in the trial of Lewis Libby talked about (although, of course, he stated that they spent most of their time on proper examination of the case).
First some information: And information presented to you (dear readers) by someone who did not support the decision to go into Iraq in 2003.
The man who leaked the fact that Mrs Wilson worked for the CIA was Richard Armitage of the State Department, not Mr Libby, Karl Rove, the Vice President, the President – or the man at the local shop.
Mrs Wilson was an employee – not an agent of the CIA.
Saddam Hussain did try to get uranium from Niger, along with various other places. So the claims of Mr Wilson that the Administration was telling lies about Saddam were wrong. Whether being wrong would concern Mr Wilson (a giver of money to the 2000 Gore campaign) I can not know for sure – but I would be astonished if it did. Did the jury know the above? Most likely not – and they would have been told that such information was “not relevant” if they did.
The jury was interested, according to the only member of it I watched speaking, in “where is Karl Rove” and in whether they would get to see the Vice President and President, and felt “sorry” for Mr Libby as the bigger baddies (i.e. Mr Rove, the Vice President and so on) were not on trial (on trial for something or other).
The defence rightly understanding the political climate, tried from the start to present Mr Libby as a fall guy for the wicked Administration. As Mr Libby was a leading member of the staff of the Administration this policy of the defence may have been unwise – the jury would get the person they had in front of them.
Victory is not always possible, but it is always possible to avoid dishonour.
For example, when the ‘investigators’ first began to ask Mr Libby questions the correct response would most likely to have been to tell them to “fuck off” (the US Navy version of this is, I believe, “I stand mute” – which is much better than saying “I take the Fifth”), certainly one could still have been put on trial for obstruction of justice… but one can be put on trial for that, and found guilty, even if one has done everything to cooperate with investigators – that is the way the Federal legal system works. However one would not be dishonoured – as one is by long complex explanations (true or false) of who said what to who in relation to a witch hunt. One should not lend a witch hunt any credibility – which is exactly what one does if one cooperates with it.
As for President Bush:
When the media track him down to whatever part of Latin America he is in at the moment (that he is going off to Latin America just makes things look worse), my guess is that he will waffle. I certainly do not think that he will launch a counter attack, as he could do.
He was a fool to allow an ‘investigation’ in the first place, and he was a fool to allow a trial, with its obvious outcome – obvious regardless of the facts of the case or whatever he may have thought were important, when there were things he could have done, and my guess is that he will continue to be a fool.
He seems to believe that he can ‘work with’ anyone – not understanding, even after all this time, that many of the powerful institutions of the United States are determined to destroy him and everyone that is connected with him.
Not because of anything in particular that he has done, in fact his policies are similar to those of a mainstream Democrat of a few decades ago – someone like JFK or LBJ, but because in spite of many of his statist policies he is perceived to represents conservative America.
“what is HE doing here? Where is Rove and all these other guys”
It’s obvious that the jurors bought the media line about the administration deliberately “outing” Plame for revenge. Which is to be expected. DC went 90% for Kerry in 2004. Libby never had a chance.
This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. The sad thing about it is the vast amount of wasted time and money involved, and the fact that a man’s going to jail – or spending a long time in an indeterminate state while spending money on appellate lawyers – because he probably fell into a “perjury trap”.
Well, so much for “Fitzmas”…
Best suggestion so far, at http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0307/Scooter.html
This is the most idiotic and vengeful nonsense. Let’s see, Libby is supposed to have lied about inconsequential events which had nothing to do with anything.
Who can remember verbatim things we say about totally unimportant meetings and discussions months after the fact?
Then there was the lie that an undercover agent’s identity had been disclosed to avenge nasty democrats.
Valerie Plame was not a covert agent and hadn’t been for years. She had been on extended maternity leave suffering from the latest aging yuppie mom disease de jour – post partum depression. She spent her time as a motivational lecturer to other yuppie ppd
moms. Having to trade in gazing at one’s navel for dealing with one’s offsprings’ tums seems to have this effect on these ever self-lovin’ creatures.
Let us hope that Dubya pardons Libby post haste which should bring on another bout of ppd for our Val.
The Democrats are now the party of sending innocent men to jail to score political points. Scary.
This is yet anothe example of how legal systems throughout the Western world have gotten out of control. Leftist magistrates in Italy and Germany are going after CIA agents for fighting terrorists. Lawfare is discrediting the ideas of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention and International Law.
In the US we have Eliot Spitzer who has bulled his way to the Governorship of NY by the use of highly questionable legal tactics. Not to mention the whole trial lawyer phenomena.
Eventually people will demand that limits be placed on the power hungry “Justice” system. This is a form of tyranny and Americans, at any rate will not put up with it much longer. Dan Quayle was right, with 5 percent of the world’s population, we don’t need 50 or 60 percent pf the world’s lawyers.
Re: The whole trial lawyer phenomena; just exactly how many trial lawyers does the Bush Administration employ? Oh, wait, I must be thinking of Defense Attorneys.
While I share unease about the nature of the conviction, the potential sentence of 20+ years seems way out of line for the offence as charged. This follows another 20+ years penalty faced by a school teacher for not covering up adult computer pop-ups.
Yet in the UK we have just seen a young man sentenced for (minimum) 2 years for savagely killing a defenceless old man. In the US and UK the penalties for offences against criminal law seem to have diverged widely to the disadvantage of justice in both countries.
Domino theory? More like end game. So who’s going to be VP when Cheney resigns due to “ill health”. Is the US ready for a Black Woman President? But there I go again. Always a little too far ahead.
