Similarly, the Democrats are playing up the idea that White House officials may have endangered national security in playing hardball politics. Well, I can remember all the times I picked up the phone and talked "on background" to reporters, "pushing back" against rumors damaging to President Clinton and citing information that I thought was "out there." I don't remember ever worrying about whether the facts that I felt were public knowledge might have been classified. But even if I had, I would probably have rationalized that anything I had heard on the grapevine couldn't possibly be a state secret. If every political aide was prosecuted for those kinds of conversations with the press corps, I'm afraid there wouldn't be enough jails to hold us.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Lanny Davis, special counsel to President Bill Clinton from 1996 to 1998, has this to say about Scooter Libby's discussions about Valerie Plame:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The point is or atleast should be that at some point in the chain someone KNEW that it should not be told and they still DID tell someone else. It's entirely possible that it does go to Cheney and that he fucked up. Mistakes are made but breaking the law is still breaking the law. I still find it funny that with all that's happening and being revealed with the Bush administration there hasn't even been an attempt to impeach him yet Clinton only had to cheat on his wife. I see a problem here.
Yes, David Wiley is correct.
In addition, if Libby knew Plame was an operative and that was a secret, then he broke the law and should be prosecuted to the full extent of that law. "But everyone does it" is never an acceptable excuse, and especially should not be when it comes to matters of national security. If found guilty, then he'll have to face the consequences for breaking the law.
You know, it's not for you or I to judge how severe the punishment or lack thereof of such a violation should be. It's enough that the law was broken, no matter what political side he is/was on. The law itself says what the punishment for violation is.
So, did Libby know Plame's CIA identity was a secret? He should have. Whomever told alerted him that Plame was a CIA operative should also have been responsible for letting him know that Plame's identity was matter of national security. If they didn't, then they're as much to blame as he is.
Jon
But the point is that the indictment found that no law was broken at all (as far as "outing a CIA agent, etc."), regardless of who knew what and when. Many may think what he did was wrong, but it wasn't a crime.
It's funny how the indictment says Libby lied about the conversations he had with every reporter EXCEPT Robert Novak who actually "outed" Plame in print and caused this whole investigation.
No matter how many times the press repeats it, whatever Cheney, Rove, Libby, etc did was not a violation of any law or there is not enough evidence of it.
The perjury charges, etc. should be punished to the full extent of the law, but it seems strange that someone would lie to cover up a non-crime. Can you even cover-up a non-event?
One good point I read today was that if the workings of the CIA are so secret, how does Joe Wilson get away with publishing the results of an operation on the NY Times Op-Ed page? How long would it take the enemies of the US to start asking around about the white guys hanging around Niger at the time of the famous trip? Also, since when did the Left start treating the CIA as all-knowing, clean and honest? Are they forgiven for missing 9/11?
No, the indictment indicates that Libby is accused of breaking specific laws with regard to his Grand Jury testimony and that his case will need to go to trial to determine if that is true. The trial will also investigate whether Libby knowingly outed an operative whose identity was a state secret. The indictment is not an indication of his innocence, nor is the lack of indictment of other members of the administration one. It is, however, the next natural step in an investigation of whether a violation of national security was innocent or purposeful.
Libby lied during his testimony about what he knew and when as well as who he spoke to about it. A logical conclusion to draw from that would be that he was doing so to cover his own ass or that of another member of the adminstration. Only time will reveal the facts, but generally, lies are not told to cover innocent, well-meaning behavior. Lies are used to obfuscate the truth and cover up guilt.
One good point I read today was that if the workings of the CIA are so secret, how does Joe Wilson get away with publishing the results of an operation on the NY Times Op-Ed page?
The workings of the CIA are not always secret. Their website alone covers multiple topics, including many things about their operations that I was personally surprised to find public. Joe Wilson (and anyone else) may reveal certain aspects of CIA operations without endangering lives, and no doubt this is what he's doing. (If not, you'd see his behind thrown in jail so fast it would break the sound barrier.)
How long would it take the enemies of the US to start asking around about the white guys hanging around Niger at the time of the famous trip?
Yep. Guess someone in the Bush White House should have thought of that before outing Valerie Plame, huh?
Also, since when did the Left start treating the CIA as all-knowing, clean and honest? Are they forgiven for missing 9/11?
I'm not sure I recognize this reference. Who's says that the CIA is clean, all-knowing and honest? Do you have a cite or is that simply your own conjecture?
In certain cases, the CIA has proven to be accurate on topics that are supposed to be their area of expertise. The left (and now the moderates, too) have consistently pointed out that the CIA warned the Bush adminstration that the intelligence surrounding Iraq's possession of WMD's was sketchy at best and required corroboration before acting on it.
Lo and behold, no WMD's in Iraq. No evidence they possessed 'em prior to the current war. No evidence they were ever building 'em. Nada. Zip. Zilch. At best all the administration had were guesses. Even Colin Powell has said on the record this year that the evidence wasn't strong enough to justify war.
The CIA isn't infallible. But apparently the Bush administration thinks they should be ignored entirely....
Jon
Post a Comment