Charen: It Wasn't About Libby at all

Townhall.com ^ | 3-11-07 | Mona Charen

[cgk]

It Wasn't About Libby At All

By Mona Charen
Friday, March 9, 2007

I've been catching flak for suggesting that "Scooter" Libby ought never to have been on trial at all. "Aha," say my critics, "we remember how outraged you were at Bill Clinton's 'perjury,' but now that the shoe is on the other foot, you're crying foul. Too bad!" (I've cleaned up some of the language.)

If we're going to have a hypocrisy contest, I'd be glad to put into evidence the thousands of liberals who sputtered with indignation at Clarence Thomas's supposed sexual harassment of Anita Hill and at former Sen. Bob Packwood's groping of an assortment of lobbyists and staffers, but then hotly denied that Bill Clinton's sexual predations were relevant to the public's business.

That much having been said, I deny that the cases are comparable. Patrick Fitzgerald, transformed into Ahab by the post of independent counsel, seized upon inconsistent statements by Libby and other witnesses to bring a perjury action. Now that the verdict is in, many on the left are admitting that Libby wasn't the issue at all.

Howard Fineman of Newsweek analyzed it this way: "The ramifications of the stunning, vehement verdict in the Scooter Libby trial -- that he lied, repeatedly, big time -- aren't really about Scooter Libby at all. They are about how and why we went to war in Iraq, and about how Vice President Dick Cheney got us there." The New York Times announced editorially that while they didn't like Fitzgerald putting reporters in jail, "it was still a breath of fresh air to see someone in this administration, which specializes in secrecy, prevarication and evading blame, finally called to account."

Excuse me, but Libby is not being "called to account." Tony Blair is called to account in Parliament at Prime Minister's Question Time. Mr. Libby faces prison. And for what? Because a Kerry-supporting, proven liar called Joseph Wilson persuaded the press that the White House committed a crime in outing his CIA wife. Prosecutor Ahab Fitzgerald knew that this was not true; that Richard Armitage (an opponent of the Iraq War, by the way) was the leaker; and that the whole purpose of mentioning Valerie Plame was not to destroy her career or, God forbid, endanger her life, but rather to explain the otherwise mysterious decision by elements of this administration to send that guy on a sensitive mission to Niger.

We are told that the case reveals how "obsessed" the vice president's office was with the Wilson business. This is highly doubtful considering the range of matters the administration was then contending with. But suppose they were? The tacit assumption that there was something sinister about the vice president attempting to rebut a very damaging op-ed in one of the country's most influential newspapers is nonsensical.

This is a textbook case of the criminalization of policy differences. If Bush haters believe that the president "lied us into war," they are fully entitled to support a Democrat in 2008. But their blood lust will not be satisfied with that. Libby must be led away in handcuffs.

Libby was convicted of lying about how and when he learned that Valerie Plame was a CIA employee. Though trial watchers are suggesting that his memory lapses are not credible, we can certainly agree, can we not, that this datum was of less than intimate interest to Mr. Libby?

Much as one hates to go over this ground again, let's recall that President Clinton, by contrast, was testifying about matters that human beings simply do not tend to forget. Here is an excerpt from his deposition: "Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?" Answer: "No." Mr. Clinton further denied having encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie in a sworn statement (suborning perjury), and testified that he could not recall ever being alone with her.

Further, while there was no underlying offense in the Libby case, i.e., there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, there was an underlying offense in the Clinton case -- the sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Indeed, the former president paid Ms. Jones $850,000 to settle the case.

Lewis Libby was doing his best to serve the country and was sandbagged by an out of control prosecutor and a lynch mob press. This miscarriage will leave conservatives bitter. Don't be surprised if the worm turns again.

Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist, political analyst and author of Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help .

[cgk]

Charen ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Mona Charen ping list...

[Huck]

What an utterly unconvincing essay. This is really the most relevant fact: "Though trial watchers are suggesting that his memory lapses are not credible" In other words, trial watchers think he was guilty. The reason the libs cry hypocrisy is because you've got Rush Limbaugh saying it's merely a "process" crime, when you had Slick Willie getting impeached for lying about a sexual tryst when in fact the investigation had begun over some kind of real estate deal.

I see Libby about the same way I see those poisoned Russians. On the one hand, you pity them and feel bad. But on the other hand, they know they're not playing tiddlywinks.

[Minn]

Good job Mona. You made it all the way through without mentioning your children.

[svxdave]

"Indeed, the former president (Clinton) paid Ms. Jones $850,000 to settle the case."

Excuse me, the bulk of that money was paid by State Farm under Clinton's Umbrella Insurance policy with State Farm. State Farm paid even though their policy provided that they were not to be pay off due to the commission of a crime.

I hope people don't forget that State Farm's suck up, combined with the crazies who supported Bill Clinton, eventually cost all of their policyholders.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Typical examples of the left's patented "the 'issue' is not the issue." Libby's "lying," the Bush Administration "putting a CIA 'secret agent's' life at risk," and the White House out to "get" Amb. Wilson -- all B.S.

The issue as noted was the U.S. defending Herself from radical Islam, et al by all means available. The left hates national defense w/o prior approval from the peoples of the World.