There is no way Libby will get a pardon before Bush’s last month (or day) in office. If he gets a pardon, he can’t claim the Fifth (which only covers self-incrimination) and can be compelled to answer all sorts of questions he clearly doesn’t want to answer. Bush may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he’s not going to put Libby in a witness stand without the ability to evade questions. It would be unseemly for a cover up to be publicized in such a manner.
Cover up of what Jon?
The leak was by Richard Armitage (not the Vice President, or me – or you). So if Mr Fitzgerald (any relation to the Norman “Geraldine” lords in Ireland?) had wanted to prosecute the leaker (assuming that saying that Mrs Wilson was drawing pay from the C.I.A. is a crime) he should have put Richard Armitage on trial.
The whole thing was a political game. And I say again that President Bush was a fool to go along with it – as soon as it became clear that Mr Fitzgerald was not interested in the leak, but only using the “leak investigation” as a excuse for a game, the President should have had him fired.
However, I agree that he will not pardon Mr Libby – not because of stuff that Mr Libby might say, but because he (George Bush) still believes that “the system works” (and all the rest of the nonsense).
As for the Eliot Spitzer point ny Taylor:
Yes you are right. No one could be sure that a contract was “Spitzer” proof in New York. He had no regard for private property or civil interaction – and he was elected Governor by some 70% of the vote, not in spite of this but because of it.
What does that say about the modern Western public?
Paul
You seem to have pegged spitzer perfectly, but he was not elected because he was popular, he was elected because the GOP in NY has fallen apart. They are almost as relevent to local politics as the Whigs.
Cover up of what? Whatever it was that Libby lied about, that’s what. Of the dozens of witnesses Fitzgerald (and the other investigators who were talking to Libby and others even before Fitzgerald was part of the case) interviewed, doesn’t it seem just a little bit strange that only the Vice-President’s Chief of Staff was prosecuted and convicted of lying, and thus only Cheney’s man was willing to lie about who did what and when? Libby is the cover up. And in this case, I guess it was worth it to him to do so.
At least so far. But I’m not thinking it will all blow up anytime soon, since the appeals process will take enough time to cover Cheney’s ass until it is time for a pardon.
The Democrats are now the party of sending innocent men to jail to score political points. Scary.
Of course, there is bipartisan agreement on sending thousands of innocent people to jail for smoking marijuana.
20 years for a drug offense is out of line as is 20 years from a murky political cover-up.
Apples and oranges, RA. Heck, Apple computers and oranges. There’s a difference between someone being provably guilty of committing a bad law, and someone not being provably guilty of violating a good law but being found guilty anyway.
Riiiight,
I’m finally going to comment on this. I think I take much more interest in US politics than most Brits – Samizdatistas excluded, obviously. This has been on the news quite a lot here and yet I really couldn’t tell you what Scooter Libby has done other than have a name that sounds like it came out of Peanuts.
Yes Nick – the man is too old for the nickname “scooter”, he should go back to “Lewis” (which is why I called him that).
Jon – RICHARD ARMITAGE LEAKED THE NAME.
How many times does this have to be pointed out?
It was not the Vice President – or me, or the cat I met in my garden today.
Of course Mr Wilson was sent by his wife (who to me is “Mrs Wilson” till the lady decides to get a divorse), as part of a C.I.A. faction fight. He was as about as independent as my hand is from my arm.
The reason that Richard Armitage was not hit for the noncrime of mentioning the above is because he is an Iraq war critic.
More importantly, Republicans are often hit for things that Democrats are not hit for – otherwise why has Sandy Burger still (after all this time) still not undergone the lie detector test (which was the only interesting part of his slap-on-the-wrist deal) about the secret documents he stole and destroyed? WHY did he steal and destroy them? What was written in the margins? If nothing was written there (by President Clinton and others) why steal and destroy them?
Rush L. – three years “investigation” over buying prescription drugs (for his chronic back pain) without a prescription. Congressman Kennedy recently bought prescription drugs without a prescription and crashed his car whilst under the influence – result nothing.
Leading Democrat and Clinton money man in Palm Beach has sex with underage girls (not one, but several over a period of time) – result, a slap on the wrist.
Congressman Foley (Republican) sends dirty messages to male pages – result media fire storm (carefully timed for just before the election)..
Several Democrat Congressman have had sex with male pages – result, they get to stay in the House.
Congressman Barney Frank even allowed his property to be used as an underage male brothel (and had sex with the male prostitute running it) – result NOTHING (because the media defend him – and brand any attack “homophobic”). The voters get a nice sanitized version (as neither the media nor the courts will touch him) of Barney Frank – and so he gets reelected, and is now one of the most powerful creatures in the House of Representatives.
Congressman Tom Delay (Republican) forced to resign from the House over Campaign Finance Law (an unconstitutional statute) violations which (it is now admitted) he did not commit anyway.
Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat) on film taking bribes (and their are confessions from the people who gave the bribes) and the bribe money later found in his fridge. Result – he gets put on the Homeland Security Commitee.
I hold no brief for the Repbulican party – they are a weak and pathetic bunch. But there is clearly a double standard.
Republicans get hit (by the media and by the criminal process) much harder than Democrats.
I personally believe that the Mark Foley’s transgressions would have been reported a lot sooner if the gay lobby hadn’t been so successful intimidating people who criticize gays. “Yeah, but those were underage pages.” So what? Gerry Studds (D-MA) had sex with a 17-year-old page in the early 1970s, and the Left never stopped praising him.
Paul M: What exactly are you trying to say with “Mrs Wilson was an employee – not an agent of the CIA”?
