It's about time.
Today, ladies and gentlemen, marks a day in history not yet seen in the current Bush administration.
Lewis "Scooter" Libby was finally convicted of obstruction of justice and pergury, an offense almost guaranteed to receive serious prison time, according to some CNN analysts. Those of you who haven't been following this case (understandably, as most of it seems like just another corrupt, Washington politico scandal) allow me to recap, because there are numerous events that lead up to Signore Libby being charged with a federal crime. In short, it started with comments that President Bush made in his State of the Union address prior to the initial invasion of Iraq. During the speech, Bush implicated that Saddam was attempting to purchase mass amounts of weapons grade uranium (wow, it's been a while since that term's been used, eh?) from various operatives in Niger, Africa.
Well, that simply was not true-- in fact, it was pure fabrication, likely included in the speech to bolster the American public's support of his invasion (his, not ours). Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. Ambassador to Niger who was sent to Africa to investigate said claims, wrote an Op-Ed column in the New York Times, stating what he found, or didn't, in this case. (STAY WITH ME HERE PEOPLE. I'm getting to the punchline soon)
Fastforward a few months, in late 2003, after the column was published. Well-known Times columnist Robert Novak published a story stating that "high-up government officials" were skeptical of Wilson's findings, saying that he was only in Niger because his wife, CIA Agent Valerie Plame, was there on business, and that he was simply jetsetting along with her.
Well, therein lays the problem, folks. In "passing," they outed one of the most clandestine CIA agents in the country, Valerie Plame. Ironically, Plame was working on a WMD case at the time. So, for those Washington high-ups to not even bat an eye at releasing that information publicly, in a clear jab at Wilson for criticizing the war-mongering Bush administration, is simply ridiculous, and is the main reason for this pandemonium. Patrick Fitzgerald was called in to investigate the case, after Novak and the Times were mitigated of any crime (the source is the law-breaker, not the medium). Everything was traced back to Libby (as well as Rove, and most likely Cheney and Bush) after he repeatedly lied to investigators about leaking the information.
As a journalist, I'm torn on the matter. In my opinion, Novak was wrong for publishing the information (he claims that he thought Plame was an overt agent), so tisk tisk to the news media. But on the other hand, it all originated from an administration that does not welcome any criticism against its actions.
So, to put an end to this long-winded post, I'm glad Libby was found guilty. In the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
Amen, brother. Couldn't have said it better myself.
posted by John Cropper at
8:27 PM
3 Comments:
All in all it's still an everyday Washington scandal that is "resolved" by the conviction of a minuscule player compared to those that should have been sought (i.e. Cheney, Rove, et al). Don't get me wrong, Libby's an idiot for lying, but it's undeniable idiocy of his lies that baffles me in understanding his motivation in the first place. This conviction just gives the impression of closure to something that is still completely wide open. This is just another pathetic example of how much this administration rails citizens and in the ass, and we all take and enjoy because the NY Times says "everything is going to be alright". Fact remains, we still don't know who leaked (don't give me the Armitage is the only one bullshit) and meanwhile every probable and substantial suspect walks clean, yet again, with the possibility of paying chump change to the Wilson couple. "It's about time" that our 'noble' journalists who are so endowed in wringing Washington's dirty towel actually produce some dirt and stop feeding it's desperately awaiting audience this "celebratory" nonsense.
Sorry to sound mean John, haha, but admit it, Scooter probably won't enter as the 'fish' that we'd all like him to be, but rather spend time in a Martha Stewart penitentiary along with all of the other Jack Abramoff's. Not to mention, if Bush steeps any lower in his political oblivion, he might just pardon the bastard. And all the meanwhile our 'revolutionary' wave of blue that have control over both houses sit and contemplate how any action they take might affect the he's and she's of '08.
I completely agree with most of what you said. I realize Libby was more of a "fall guy" for a larger group of people (or maybe just a few considerably higher-ups), but in this case I guess i'm more concerned with the implications of the case. That is, that an attempt to smear a public "calling-out" of one of many fallacies didn't go unpunished, as it has so often in the past. I realize that, had the leak not jeapordized a U.S. intelligence operation, than no "crime" would have been committed in the first place. And maybe you're right. Maybe Libby is just the figurehead, the scapegoat for something that Washington couldn't wash of its hands (considering they initially had one of their own conducting the investigation.) And i'm willing to bet there's no way in hell he'll serve anywhere close to the maximum 25 years. He'll be off to a white-collar resort, for sure.
But the fact remains, it didn't just get swept under the ever-dirty Washington rug this time, and therein lies my interest.
And wouldn't it just be great if Bush pardoned him? At this point I seriously wouldn't put it past him.
Actually, what really piqued my interest in this case was my affiliation with the journalistic side if things. The sort of blind-relationship that exists between the players in Washington and the so called "elite" media-- the anonymity of sources, the five star treatment given by the influential-- is all a bit disconcerting. But, in the end, stories are made of it.
There's an excellent 4-part documentary on Frontline right now which chronicles the state of news journalism and its future (most of which would only be interesting to news nerds like me). The fourth part is airing on the 27th of March, but all of it can be streamed at Frontline's Web site. I'd recommend watching it. They go in depth into the Plame case, as well as other cases in which government bigwigs tip off the news media, and the melee that ensues. It's called Newswar. I was planning on including some details from that in this post, but got sidetracked.
Yea, I've watched a lot of the Frontline piece already, it's good. What I liked the most about it is the display of the vulnerability even the major news outlets are still somewhat subject to. There are some other good documentaries out there; I think one is called "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" and of course Chomsky's "Mass Consent" is a masterpiece.
As little trust that I place on major news sources (any television network, and most papers), I still use them to 'stay in touch,' especially the NY Times (my home page at work). However, I feel the more and more that I read them, and consistently follow their following of stories (developments, op-ed's, biases, etc.)I can't help but to cringe in the same nervousness and disgust as when I hear our president speak. Each day I except less and less justification for the double standards that consistently printed. I hate reading a piece on the tragedies of gold mines (both humane and environmental) in Africa in the Times, then seeing a three page fold out on gold watches and jewelry.
I understand media sources have a business to support (and that online classifieds are one example of a hurting business), but their constant adapatation and justification for the change (or swallow of supposed pride) based on an evolving market removes them further and further from the objective in which they feel 'drives' the journalistic endeavor. Of course you know more about this 'drive' than I do, but based on my own personal experience, and lifelong relationship with most media forms, I think I pick up the motives enough to point them out. I guess my main question is, 'which came first, the curious reader, or the newspaper?' Sometimes I just can't tell who's serving whom.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home