Post by BATMAN1 on Mar 6, 2007 15:43:24 GMT -5
Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's former top aide, has just been found guilty of numerous felonies. But what does the verdict mean?
By Michael Tomasky, guardian.co.uk
In the biggest news story of the year so far out of Washington, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, has just been convicted by a jury for lying about his role in the public outing of a covert CIA officer whose husband, a former diplomat, had strongly challenged the Bush administration's case for going to war against Iraq.
Libby was found guilty on four out of five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about a conversation with Tim Russert, one of Washington's most powerful journalists.
So what does this mean? At least three important things. First, the verdict means that it's now been officially established in a court of law that the administration was engaged in a campaign to discredit an undercover officer and a diplomat, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. Libby's defense - that he learned about Plame's identity from journalists - paralleled the administration's public arguments that it made no effort to try to expose Plame and Wilson to criticism. The jury didn't buy that.
Second, the verdict vindicates the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. Mountains of calumny have been heaped on him by the right since he brought the indictment against Libby. Conservatives were waiting for an acquittal to pounce on Fitzgerald, on Wilson, on Plame - and on Democrats and liberals generally for having made a federal case out of nothing. They would have used an acquittal to shut down all the talk about the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, which was Joe Wilson's initial accusation. And not only conservatives - a lot of the paragons of Washington morality (yes, an oxymoron) were waiting, too. Bob Woodward, who used to be a great investigative reporter, once called Fitzgerald a "junkyard dog prosecutor". Can't be said now.
Third and most important, the guilty verdict means that pre-war intelligence manipulation will continue to be a political issue. When it was in Republican hands, the United States Senate summarily shut down an inquiry into the matter. Now that Democrats are in charge, they will pursue it. The trial was focused on Libby, but questions remain about how directly Cheney and chief presidential aide Karl Rove were involved in all this. The verdict gives Democrats, who by dint of their majority control can now subpoena administration officials, added momentum to turn over the rocks. A juror said that Libby, though guilty, was just a "fall guy". Congress now has to look higher than Libby's level, especially at Cheney.
Far from being the sideshow that conservatives and moralists like Woodward described, this trial was always centrally about the Iraq war. The Bush administration built much of its case for invasion on lies. When those lies were exposed, its response was to try to destroy the whistleblowers - even one who was a covert CIA officer.
Here's what one noted American had to say about this kind of behavior: "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." The speaker was George Bush Sr, in 1999. And that's exactly what his son oversaw.
By Michael Tomasky, guardian.co.uk
In the biggest news story of the year so far out of Washington, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, has just been convicted by a jury for lying about his role in the public outing of a covert CIA officer whose husband, a former diplomat, had strongly challenged the Bush administration's case for going to war against Iraq.
Libby was found guilty on four out of five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about a conversation with Tim Russert, one of Washington's most powerful journalists.
So what does this mean? At least three important things. First, the verdict means that it's now been officially established in a court of law that the administration was engaged in a campaign to discredit an undercover officer and a diplomat, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. Libby's defense - that he learned about Plame's identity from journalists - paralleled the administration's public arguments that it made no effort to try to expose Plame and Wilson to criticism. The jury didn't buy that.
Second, the verdict vindicates the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. Mountains of calumny have been heaped on him by the right since he brought the indictment against Libby. Conservatives were waiting for an acquittal to pounce on Fitzgerald, on Wilson, on Plame - and on Democrats and liberals generally for having made a federal case out of nothing. They would have used an acquittal to shut down all the talk about the manipulation of pre-war intelligence, which was Joe Wilson's initial accusation. And not only conservatives - a lot of the paragons of Washington morality (yes, an oxymoron) were waiting, too. Bob Woodward, who used to be a great investigative reporter, once called Fitzgerald a "junkyard dog prosecutor". Can't be said now.
Third and most important, the guilty verdict means that pre-war intelligence manipulation will continue to be a political issue. When it was in Republican hands, the United States Senate summarily shut down an inquiry into the matter. Now that Democrats are in charge, they will pursue it. The trial was focused on Libby, but questions remain about how directly Cheney and chief presidential aide Karl Rove were involved in all this. The verdict gives Democrats, who by dint of their majority control can now subpoena administration officials, added momentum to turn over the rocks. A juror said that Libby, though guilty, was just a "fall guy". Congress now has to look higher than Libby's level, especially at Cheney.
Far from being the sideshow that conservatives and moralists like Woodward described, this trial was always centrally about the Iraq war. The Bush administration built much of its case for invasion on lies. When those lies were exposed, its response was to try to destroy the whistleblowers - even one who was a covert CIA officer.
Here's what one noted American had to say about this kind of behavior: "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." The speaker was George Bush Sr, in 1999. And that's exactly what his son oversaw.