Perhaps you ought to read this 2003 Washington Post article.
Here are some salient points:
She received training as a spy.
She became a spy.
She listed her employer as “Brewster Jennings,” a CIA front company.
When this scandal broke, everybody involved with Brewster Jennings was less secure in their cover than before Bob Novak’s piece.
Do you have any proof that this is not the case? Please note that I am not quibbling with what kind of CIA agent she was, as Wikipedia debates here.
By the way, I have known two CIA analysts. Both stated that they were or had been CIA analysts, not energy consultants or anything else. It is not a secret job at all. Plame’s neighbors did not know she was in the CIA–which is a situation that would not exist if they knew her at all and she were JUST an analyst for her career.
Lastly, there is a lot of selective sampling of the historical record of sexual misdeeds by politicos–and it is pretty questionable. For instance, to bolster a point on general unfairness toward Republican fondlers by raising the specter of Barney Frank or Gerry Studds is one-sided. At least that is what Melvin Reynolds would say through the bars of his jail cell. Is he not still in the can for his relationship with an underage girl?
First Michiganny – so now left libertarians like the C.I.A.?
Perhaps you would not like the lady if she had called herself “Mrs Wilson” rather than played the name game.
If this lady has been on one undercover mission in the last several years than I am James Bond.
By the way – if giving her name was a crime. Why was not RICHARD ARMITAGE in the dock? How many times has the name of RICHARD ARMITAGE to be used before you notice it?
Also I never said that Democrats never go to jail, I said that Republicans tend to be hit harder, both by the media and by the legal system – and they are.
Nor is this a recent thing. After all Nancy P’s father never served a day in jail – in spite of all his corruption. Indeed it is just an amusing story – how the young Nancy used to “keep the book” (the book of corrupt favours – not a betting book) for him.
Quite the little feminist. There was a time when men of this sort tried to keep their daughters out of their activities (even if they involved their sons).
Of course this does not alter the fact that most Republicans are pathetic wastes-of-space, actually it is the fact that they are so weak that gives the left a green light to attack them (people who will not fight back are “asking” for their heads to be kicked in).
This whole sordid affair is why the west won’t win against islam. We lack the cultural will and when the US Justice department under a Republican president allow our legal system to degrade into playground for political kooks, then how will we be able to go after the real bad guys?
I think I should learn arabic instead of building a violin this spring….
Paul M,
Please feel free to type in ALL CAPS when you lecture me about the doings in my own country. Also, feel free to use evidence, or, in your parlance, EVIDENCE, to prove your point. CITATIONS would also be nice. Armitage was not charged because it is not a crime to tell someone that a person works for the CIA, as here. That is also why nobody was charged at the cocktail party I attended in 2005 when somebody told me she was now an analyst in Langley. It is against the law to knowingly blow an agent’s cover.
I, for one, do not think Valerie Plame has been undercover overseas for years. In the Wiki entry I linked in my previous post, it stated she was doing work during the 1990s. But I bet people connected to the same front company were undercover much more recently.
I challenge anybody to cite findings from a reliable source that Democrats get it easier than Republicans. Or Republicans get it easier than Democrats.
I cannot pass judgment on what left-libertarians think of the CIA. But just to bolster my chavista bona fides, I have to echo something I read on fellow-traveler Kim du Toit’s site recently: What is the deal with these crimes against the state?
Should a citizen lose his freedom for lying to officials who can lie to him with no consequences?
My understanding is that the law only applies to active undercover agents. It was passed after the Vietnam war when American “Peace” activists would use the published names of American POWs to search out everything they could on their military or CIA careers, to help the NV Commies more efficiently tailor their interrogations.
As for fat Joe’s pretty wife, I recall reading in several places that he bought himself a bio in Who’s-Who in America and in his bio stated his wife worked for the CIA in Langley Virginia. And this was years before anyone cared who he or his wife was. So it appears that old fat Joe “outed” his wife.
But then again, this case was never about any laws, it was a test case to create a legal precident that the US Justice system is now a playground for kook politicos and their allies in the dying media to hobble or eliminate their political enemies.
“my country” Michiganny?
But I thought you were socially progressive. First love of the C.I.A. and now nationalism – you are evolving.
I will not use capital letters (oh sorry I already did – C.I.A.) if it offends you. But I will mention Richard Armitage again.
Richard Armitage, Richard Armitage, Richard Armitage, Richard Armitage………………………….
Perhaps that got through your selective vision problem.
As for your claim that the media and the legal system (which are part of the same establishment anyway – as are the universities) do not hit Republicans than Democrats.
Well, if you really believe that, there is a bridge “in my country” that I would like to sell to you – it is really nice looking and quite historic, just by the Tower of London (I will sell that to you as well if you like – I can let it go for quite a low price).
Actually, on reflection, I should not have been so quick to claim a lack of consistency. After all even the followers of Rousseau (of course one of the first great social progressives of the modern period) defended themselves against the charge that they had abandoned their internationalist “love of all mankind” (citizen of the world and all that) and adopted a narrow nationalism, by pointing out that it was a new France (year zero and ……) which was the very personification of progressive ideals.
Just as there is no lack of consistency between various French radicals opposing the death penality before they came to power and then using it (using it a lot) when they were in power.
Robesierre and the others still opposed the death penality for murder – they just supported it for having nonprogressive political opinions. Consistency was not the problem.
As for nonviolent Progressives they also have a reply to the lack of consistency charge. For example, Thomas Paine opposed Kings issuing paper money, but not democratically elected governments issuing it. He did not change his view of Kings not being allowed to issue paper money – again consistency was not the problem.
