Whup-ass
by sarabeth at 9:56 am on March 7th, 2007 in Media, PlamegateThere is no way anyone can begin to address all the sheer hogwash that Bush regime apologists are spouting about that gross miscarriage of American justice, the Libby verdict.
But as a former ranking member of the world of Finance, I feel obliged to at least shine a spotlight on the even more than usually asinine statement the Wall Street Journal delivered itself of:
In other words, he has not been convicted of lying to anyone about the case for war in Iraq, or about Mr. Wilson or his wife.
Rather, he has been convicted of telling the truth about Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame to some reporters but then not owning up to it. One tragic irony is that if Mr. Libby had only taken the Harold Ickes grand-jury strategy and said “I don’t recall,” he probably never would have been indicted. But our guess is that he tried to cooperate with the grand jury because he never really believed he had anything to hide.
Convicted of telling the truth to reporters. That’s one way to describe lying to the FBI and the grand jury.
Look forward to the WSJ describing a murder case as the accused killer being persecuted merely for speeding up the recycling of organic material. Or maybe they will describe child molestation as merely an enthusiasm for providing children with vital information they are definitely going to need in the future. Just giving them a leg up in life. A head start. So that no one gets left behind.
And, by the way, dear WSJ, our guess is that he lied to the FBI and the grand jury because it never for a moment occured to him that there was any risk whatsoever of getting caught. It never for a moment occured to him that Patrick Fitzgerald would be able to get journalists to talk about their discussions with confidential sources.
And you know what? We think our guess so totally whups your guess’s ass.
sarabeth wrote:
oh, and the wsj also believes that Bush owes Libby a pardon. And that he should pardon Libby now, without waiting for the outcome of an appeal.
Posted 07 Mar 2007 at 10:02 am ¶
jamie wrote:
see, this whole pardon thing is totally creeping me out, because if it happens, i think, besides being a gross miscarriage of justice, it may ultimately work in our favor….
it is very stark, simple example of how little respect the bush administration has for the citizens of this country. “a jury of your peers convicts you, i pardon you. end of story” and with an approval rating of 33%, what do you really have to lose?
if that happens, do you think it’s possible that a pardon of scooter (BTW, my dad used to call me that, how weird is that?) could negatively impact the republicans’ chance in 2008 the way monica shot gore in the foot?
Posted 07 Mar 2007 at 1:59 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
personally I would really like to see libby in prison, having his ass greased up several times a day by the unwitting instruments of poetic justice.
but i fully agree that a bush pardon of libby will disgust the nation so much it will definitely impact the 2008 cycle.
all the more so becasue of the perception that libby lied only to protect bush and cheney by covering up their role in plamegate. bush wouldn’t be seen as pardoning an ex white house staffer so much as saving his own sorry ass.
libby’s too, though, and literally instead of metaphorically.
to me the golden mean would be for libby to be pardoned after he had spent enough time in jail to leave him permanently unable to sit down again.
Posted 07 Mar 2007 at 2:37 pm ¶
jamie beth wrote:
we’re giggling over here on the east coast. thanks, we needed that.
Posted 07 Mar 2007 at 7:21 pm ¶
robmandu wrote:
you utilize the process of writing intelligently enough. and the point of this blog is expound upon your view of daily political happenings. so i assume you must recall why all this hullaballoo was started in the first place. the short of is:
1. wilson made some negative statements about the bush white house and its policies
2. therefore, bush and cronies decided to punish him by outing his cia-operative wife, plame, who was still actively undercover
3. libby was the tool to implement the retribution
since then, we all now know, and it’s uncontested that:
1. plame was already outed *years* before libby’s alleged remark by other officials talking to other journalists… andrea mitchell’s testimony would’ve been very helpful
2. the evidence against libby was personal memory as reported with conflicting statements by every major witness, including libby, including the fbi, including russert, etc
3. libby is now looking at jail time for supposedly lying about something that it’s proven he did not do, and is all based on what amounts to conflicting personal recollections all along the way
4. and plame wasn’t undercover at the time anyway
so the original “crime” never happened. and libby’s is facing jail and fines for not remembering events in the right sequence… just like everyone else.
