Decision ‘08

Another PlameGate Perspective From The Left

…[T]he way Democrats were talking about this case leading up to the indictment, this has to come as a letdown. After all, liberals believed that Patrick Fitzgerald was going to cripple the Bush administration and reveal the lies and deceptions behind the Iraq war. There was speculation that Fitzgerald would shine a bright, unflattering light onto the inner workings of the White House Iraq Group. There was talk that he was going to name a “Constitutional officer”–namely Cheney–as an unindicted co-conspirator. And there were rumors that he was seeking to empanel a second grand jury to investigate who ginned up the fake “Niger documents.”

Maybe Fitzgerald just has a very impressive poker face, but it sure seemed from his press conference that none of those things is now going to happen. Even the talk, earlier in the day, that Rove was now in an excruciating legal limbo seems like it was overblown. The five indictments against Libby appear to be the only indictments Fitzgerald is going to bring.

Zengerle also quotes Fitzgerald from his press conference, as he provides the perfect refutation of the Frank Rich conspiracy theory of the case:

This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.

This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place (emphasis mine) in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person — a person, Mr. Libby — lied or not.

The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.

And I think anyone’s who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

Amen to that (hat tip to PoliPundit)…

8 Responses to “Another PlameGate Perspective From The Left”

1 peter Says:
October 30th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
Anyone who expected the Fitzgerald investigation to be about the Iraqi war or the modus operandi of the Bush administration is delusional. As with Lawrence Walsh and Kenneth Starr, the focus is on the alleged wrong-doing of specific individuals, and not administration policy or practices.

However, because the probe is about individuals, it does not refute (or confirm) what Frank Rich describes as a systematic attempt to invade Iraq using dubious assumptions and to damage those who question those assumptions. Whether Rich is right or wrong is something which is exogenous to Fitzgerald’s investigation, because — as Zengerle correctly points out — the indictments are about the actions of a specific individual, and not the propriety of the war or how the Bush administration treats its opposition.
2 too many steves Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 7:07 am
So, if we accept that the alleged crime that started this investigation - outing a covert CIA operative with full knowledge and malice - didn’t happen, and that there was not, as evidenced by the lack of indictments, a conspiratorial effort to injure Joe Wilson and his wife, and that the only crimes committed (alleged and significantly bad btw) were perjury and obstruction of justice, then can we talk about Paul Volker’s United Nations Oil For Food report and the impact the vast and deep corruption detailed in that report had on United States foreign policy and the tactics to advance it?
3 mtl Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 9:03 am
This CIA ‘operative’ word selection has got to stop. To this day, I still don’t know what her job was, her position was, and how much influence she used to get her hubby some work.

Clearly her husband and Larry Johnson exagerated/lied about it. I am supposed to be ‘outraged’ over what? I still don’t know.

As an American, I have every right to know the reason for Joe Wilson’s selection and the role his wife played-particulariry if her ‘outing’ did not violate any criminal law. Since no prosecution is occurring for the Indentity’s act-just the after effects-it seems the prosecutor agreed.

“it does not refute (or confirm)”
that could be framed around any argment
ex.
Nancy Pelosi killed Vince Foster(…since there was no criminal investigation to clear her, she may be guilty /or although the investigation never occurred she has nothing to acquit herself)
…she hasn’t refuted or confirmed anything.

‘It does not refute or confirm’ means nothing.

I do agree about the ‘delusional’ factor. Thanks to the MSM, that was the message, and the litmus test. (Olberman had a screen with a halloween motiff-”Leaky Friday”-too bad there were no charges for leaking.

So I just take the Wilson’s word? or the democrats word?-there is nothing to confirm the veracity of any of their statements. Thus none of Joe Wilson’s statements about anything have been confirmed.
4 peter Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 12:17 pm
1) The fact that Fitzgerald did not indict for exposing Valerie Plame’s identity does not mean that the crime did not occur. It only means that Fitzgerald chose not to indict for it. He could have felt that the five indictments were all slam-dunks, and the exposure charge would be harder to explain or prove to a jury. He could believe that trying Libby on this charge could reveal information about how the CIA operates, or other non-public information, and he chose not to go there. He could still bring charges for exposing Plame with another grand jury. He could indict Rove on that charge. He could be following the Al Capone model and going for the easiest charges. So to make the case that “there was no indictment last week, therefore there was no underlying crime, therefore the charges are somehow less important” doesn’t resonate.
2) Even if you accept the argument that there was no underlying crime, this is a distinction without a difference. Watergate wasn’t about a burglary and the Monica saga wasn’t about sex with an intern.
3) 60 Minutes last night interviewed other CIA agents who told how exposing CIA agents has devastating results. Robert Novak identified the CIA front company in Boston which Plame used along with many other agents. Plame’s contacts overseas are compromised. Other diplomats’ wives abroad are now under suspicion. Plame had expertise in WMD and, as one CIA person noted, “these kinds of people don’t grow on trees.” Her sixteen year career with the CIA has effectively ended. The reason mtl should be mad is that there are very real and tangible results from the reckless exposure of her identity.
4) Joe Wilson was sent to Niger because he had over two decades in the foreign service, including a stint in Niger. Seems like reasonable qualifications to me.
5) “Does not refute or confirm:” Mark wrote that the indictments refute Frank Rich. I responded that they didn’t refute or confirm it because it was an answer to a different question. Indicting a man for burglary today doesn’t indicate whether or not a group of people committed a different crime yesterday.
5 Mark Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 1:52 pm
too many steves, yes, it’s amazing how concerned the Left is with Valerie Plame, and how little concerned they are with the $12 billion ripped off of the Iraqi people…
6 lawrence odonell Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 2:17 pm
“The fact that Fitzgerald did not indict for exposing Valerie Plame’s identity does not mean that the crime did not occur.”

The fact that HRC wasn’t indicted for the death of Vince Foster, does not mean she didn’t do it…by your argument.

(Your logic is weak-unless an accusation should be considered proof, or even implication of guilt)

The Al capone analogy is nice…but really not even relevant.

Joe Wilson-
an excerpt from his letter to the Senate Intelligence-
“I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.”

And you never discuss the underlying fact that I have a right to know. Please tell me that motives should not be considered in any decision.

The whole refute/confirm argument is a polite way of saying ‘no one knows’.
7 peter Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 2:34 pm
1) Well, I would say that the UN scandal is just as upsetting to people on the left as people on the right – I don’t see this as a partisan issue. Nobody I know of is thrilled about embezzlement.
2) Re HRC: well, yeah, she didn’t kill Vince Foster. There is no evidence to suggest that she did. However, it is indisputable that Valerie Plame was outed, and it is alleged that Libby lied to obscure his involvement. There may be only smoke, or there may be fire. Based on what was alleged in the indictment, it seems more than likely that Libby outed Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald may have decided not to indict on the exposure charge for any number of reasons. My point is to respond to the suggestion that because there was no indictment, the crime didn’t happen. There is a wealth of circumstantial evidence to connect Libby with exposing Plame. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to connect HRC with Vince Foster’s death.
3) I’m not sure what your point is about motives (Wilson’s motives or Libby’s motives?)
4) The refute/confirm thing is regarding Mark’s statement that the indictments refute Frank Rich, not whether they refute/confirm Libby’s alleged role in exposing Valerie Plame.
8 mtl Says:
October 31st, 2005 at 4:41 pm
Actually Ken Starr was directed by Janet Reno to determine if Clinton had lied during his deposition…so in some sense it had nothing to do with his initial investigation-Whitewater, but he was directed to investigate the very thing he found that Clinton had done.