October 31, 2005
Just because a lot of the things Fitzgerald discovered evidently fell short of his very conservative prosecutorial standards -- they weren't out-and-out, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt crimes -- doesn't mean they were up to the standards the public reasonably expects from its White House.
Yep -- that little "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard seems to have gotten in the way of the indictments and the release of confidential information. Froomkin demands that there be a sliming of everyone involved with the publication of the truth about Valerie Plame -- that she was a CIA employee (not currently operating under cover) who decided to feather her husband's nest (and thereby her own) by recommending him for an assignement for which he was not competent, and that her husband repeatedly lied about his wife's role in obtaining that appointment for him, about the data he had access to, and the CIA's conclusion about the reliability of his conclusions.
In other words, Dan Froomkin wants those who told the truth to the American people (Rove and Libby) punished and driven from Washington -- and those who lied (Wilson and Plame) held up as heroes. Why? Because Froomkin wants to see the War on Islamic terror undermined by any means necessary. It may not quite rise to the level of treason as set forth in Article III, but this column certainly qualifies as sedition in time of war.
And if this means using an investigation by a prosecutor for political purposes, thereby uundermining the credibility of the justice system, then Dionne is willing to sacrifice the integrity of an entire branch of government to bring down another.
Posted by: Greg at
11:31 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: EffU at Tue Nov 1 17:27:23 2005 (F+lBg)
Posted by: EffU at Tue Nov 1 17:27:41 2005 (F+lBg)
And since when does the CIA determine innocence and guit in this country, anyway?
The clear fact is that no violation of the law related to the revelation of Plame's identity has been established by the prosecutor, and no indictment has been brought by a grand jury. What you have are charges related to statements that were clearly false by Libby -- but which may well not have been intentionally so, which would mean that there was no crime committed with those statements, either.
Now could we get into Joe Wilson's false statements -- as documented in both Fitzgerald's indictment/statement and the Senate report on the Wilson/Plame matter -- would you care to explain the clear divergence between his statements about how he came to be selected for the trip and those two sources?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Nov 1 18:08:28 2005 (ee5aY)
21 queries taking 0.0077 seconds, 32 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.