Perhaps I will be asked for a “reliable source” for the above.
After all I have already been asked for a “reliable source” for the statement of the obvious that Republicans are more likely to be hit by the media and legal system than Democrats are.
Libby was convicted because a) he and Tim Russert have different versions of a story, b) the jury believes Russert even though Russert can’t prove that his version is the right one, and c) the jury believes that only a lie and not faulty memory could explain the differing testimonies.
Everything Alan K. Henderson says above is quite true. However, there is another factor at work.
Take a look at the cover of Time magazine this week (a “reliable source” M. ?) “a cloud over Cheney”. This is the context – a political campaign of which key members of the jury were a part.
These people could not care less about the leak (after all the New York Times often leaks intelligence information – not careing if American or British people are killed as a result), nor that Richard Armitage was the leaker (one can say his name a thousand times and they will still pretend not to hear it) – what they care about is getting Cheney and getting Bush.
They do not care what they get them for (what they have done or what they have not done) any more than they care that Saddam really was trying to buy urianium from Niger.
This is what President Bush does not understand (even after all this time). The progressives do not care about “no-child-left-behind”, or the medicare extention, or being soft on immigration (sometimes I think that the Bush Administration would not care even if useless people like me got into the United States), – they will hate him whatever he does, and they will do anything (anything) to destroy him.
There was another Republican President a few decades ago. He increased welfare state program spending (vastly), he introduced price controls, he introduced vast amounts of other regulation. He ever pulled the American army out of an unpopular war (and he was not the one who put them in there in the first place), although he still allowed air support and supplies for American allies (the final betrayal, and the deaths of millions that were the result of this betrayal, happened after he left office).
And the left destroyed him anyway. They destroyed him for things that had been standard practice in Washington since F.D.R. introduced them. Violating private property in searches, using the I.R.S. on opponents, wire tapping (and so on) all of this was done a thousand times more by F.D.R. and the others than it was by this Republican President of a few decades ago.
The main objection of the left to this man was that he was breathing – and he never really understood that. He thought he could “deal with the problem” by tossing people to the wolves (“letting the legal process run its course”) rather than saying “yes the plumbers went to the hotel looking for information on leaks – this is the sort of thing that Democrat Presidents have ordered a thousand times, as for everything else I am accused of, here are some of the things that F.D.R., Truman, Kennedy and L.B.J. ordered…………”
In fact the Democrats were terrified that he would use the “Samson strategy” and bring the whole rotten, post New Deal government structure down (by exposing what it is based on). They even sent a young lady to talk to him – to try and find out if that was what he was going to do.
The young lady of the early 1970’s is now running for President, and she found out that the man had not even thought of the Samson strategy (of course the lady did not suggest it to him) – so the Democrats could do what they liked.
Republicans may talk about “playing hard ball”, but they do not have a clue.
Paul,
You have taken three posts to respond to my original comment. You have commented on me, my patriotism, and the French Revolution.
However, you still offer no proof whatsoever that Republicans or Democrats have more legal troubles. You still offer no reponse to whether other “employees” at Brewster Jennings had their cover blown. Why is that? Is it because no proof exists or because you prefer writing long vaguely insulting responses over actually looking something up and sharing with us?
Here, let me help you. Per an NY Times opinion piece this week:
Regards,
Mr. Marks,
The question remains not who leaked (I heard it may have been some guy named Dick Armi-something) or whether or not that was a crime (looks like a No, since that law specifies that to be a crime the leak must not just be stupid and dangerous, but stupid and dangerous and intending to hurt America), but why did this particular Libby fellow lie about it. What made Libby’s story disagree with all the other witnesses’ stories? Could it all lead to Libby’s job, perhaps?
It may have been a political witchhunt, but it’s always going to make people wonder why someone would put himself on the bonfire. It’s pretty obvious to me why, but I’m part of the much-feared Vast Left-leaning-but-generally-libertarian Conspiracy.
Michiganny the fact that you cite the New York Times as a reliable source tells me all I need to know about you.
As for the fact that Republicans are more likely to be hit by the media and the legal system than Democrats are – if you deny this (in spite of what your own eyes and ears must have told you over the last several decades) no amount of evidence from me (or anyone else) is going to change your position.
A man who will deny the evidence of his own eyes and ears will deny anything.
jon:
No “the question is” why did President George Walker Bush allow the Fitzgerald “investigation” in the first place (i.e. why did he and the A.G. not tell the Democrats and the media to go jump in the river), then why did he allow the “investigation” to proceed when it became clear that Mr Fitzgerald was not interested in who the leaker was – he was just interested in a political campaign.
And the answer is that President Bush is a person who (despite being under massive attack since 2000 – i.e. long before Iraq or even being elected) still does not understand that the mainstream media and academia (such as the “two professors of communication” that Michiganny’s friends at the death-to-the-West, all-the-news-that-fits New York Times cited) are dedicated to destroying him and everyone connected to him – whatever he does or does not do.
Unless and until Republicans understand (really understand, not half understand) that the main stream media and academia (a long with a lot of other institutions – including the legal establisment) are their sworn enemies, and fight back no-holds-barred, they will be at a big disadvantage.
This is not just true of the United States. This is true, in relation to conservatives, in Britain and many other Western nations.
Gramsci’s “long march through the institutions” has gone a long way (although, of course, the Fabians and the Progressives were doing “Gramsci stuff” before Gramsci was born).
This is not to say that the institutions are dominated by Marxists (indeed, formally speaking, one could argue that Gramsci was not a proper Marxist – as he held that control of the “cultural superstructure” could transform the “relations of production” of the “economic base” which, some would argue, is standing Marxism on its head).