where’s all your righteous indignation over sandy berger? stuffing secret documents down his pants? because he was just “sloppy”? Really. C’mon.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 9:16 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
kind of depends on the definition of “we all” and “know”, doesn’t it?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 9:20 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
oh, and you have also misunderstood the point of this blog.
it is actually just to make jamie giggle from time to time.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 9:21 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
the short of it didn’t make much sense. why don’t you go ahead and give us the long of it too?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 9:25 am ¶
robmandu wrote:
golly, my short post was nearly as long as your original article… but hey, if we can get another giggle out of jaime…
let me try this tack: what was the original impetus behind this story over a year ago? wasn’t it the possible conspiracy that bushies were out to get the anti-bushies? that libby in particular used his powerful position to jeopardize the career, the life, of valerie plame simply as retribution for some statements her husband made?
so are you happy that libby, while not actually having been busted for participating in the supposed conspiracy outright, is looking at jail and fines for the much, much less reprehensible “obstruction of justice”? His “lies”, reasonably thinking, could simply be an artifact of mis-remembering. He should’ve just said, “I do not recall, sir” and avoided all this.
berger, on the other hand, steals, destroys, and outright lies… and then walks away after an apology with some slap-on-the-wrist community service and nothing fine.
at the end of the day, it seems you’re just gunning for anything that could possibly put bush & co. in a bad light. they certainly have enough valid targets to go after, why all the jazz around this nothing thing? again, the precipitating event wasn’t even a crime.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 9:53 am ¶
robmandu wrote:
i guess what really irks me is the “…greased up several times a day by the unwitting instruments of poetic justice” part.
seriously. not talking child molester, serial murderer, old folks beater here. did he personally injure you in some intimate way?
libby’s just a guy who talked about something he probably shouldn’t have, even though it wasn’t a crime at the time. simple prudence about things confidential past/present/future is something he should reinvest in.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 9:59 am ¶
matt wrote:
please stop before you hurt yourself:
and of course:
he did it. he’s guilty. he’ll do hard time or receive a politically difficult pardon which will inherently prove that he actually knows he’s guilty. there’s no comparison to sandy berger, unless you want to continue on to why lying about blow jobs is cause for impeachment and lying to the grand jury and prosecutors about national security isn’t anything to be concerned about.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 10:02 am ¶
robmandu wrote:
wow. thanks for the um, timely, 18 month-old news article matt. keep up the good work.
he wasn’t found guilty of outing plame. he “was convicted March 6, 2007, of lying to F.B.I. agents and grand jurors investigating the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative amid a burning dispute over the war in Iraq.”
according to andrea mitchell, it was already widely know.
don’t get me wrong. perjury is serious and he was duly convicted. seems to me that the punishment is excessive, but i’m not in the court.
what gets me is the unbridled glee that this forum has shown at contemplating the possibility that libby could get to practice the prison pole vault (see comment #3 by sarabeth and its reception by jamie in #4).
i appreciate different political viewpoints. but do the leading contributors really need to slog down into the dirt like this? especially for what was a legal non-event (albeit a media storm for sure).
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 10:20 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
robmandu:
matt:
robmandu still thinks he’s the one talking sense.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 10:31 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
so two gals do a forum quorum make, huh?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 10:32 am ¶
matt wrote:
it’s a press conference. word for word, explaining why no more charges weren’t filed. it’s not that there wasn’t another crime, it just couldn’t be proven.
so your point…?
really? and the impeachment victory laps were what, bridled?
dirt? you mean the prison rape jokes? if so, what the fuck ever.
