Comments on: Congratulations, Lewis Libby http://www.outbursts.org/2005/10/28/congratulations-lewis-libby/ Apologia kai Polemikos Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:38:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Soft on Crime? That's Rich | Rhetorical Outbursts http://www.outbursts.org/2005/10/28/congratulations-lewis-libby/#comment-66271 Soft on Crime? That's Rich | Rhetorical Outbursts Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:10:48 +0000 http://www.outbursts.org/2005/10/28/congratulations-lewis-libby/#comment-66271 <p>[...] Congratulations Scooter Libby (not what you [...]</p> […] Congratulations Scooter Libby (not what you […]

]]> By: extremist http://www.outbursts.org/2005/10/28/congratulations-lewis-libby/#comment-252 extremist Sat, 29 Oct 2005 04:37:43 +0000 http://www.outbursts.org/2005/10/28/congratulations-lewis-libby/#comment-252 <p>Fitzgerald did not charge him for revealing the name of a CIA agent. If he could, he would have. The indictment is for lying and obstruction -- "throwing sand in the umpire's face" as Fitzgerald put it today. Did that prevent the umpire from detecting and being able to prove the underlying crime? Or was there no underlying crime to detect, and Libby just threw the sand out of carelessness, fear, or stupidity? Fitzgerald explained that we may never know, precisely because the obstruction occurred.</p> <p>I tend to think that there was no underlying crime. It seems unlikely from what I've read that Plame was, in fact, a covert agent. Fitzgerald refused to take a position on that question at the press conference today, arguing that it is irrelevant to the charges in the indictment. Also, since there is no conspiracy charge, it seems unlikely that either Libby or the others involved had the intent required by the statute to out an agent on purpose and with bad motive.</p> <blockquote> <p>one commentator in Boston stated today, Mr. Libby has been indicted for telling a lie about telling the truth about a man [Joe Wilson] who lied.</p> </blockquote> <p>Nice summation, but it needs one slight correction. Libby was indicted for lying about telling the truth <em>about the wife</em> of a man who lied.</p> Fitzgerald did not charge him for revealing the name of a CIA agent. If he could, he would have. The indictment is for lying and obstruction — “throwing sand in the umpire’s face” as Fitzgerald put it today. Did that prevent the umpire from detecting and being able to prove the underlying crime? Or was there no underlying crime to detect, and Libby just threw the sand out of carelessness, fear, or stupidity? Fitzgerald explained that we may never know, precisely because the obstruction occurred.

I tend to think that there was no underlying crime. It seems unlikely from what I’ve read that Plame was, in fact, a covert agent. Fitzgerald refused to take a position on that question at the press conference today, arguing that it is irrelevant to the charges in the indictment. Also, since there is no conspiracy charge, it seems unlikely that either Libby or the others involved had the intent required by the statute to out an agent on purpose and with bad motive.

one commentator in Boston stated today, Mr. Libby has been indicted for telling a lie about telling the truth about a man [Joe Wilson] who lied.

Nice summation, but it needs one slight correction. Libby was indicted for lying about telling the truth about the wife of a man who lied.

]]> By: Contratimes http://www.outbursts.org/2005/10/28/congratulations-lewis-libby/#comment-251 Contratimes Sat, 29 Oct 2005 02:54:18 +0000 http://www.outbursts.org/2005/10/28/congratulations-lewis-libby/#comment-251 <p>Now <em>that</em> is something I did not know. Thank you for bringing this all to our attention. While it is not necessarily germane to Mr. Libby's indictment or an indication of guilt, that Mr. Libby was so careless in his praise of Mr. Rich's success is very interesting. Wow. I am impressed that you should pull this story out of the void which is my ignorance. Where was I when the world went wailing past? </p> <p>Great post. </p> <p>(As one commentator in Boston stated today, Mr. Libby has been indicted for telling a lie about telling the truth about a man [Joe Wilson] who lied.)</p> <p>Honestly, I plead ignorant on all counts. I've no reference point that is not framed by cynicism. The bottom line for me is this: There is a contradiction in the hearts of Democrats. No, it is not that they supported Bill Clinton when he committed the same crimes as Mr. Libby. It's that they have wailed and moaned about the reckless, treasonous act of outing a CIA agent. The contradiction? The Democrats (particularly the most left-leaning Democrats) have historically HATED the CIA since time immemorial, seeing that agency as naught more than an extension of American imperialism and hegemony. Shame on the Democrats for this hypocrisy; and shame on the media for not pointing it out.</p> <p>I am all for Scooter Libby receiving the punishment his alleged guilt deserves. But his treachery hardly bothers me when I compare his acts to the feigned concern for CIA secrecy suddenly sacrosanct among Democrats. Surely their posturing and umbrage is a treason of the mind. </p> <p>I commend you for your work and thank you for letting me share my thoughts, fragmented as they are,</p> <p>Peace abundant!</p> <p>Gnade</p> Now that is something I did not know. Thank you for bringing this all to our attention. While it is not necessarily germane to Mr. Libby’s indictment or an indication of guilt, that Mr. Libby was so careless in his praise of Mr. Rich’s success is very interesting. Wow. I am impressed that you should pull this story out of the void which is my ignorance. Where was I when the world went wailing past?

Great post.

(As one commentator in Boston stated today, Mr. Libby has been indicted for telling a lie about telling the truth about a man [Joe Wilson] who lied.)

Honestly, I plead ignorant on all counts. I’ve no reference point that is not framed by cynicism. The bottom line for me is this: There is a contradiction in the hearts of Democrats. No, it is not that they supported Bill Clinton when he committed the same crimes as Mr. Libby. It’s that they have wailed and moaned about the reckless, treasonous act of outing a CIA agent. The contradiction? The Democrats (particularly the most left-leaning Democrats) have historically HATED the CIA since time immemorial, seeing that agency as naught more than an extension of American imperialism and hegemony. Shame on the Democrats for this hypocrisy; and shame on the media for not pointing it out.

I am all for Scooter Libby receiving the punishment his alleged guilt deserves. But his treachery hardly bothers me when I compare his acts to the feigned concern for CIA secrecy suddenly sacrosanct among Democrats. Surely their posturing and umbrage is a treason of the mind.

I commend you for your work and thank you for letting me share my thoughts, fragmented as they are,

Peace abundant!

Gnade

]]>