However, the institutions are dominated by people who have been fed (via the schools and universities) various watered down and mutated forms of leftist ideas.
Of course not everyone who is expossed to such an “education” laps it all up. Some are only partly influenced, and some react violently against it. But the “good students” are the ones who tend to prosper in academia, and in the mainstream media, and in the civil service, and in the law (and, sometimes, in the big corporations as well).
Indeed Ludwig Von Mises noted (many decades ago) that even the most intellgent students fall victim to the leftists doctrines. In fact they reject the inconsistent and watered down forms of leftism – and seek out the pure forms (hence “campus radicals”).
After all the intelligent are interested in ideas – and leftist ideas are all they are likely to have ever been presented with. So they will want the pure forms – not the “moderate” (i.e. inconsistent and mutated) stuff.
Mr. Marks,
Interesting reply. Looking at it, I have not much idea of what the question was, so bravo. It went far beyond the usual boilerplate response. Somehow it involves a feckless President, a cabal of media entities, college professors involved in mind-control, and a battle that is not being fought. I thought it was a stupid liar covering for someone. Silly me. I’d stand corrected, but it would probably give me a headache to have to figure out where the Trilateral Commission, the Pope, and Exxon-Mobil fit in.
Jon it is the duty of the “experienced” (i.e. the middle aged and old) to try and explain what is going on (as well as our semi senile brains can).
Sadly many of the young (such as yourself) see it as your duty to be sarcastic – fair enough.
I only hope that your experience of the world is less unpleasant than mine was. May you find things out in a less painful way.
Almost (but not quite) needless to say, most of the “mind control” professors, teachers, media folk, lawyers (and other such) honestly believe in the attitudes and doctrines that they spread. It is a matter of the permeation of ideas – not infiltration in a classic sense.
Although, of course, there is an elite who do know what they are doing and what the final objective is (as can be seen in their own published writings).
There is no “secret plot” these things are fairly open. It is just that most conservatives (and some libertarians) do not bother to look – being “practical” people after all.
Paul, just in this comments section I have cited Wikipedia, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Kim du Toit. In spite of that, to you, one citation I give shows who I am. The others do not? Do you think it is a measure of your perception to draw that conclusion? The rest of us do. Just do not fall over slapping yourself on the back.
Before I enter serious discourse, have you ever wondered how you sound on this blog? You certainly spend enough time commenting on the rest of us. So let me give you a snapshot of the Paul Marks we see: You read plenty of history and philosophy years ago and not much else in the interim or other fields, you hate people by category and caricature, you refuse to concede anybody else’s point in any debate, and unknown to yourself despise everybody who does not think the world in general and any specific topic in any field should be settled by what you spout from the syllabi of your decades ago university courses.
If you can stand it, let us debate ideas instead of each other, maybe even ideas supported by evidence.
Perhaps I have “denied” selective prosecution of one party over another. I am not persuaded by assertions. I also offer evidence myself of its existence. It just does not fit your preconceived and unproved (but perhaps provable) assertion that the GOP is persecuted. If you cannot muster anything to support your assertions, why should anybody believe what you write? Why do you believe what you write? What I have asked for is facts. I still have not received anything close. For what it is worth, I do not see the evidence I provide as being the last word on this topic. It is only by getting different points of view and weighing the evidence and underpinning methodologies that a thoughtful conclusion can be arrived at. Literally, thousands of institutions study topics like this. Some are called university political science programs. Others are called law schools. Are you wholly unfamiliar with them? Are you equally unfamiliar with application of any precepts of the scientific method to the realm of politics or society? Is that why no matter what I write, you respond back with insults, history that is off-topic, and philosphers whose theories are too far from topic to carry any water in the debate at hand? You talk about Marx, Gramsci, and Von Mises when I challenge you to prove that the front company Brewster Jennings did not have other secret agents unmasked when Robert Novak went public. You persuade your audience only of the fact that you have read these guys. Seriously, do you think at the Kennedy School for Government at Harvard that specialists in US politics answer questions about the Bush administration by reaching for their dog-eared Communist Manifesto? Your tangents make you look like a guy insisting that your knowledge of Napoleanic tactics qualifies you to pass judgment on urban combat in Baghdad. Yes, we are losing the war because we fail to march in formation and lack flagbearers to give the men courage. Now I get it.
It took me a few minutes to find something on partisan prosecution. You can damn some newspaper all you want, but can you provide any data damning this study?
Can you dispute that number or anything else about this study?
You state:
Paul, that is not so apparent from where I sit, squarely in the country you opine on. If it were so glaringly obvious, would there not be statistical data? Why do you not provide it? For goodness sake, why do you hold such a view if you cannot articulate why? The universities you despise generate an awful lot of social research. So do the Republican think-tanks which abound here. Perhaps you should read their work. Maybe you can overcome your view that most Republicans are “wastes of space.”
And please, until you can prove some assertion about the US legal system, let us refrain from opening the discussion to the “media.” We appear to have a hard enough time establishing facts on the premises of the original post you authored.
Regards
Michiganny, as I pointed out (although, I admit, it was rather a “statement of the obvious” pointless comment) Repubicans tend to be treated much worse by the media and the legal system (which in some ways is influenced by media coverage) than Democrats do.
You know this perfectly well.
I continue to read – although I may not read as fast as I once did.
As for what I sound like – I do not give a toss.
