Dear Time magazine....
I thought your article about the end of term clash between Dick Cheney and George Bush over the possible pardon of Scooter Libby was quite interesting, but I have one disputing point.
The leaking of Valerie Plame's name was not an act "to defend the nation's security during the war on terrorism." It was an act of politics taken to silence a domestic critic that very likely significantly damaged US efforts to track the underground global nuclear weapons markets specifically around Iran.
Plus, Libby wasn't convicted of acts in office. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Hardly "defending the nation's security."
I mean, come on.... I think you spent too long with your sources.
The leaking of Valerie Plame's name was not an act "to defend the nation's security during the war on terrorism." It was an act of politics taken to silence a domestic critic that very likely significantly damaged US efforts to track the underground global nuclear weapons markets specifically around Iran.
Plus, Libby wasn't convicted of acts in office. He was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Hardly "defending the nation's security."
I mean, come on.... I think you spent too long with your sources.
posted by mikevotes at
8:08 AM
10 Comments:
*sigh*
Light must bend differently, and the air must be thinner, inside the beltway, cause there's a whole different reality going on there. It is an elite cult, isn't it. Completely cut off for work-a-day America.
By
-epm, at 9:14 AM
What??? "to defend the nation's security during the war on terrorism."??? I'm going over there right now... Idiots!
By
c'รจ montessori, at 10:06 AM
Yeah. It just struck me. Maybe because I'm tired of hearing thge "defending America" jsutification for all the crimes that this seemed like such a ridiculous extension.
By
mikevotes, at 10:07 AM
Regarding the corporate media... The day after Obama's news conference promoting health care reform and dispelling the obscene amount of misinformation out there, here's CNN online's front page:
Screen snap
By
-epm, at 11:04 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
-epm, at 11:05 AM
Fer, I hope that's just a one time mistake and not a growing mantra of myth like, George Bush protected the US from attack for eight years.... or Everyone thought there were WMD in Iraq...
...
EP< I didn't see the CNN front, but I saw the same thing everywhere else.
By
mikevotes, at 11:55 AM
Exposing the crimes of our political leaders would take down our leaders, thus create a national security issue.
This was the thinking of Nixon. This is the thinking of those who want to protect themselves and their power.
As if a forced change of leadership would cause our enemies to suddenly attack America.
I am willing to go along with President Obama, if spending our time, manpower and public focus will hold us back from the hard work of needed change, then the prosecution of Bush criminals can take second priority.
Besides, the law has a way of taking us to where we do not want to go. Lawsuits by citizens will open up the truth. The government will have to respond to judges orders.
If Republicans and blue Democrats block the needed legislation of change, then let them spend their time on a total government led prosecution of Bush administration officials. TV extravaganza and all.
But, I believe that to be a less effective use of our limited Congressional time.
By
Unknown, at 4:07 PM
One point. There's two phases of the possible torture probe. First, a supposedly closed investigation by the Senate Intel Committee which is likely to leak and create stories.
Second, potentially a special prosecutor which, if appointed, Holder wanted to model after the Fitzgerald investigation of Libby. So, that would have a few leaks, mostly by those under suspicion trying to spin their case.
As it looks now, no national television hearings. And, i think if your talking Fitzgerald type special prosecutor with limited brief, not Ken Starr, it could go on without ionterfering in too much.
I'm a believer this ought to be done simply for the precedent. We cannot set a precedent that such blatant disregard for the law is OK.
By
mikevotes, at 4:56 PM
"I'm a believer this ought to be done simply for the precedent. We cannot set a precedent that such blatant disregard for the law is OK."
I can totally agree with that.
Also, on the basis of your statement, I think prosecutions should be done on multiple issues, not just torture, Libby, Gonzales.
That would take much manpower and time away from the current problems of the government.
I believe (as President Obama has said) we are capable of tackling more than one problem at a time. I think we can do both at the same time.
It is the President who would rather not, I disagree with that stand, but am willing to go along with his thinking.
He's not saying that to save Bush officials from prosecutions, I don't think.
He' doing it in his best interests, which is not the best interests of America.
The best interests of America, is to hold the rule of law superior to political interests, in other words, prosecute ALL of the people and the crimes they committed.
By
Unknown, at 5:41 PM
I'm not quite as prone to take Obama's position at his stated face value.
I understand the argument that prosecutions could be a distraction, but the undeclared subtext is that that distraction would constitute primarily a political difficulty in his getting his agenda passed. Now, I'm broadly for the agenda, but conflating his political goals and "the best interests of America" is a little iffy when you're talking about something like this.
I'm not sure that's altogether clear, but I think the point is there. He's claiming "best interests of America" to support his political goals the same way the Bush folks invoked "vital national security" to conflate with their individual goals.
Also, there's that little matter of actually running goverment, and if a torture prosecution started poiting out lower levels who were "just following orders" he'd likely face a much more difficult relationship with the intel folks and the military.
The positive spin is taht Obama's trying to get things to work. The negative spin is that not prosecuting is particularly politically expedient.
By
mikevotes, at 10:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home