“perjury is serious” = “legal non-event” i think i have it now.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 10:35 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
matt, can we please expand our raison de etré to include “getting” robmandu?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 10:36 am ¶
matt wrote:
we’ll see if we can get a forum quorum at the next convention.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 10:38 am ¶
robmandu wrote:
heh. “so two gals do a forum quorum make, huh?” sarabeth, you *are* the original author. are we supposed to lend less credence to what you say just because it’s in the comments?
and gee, if you’re not even gonna try to check my references, i can spell it out here. mitchell said:
later she “disavowed the statement, saying she was confused, or it was taken out of context, or she was just wrong.”
quick! sic the independent counsel on andrea mitchell! she changed her testimony!
so much of this entire case revolves around what people remembering to have happened… and everyones’ memories are faulty. at the end of the day, i don’t excuse libby for lying to investigators, but it would be nice to see equal standards applied to all such nefariousness.
in light of the berger and libby cases, i’d think that heretofore stauch anti-bush folks would be trying to figure out how to sing bush’s praise. berger (a clintonista) walks away from theft and conspiracy with active help from justice dept, while libby (a bush cronie) is left twisting in the wind.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 10:49 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
in the hope that it’ll make you go away:
praise be to Bush for leaving Libby twisting in the wind.
That’s what you wanted, right?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:09 am ¶
robmandu wrote:
matt wrote, “and the impeachment victory laps were what, bridled?”
ooooohhh… i see. simple revenge and one-up-manship. some folks cheered a victory about clinton’s impeachment, so let’s cheer prison rape on anyone from the subsequent administration 7 years later. and while we’re at it, let’s all dream and laugh and fervently wish that cheney would just die.
sheesh. let it go. move on. focus on what’s relevant today. what the frig does clinton’s impeachment have to do with libby’s conviction?
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:09 am ¶
matt wrote:
i’m going to warn you one time about this. ascribing the words and views of others to anyone writing here is a huge no-no. it just inst tolerated, and this isn’t up for debate. do it again, and you’ll be banned.
the same as libby has to do with berger, who you brought up. for fuck’s sake.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:14 am ¶
robmandu wrote:
sarabeth wrote, “praise be to Bush for leaving Libby twisting in the wind. That’s what you wanted, right?”
hey, it’s intellectually honest, if you mean it.
// an aside //
noticed my comments now await moderation. huh. let’s see, no course language. citing my sources. staying on point to the blog topic. and i even threw in some clever alliteration (practice the prison pole vault ) in an attempt to get a laugh out of jaime.
sorry. should’ve i have just written “you go, girl!”?
// end aside //
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:15 am ¶
robmandu wrote:
matt wrote, “ascribing the words and views of others to anyone writing here is a huge no-no”
hey, sorry. didn’t think i was ascribing anything to the authors here. but it’s your site. i respect your rules. again, sorry.
dude, clinton was *years* ago. the berger verdict just came down in this last month or so, which makes it a timely comparison to the libby trial. especially as they both deal in the area of espionage, not personal presedential dalliances.
apparently i’ve pushed your buttons. really was just trying to talk and not cheeze all you folks off.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:21 am ¶
matt wrote:
we don’t control the spam filter. it does however display a keen sense of judgment. more likely, it is keyed off of your rapid fire style.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:26 am ¶
robmandu wrote:
just trying to keep up on the 2 against 1… after all, sarabeth has expressed interest in “getting” me and i don’t want to disappoint you by not playing hard to get.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:28 am ¶
matt wrote:
you went from cheering scooter’s impending rectal issues to cheney’s “assassination attempt.” that was never discussed here, and became famous via the librul media making everest out of idiots. and you don’t see how it cuts a bit close?
you’ve done nothing of the kind. we’re not cheezed. mildly bemused is closer.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:29 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
and in case you hadn’t noticed sarabeth has already tuned out and moved on
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:35 am ¶
robmandu wrote:
obviously.
namaste
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 11:39 am ¶
sac wrote:
Matt has buttons on his buttons. It’s endearing after a while.
Posted 08 Mar 2007 at 12:12 pm ¶
screwtape wrote:
Isn’t that kind of like “I take CARE of my kids”? Isn’t the president *supposed* to let those verdicts stand? Why would anyone give him credit or praise for something his is supposed to do?
Posted 11 Mar 2007 at 12:36 pm ¶