Paul, I was actually not living in a hole or a foreign country when Bill Clinton was impeached. Are you really going to say that he got a free ride from somebody other than Monica Lewinsky? Where exactly were you when that scandal was pasted on the news and every other show but Sesame Street for years?
Here is a side question burning me up: Every clown now decrying the treatment of Scooter Libby on this confusing conviction of a sort-of non-crime, where the hell were you when Clinton was being impeached? Were you impugning the for-shit reputations of his persecutors who had mistresses and bastards running thither and yon about this country? Were you calling out Dan Burton, Newt Gingrich, and Jesse Helms? Did you evince the same agony for a man who perjured himself in a civil case dismissed for lack of evidence as a man who was the fall guy for a trumped up causus belli that has killed thousands of Americans? Paul, did you raise the fact that in the past we let FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, and JFK off pretty easy when it came to their bedroom activities? You never cease using FDR’s supposed dirty tricks to let Nixon off the hook for being a monumental crook.
The only thing I know perfectly well is that morality, legality, the media, the legal system, and the price of French letters in knocking shops are usually only cited by the politically-minded I read when it helps their side.
And Clinton was a readily forgettable president unless you think his ability to charm crowds is a valid substitute for statesmanship. I am only bringing him up because, well, everybody who spoke English and was not in an Alabama chain gang knew the legal system (in this case the US House of Representatives per the Constitution) and the media (especially–remember that when the NY Times is not attempting to destroy the west, they have columnists like Maureen Dowd winning Pulitzers for scathing commentary about Clinton’s sex life) were doing their utmost to prevent that scandal’s untimely demise.
In closing, Paul, you leave yourself open to the argument that the only thing you know perfectly well about this topic is jack shit.
Regards,
Michiganny in writing “as you know perfectly well” I was assuming you have eyes and ears – if you do not then I apologize. Not quite a rhetorical point – I was once caught out writing something like “you can walk, you do not need a bus to cross town” to someone it turned out could not walk (“once burned”).
As for President Clinton – he remained President. So that counter example does not work. Indeed the media was highly supportive of William Jefferson Clinton (examine the 1996 campaign if you doubt this).
If what you say was true then (for example) the underage boy pimping “Barney” Frank would not be a leading member of the House of Represtatives.
“Too harsh, he did not know what his boyfriend was using the flat for”
Think for a moment. If Congressman Frank had been a Republican what would have happened to him?
Why is Congressman Tom De Lay (spelling alert), not still a leading Congressman? Even his enemies now admit that he was not a crook. Why were the Republicans not even allowed to put up a new candidate? “They were”, as a write in…….
I hold no brief for the Republicans (as I have said many times, they are weak willed and near useless), but yes “you know perfectly well” that the system is biased against them (and has been since at least the 1930’s).
L.B.J. (working as a young man under F.D.R.) used to hand radio licenses partly on the basis of political loyality to the (social) Democrats (he was also influenced by how much money he was paid – but that is another story).
And yes this extends to the legal system. When President Clinton and Janet Reno fired all 93 Federal Prosecutors how much of a media stink was there? But when the Bush people fire 8 Prosecutors…………
Even “conservative” legal academics like Lon Fuller (the teacher of Richard Nixon at Duke) supported vile stuff like the legal fiction of the invitee (to allow transpassers and house breakers to sue for any serious harm that came to them). And how many law academics stand up for the Tenth Amendment these days?
As for areas like English Literature (well I will not repeat things I have only just read in Elizabeth Kantor’s little book, no doubt you do not need me to state the obvious – whatever else you may be, you are not a stupid or ignorant man).
As for the sources you cited:
Wikipedia is not a source at all – “anyone can edit it” (and that is true – I have edited bits of it at times), so political articles are determined by which side hit them last.
I also notice that you did not cite a single conservative or libertarian source. Your sources were (apart from Wikipedia – see above) from the other side in the culture war.
Which universities did your experts come from Michiganny?
Is it “hating people by categories” for me to guess that they did not come from places like Hillsdale or Grove City College?
Why does it not work? Has any other president resigned due to a sex scandal? It was not that he did not leave office early that makes it relevant. It was because he was the only president embroiled in sex scandal that ended in impeachment.
Think for a moment. If Congressman Frank had been a Republican what would have happened to him? There is a difference in political parties on what sexual misconduct means. It means much more in a party that embraces Wahabbist Christianity. It is a strange currency to spend, because it obviously has no value to the non-lobotomized, but the GOP actually professes to be holier-than-thou. Pat Roberts and Bob Jones University have little to do with mainstream America. They are pandered to by the GOP the way labor unions are by the Democrats. The AFL-CIO membership is a lot less interested in Congressman-on-youth sex than people who piss and moan that buggery was legalized in Texas (see Justice Scalia). His sexcapades did earn him a bipartisan and incredibly rare official censure.
Tom Delay lost his job because he died by the sword he lived by. When you imply to federal agents that all Democratic assemblymen in Texas who refuse to attend session to avoid a quorum and the resulting gerrymandering that will occur have been kidnapped or killed by al-Qaida, you take your chances and buy your own ticket to golf. He did not and has paid the consequences. I agree with your thrust that what he was actually caught on was not particularly heinous. I think the same thing about Libby and Clinton. Like them, there are real implications to what they did. But I see them as birds of a feather, not completely different. I will admit it drives me nuts that people cannot discuss this stuff without partisan spin to win one more skirmish in the “culture war” that is more of a shorthand than a reality in America.
Elizabeth Kantor accurately portrays the crap in university English departments. Judging from her writing, she would replace it with her own crap (“From “Beowulf,” students could learn that military virtue is both necessary and noble”), but point taken.
Lastly, on sources. Thank you for showing that you have some. It is a relief. Wikipedia is not a place to fully understand the changing nature of America’s relationship with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It is a place to find out when Mark Twain was born and died. If you can find anything particularly partisan I cited within it, please do so.
The NY Times has its own viewpoint, but that does not mean it lacks value completely. The same must be said for the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. It is certainly a lot more accessible than the latter are. I can access it everyday for free with bootleg editions of its columnists all over the place. The Journal is only sold in hard copy in two places in my county and I am not going to lay out good money for newspapers on the web. Besides, your frequent mention of Marx does not have me accusing you of being a socialist.
Do you really believe there is a culture war and that you are in it? I know I am not, but then again, I have been teasing my mother, an English teacher retiring shortly, for all of my adult life for keeping Beowulf on her students’ reading list. It is not because I want her to extol “queer theorists” but because there are simply more enjoyable things to read out there of at least equal quality.
Regards,
On Beowulf:
Tolkien’s defence of the teaching of Anglo Saxon works will be known to you. However, although he tried to stay above it, he was part of the “lit versus lan” war at Oxford (recently won, many years after his death, by the “lit” people) so, yes, it is a defence with a vested interest in it.
Tom Delay’s recent book seems to show a man with guilt feelings. Not over his media claimed crimes (that was all B.S.), but over being a leading man in the majority in the House of Representatives for almost twelve years – and having so little good to show for it.
As for the political games – he did nothing that had not been standard practice for Democrats in Texas since there has been a Texas. But (whilst not illegal) he was using his energy on stuff aimed getting political power – not using the political power to roll back statism. That is the great paradox of politics – in order to roll back the government one must have political power, but it takes so much effort and time to get political power that (without one even knowing it) it becomes an end in-its-self. Using the state to reduce the state has all sorts of problems built into it anyway.
For a man who went into politics to make government smaller his record is poor – and he knows it. Hence the the attacks on his fellow Republicans. Certainly the attacks are correct (George Bush is a big spending, Gingrich was a hypocrite [as he says himself] for going after Clinton over a sex scandal when he was having an affair himself – and so on), but T.D. did not achieve the things he told everyone (most importantly himself) that he would achieve – and (worse) he stopped trying to achieve them (getting distracted with political games).
The W.S.J. editorial page (certainly not the F.T.) is an exception to the “liberal” left domination of the print media.
In fact New York City is a reason I have to be be careful about talking about the left domination of the American press – as there is not only the W.S.J. editoral page (and it is basically just the editorial page – they do not even have a conservative television critic), there is the New York Post as well.
On Clinton – he basically got a soft ride from the mainstream media in the 1996 campaign. But then Dole and Kemp (so good on paper) were ineffective – for example they did not even counter the attack ads made against them till the debates.
Then we had the pathetic sight of Bob Dole explaining that he used to sign his grandparents welfare state cheques when he worked in government in Kansas – and that he had voted against Medicare and Medicaid back in the 1960’s because he had supported the Republican versions of these bills over Democrat vesions.
It was all much too late and much too complex.
He did not even say “Medicare and Medicaid together cost five billion Dollars in the first year – how many HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS [excuse the capitals – on a comment italics are not available to me] do they cost now? If these programs are not reformed they will eventually collapse and people like you are standing in the way of reform”.
When under attack – go on the attack. Do not produce long complex defences (weeks after the attack ads have gone out in battleground States) of votes thirty years before.
On sex – why should Republicans be treated more harshly than Democrats? Is it because they preach “family values” but do not practice them?
But then the whole of morality will never make any sort of come back – as it is always possible to point at someone who does not practice what he preaches.
The people (or at least the men) who fought against child prostitution in London and other British cities had strong sex drives themselves (they had a lot of energy – they were that sort of person). Their letters and journals show men in terrible inner war – and sometimes falling to temptation (not child sex but other things).
Does that mean that the people who did not even try to live decently should have been supported? For example Gladstone may seem absurd (for example trying to save prostitutes from the street by inviting them back to Downing Street to meet people who could help them – and after they had left punishing himself because he had impure thoughts). But he really did try and bring moral principles into his poltics (rather than just go with the flow) and he did achive some things (domestically and overseas).
The fact that he was not perfect and sometimes fell from grace does not alter that. Even if the first speech he made in the House of Commons was against the sudden ending of slavery (a speech that was certainly inflenced by the West Indies links of Liverpool, indeed his own family – and a speech that was to be a weight on his soul till the day he died).
Still sex is only part of the “culture war”. And yes I do believe there is one.
At least since the French Revolution (indeed before this) there have been powerful movements to try and destroy all non political insistutions – to make everything either individual or political (with no truely independent cultural institutions based in history and custom rather than politics).
From the Jacobins to the Social Gospel movement to the Progressives (whether of the late 19th and early 20th centuries or today) these movements are very strong indeed. Of couse it is absurd to think in terms of everyone in these movements believeing and acting exactly a like (like “the Borg” from “Star Trek”), but it is also mistaken to think that these movements do not exist.
If civil society is to survive they must be resisted.
Family is not a plot against women. Churches should not be basically about political campaigns to extend the Welfare State (or political campaigns to roll it back for that matter).
Universities should be about transmitting knowledge and ways of conduct from the past, plus any new ideas that might challenge errors in the past.
They should not be about “creating a new society”, by suppressing ideas and traditions that do not fit with this “new society”.
And so on.
Being in favour of civil society does not mean being in favour of the status que (Edmund Burke spent the vast majority of his time attacking regualtions and corrupt practices). Any more than being in favour of traditional values means being intolerant (again the strongly Christian Burke was friendly with the athiest David Hume – and the hetrosexual family man Burke denouced the harsh punishment of homosexual acts, even at the risk of being called a homosexual himself).
It means thinking there is value in ways of living that have evolved by civil interaction over centuries – and opposing the notion that human society can and should be planned by an “enlightened elite”.
This is the sort of conservativism that the British Conservative party in Britain has utterly rejected, but the Republican party half holds on to a ghost of (at least in theory – if not in practice).
Of course the idea (of Karl Rove and co) that the Federal government can be used to impose “conservative values” (via no-child-left-behind and other absurdites) is to be rejected. But there is a chance that “big government conservatism” (mixed with the equally absurd notion of some [not nearly as many as is claimed] “religous conservatives” that one can save souls by coercing bodies) will lose out.
I would argue that a correct understanding of conservatism (the support of civil society) is a libertarian understanding – but then “I would say that” as I am a libertarian.
—- wow… what kind of alternate reality did I stumble into… o… i see DrBillyBob is here… man gets around and I’ll be… he has a question:
“for all you Dems cheering this conviction, can you please explain to me why Clinton should not have also been convicted and removed from office by the US Senate.”
Well first off I don’t consider myself a Dem but I am an American who is loyal to this Country and its Constitution and not to any right or left wing ideology. Secondly, your question reminds me of the OJ double jeopardy comparison: criminal v. civil thus compares apples and oranges. Anyway, I will explain as simply as I can:
Clinton lied under oath about consensual sex in a civil matter involving alleged sexual harassment. The sexual harassment suit was dismissed pursuant to a Motion for Summary Judgment indicating the suit had no merit whatsoever even if all allegations were proved true. While I do not condone lying under oath even about a non-material manner it is not perjury b/c perjury involves lying under oath about a material fact. There are no material facts in an unmeritorious civil lawsuit for money damages.
As to impeachment, Pres Clinton did not abuse his office and his lie did not involve his duties as President or the abuse of his office and therefore did not rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. Further, here there truly was no underlying crime as sexual harassment is a civil matter not criminal therefore there is no “prosecution.”
Mr. Libby on the other hand lied about material facts involving a criminal case involving the disclosure of the name of a CIA employee/agent covered by the Espionage Act. This is a crime and clear abuse of the govt office Mr L held b/c he would not have been privy to the info “but for” his govt position. There is no need to impeach Mr L because he was found guilty of crimes punishable by jail time: Guilty of Obstruction of Justice as he blocked the investigation by lying, False Stmts to the FBI, and 2 counts of Perjury.
Mr. L has not yet been found liable for $$$$ damages in a civil case… but get this: there is a civil case… you may still get a chance to have any further clarification made clear to you and may even see VP Cheney testify under oath. As any lie he may tell is likely to effect the civil case it is material testimony subject to perjury.
As to Plames status: the prosecutor appointed by W’s AG made a legal finding that she was covered by the Act and had done “covert work overseas” on counterproliferation matters in the past five years and the CIA “was making specific efforts to conceal her identity.”
We will never know all the damage done by the disclosure of Brewster Jennings as a CIA shell company b/c naturally and for good reason it would be classified. Common sense would tell you however that any foreign national who cooperated w/ the CIA through contacts at this CIA front would now be compromised, under suspicion by their govt, and in danger. Also as the “employees” of Brewster Jennings were NOC’s they would also be in danger since they have no diplomatic immunity.
I apoligize my explaination is longer than the usual talking point your used to memorizing but I hope helps clarify these issues for you … though I am not hopeful given the stmts here.
For what its worth, let me ask you Right-Wing-Ideologues a question regarding the myth of a “liberal media” that you perpetuate. If fewer than 5 corporations own 85% of all media and each of these corporations is highly profitable w/ highly paid execs and a few are even big defense contractors (e.g. GE which owns NBC). What would be the motive for these large corporations and its wealthy execs to propagate liberal ideas such as higher taxes on the wealthy and closing tax loopholes for offshore corporations etc?
Will you answer me this? or haven’t you heard the talking points yet from Rove broadcasted by Fox for its mindless followers?
For someone who claims not to be a Democrat you are quick to denounce Fox news T3.
Of course Fox broadcasts the opinions of Democrats a lot of the time – it even employs many Democrats.
But then you may really not be a Democrat T3 – you may be a “Progressive” or whatever code word for socialist is “in” at the moment.
As for your support of the Constitution of the United States. Would this include such things as the Tenth Amendment?
I doubt you will be out there demanding the end of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (and so on). In fact, like Karl Rove over the last six years, you are most likely in favour of yet more unconstitutional spending by the Federal government.
As for President Clinton “not abusing his office” that is hard to fit in with (for example) his pardon for many international criminals who he and his family were connected with. Although, I admit, the Republicans choosing to go after him over a sex thing (when there was so much else) was pathetic.
As for Mrs Wilson (like the media, including Fox, you choose to name her as if she was not married to Mr Wilson) she was “outed” by Richard Armitage – not Lewis Libby.
I notice that you do not attack Mr Armitage – is that because he was an Iraq war critic? I also noticed that neither Prosecutor Fitzgerald or the jury (made up of Washington Post journalists, academics and the rest of the usual suspects) choose to mention Mr Armitage either – they talked about Karl Rove and the President and Vice President, not about the person who had actually “outed” Mrs Wilson.
Nor did they mention that Mr Wilson original article in the New York Times was a pack of lies. For Saddam did indeed try to buy uranium from Niger.