At the highest level, the issue remains, IMO, the 1960s "Bring it all down, man."

This miscarriage will leave conservatives bitter. Don't be surprised if the worm turns again.

Yes, a certain percentage of conservatives will be bitter and look for pay back. But as the left-generated "issue" of Ms Coulter proved many conservative will just keep on truckling.

[Laverne]

Scooter Ping.

[Emmett McCarthy]

I know this sounds strangely "conspiratorial" and hope not to be viewed as a whack job, but I'm not sure it was an accidental stroke of luck for Fitzgerald that Denis Collins found a place on that jury or got himself elected foreman. It was a curious footnote for me when I realized that Collins was a high school classmate of mine and that I'd had a few beers and conversation with him at a class reunion 10 years ago. Then I learned that a cousin of mine is a former classmate and a friend of Fitzgerald's. I'm not what you'd call a friend of Collins' - just a friendly acquaintance. But, if some nobody cabinet peddler in Nashville (me)has these curious accidental connections to a high profile case like this, what could have happened if the rules of "Six Degrees of Separation" were conscientiously applied for the sake of the desired outcome for the Left? Was there some old school friend or a cousin who made sure Collins was called for jury duty? Was he put up in the order after the defense had already exhausted their pre-emptory challenges? He had been a writer for the Washington Post. He and his brothers went to grade school with Maureen Dowd. He has been looking for a book deal for most of his adult life. His blog entries from "inside the jury" refer to Fitzgerald as "the fighting Irishman". Doesn't this at the very least suggest bias, if not an actual "set-up"?

Again, I'm a nobody with purely accidental connections here, but if I can see this...If the same set of circumstances existed with respect to some conservative person, the investigations would be Pulitzer Prize winners. As it is, I doubt there will be any journalist even begin to look at it.

[Della Street]

What an utterly unconvincing essay. This is really the most relevant fact: "Though trial watchers are suggesting that his memory lapses are not credible" In other words, trial watchers think he was guilty.

You skipped the next part where she pointed out his memory lapses pertained to when he learned of Valerie Plame and her role and she further points out this informatin at the time was not very likely to be remembered. Trial watchers "suggesting" and trial watchers "were convinced" are two separate concepts and this case screamed "reasonable doubt".

[rlmorel]

Huck, I am not sure I understand the point you make.

My impression is that Libby did not think he had done anything wrong with respect to the Valerie Plame stupidity.

In fact, EVERYONE knows that he didn't...including the Special Prosecuter...that it was Armitage who was "responsible".

Libby did not even bother to retain a high priced lawyer until he realized he was going to get screwed for cooperating, and he got nailed for something completley unrelated.

I view it as a travesty of justice and an abuse of power, just to get a "small fish" because they knew there was no "big fish" to catch.

Perhaps I misunderstand your point...

[marktwain]

"What an utterly unconvincing essay. This is really the most relevant fact: "Though trial watchers are suggesting that his memory lapses are not credible" In other words, trial watchers think he was guilty. The reason the libs cry hypocrisy is because you've got Rush Limbaugh saying it's merely a "process" crime, when you had Slick Willie getting impeached for lying about a sexual tryst when in fact the investigation had begun over some kind of real estate deal.
I see Libby about the same way I see those poisoned Russians. On the one hand, you pity them and feel bad. But on the other hand, they know they're not playing tiddlywinks."

What a strange response. President Clinton was impeached for obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case that had nothing to do with the White Water land deal. He explicitly signed into law a federal bill that allowed plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases to use discovery process to determine all of the sexual history of the people they accused. After the law was used against him, he claimed immunity, lied repeatedly under oath, all to protect his own personal interests.

Libby had virtually not motive to lie, because he didn't have a dog in the fight. He could have claimed the fifth amendment and said nothing, but the Bush administration, instead of claiming privilege, ordered all its officers to cooperate fully with investigators.

I am not surprised that a jury from the District of Columbia, filled with poisoned by the propaganda from the Washington Post, in an area that voted 85% for Kerry, found that a lapse of memory was a convenient way to strike at the Bush administration.

[reefdiver]

One result of this trial that I won't forget will be the credibility of Tim Russert. Under oath "He lied"- And He's been called on it, claims he forgot - but " He's a Lier"

[Huck]

There's nothing strange at all about it. Ken Starr was supposed to investigate a land deal. Then it kept growing and growing to include more and more stuff that had nothing to do with it. Why? Because they wanted to prosecute and had to keep digging til they found a crime. They settled for what crime they could come up with. Same thing here.

[Della Street]

At least Starr found an actual crime.

[Huck]

a travesty of justice and an abuse of power, just to get a "small fish" because they knew there was no "big fish" to catch.

Well, my main point was that Charen presents a weak argument. Libby apparantly lied and got nailed for it. She admits as much, and only complains about how it is being used politically. But duh, that's why they call it politics. And that's my other point. It's like the russian kgb dude who got poisoned. on the one hand, you feel bad for him. on the other hand, he's kgb. he's knows he's not playing in the over 40 beer league, know what i mean?

[Huck]

So did this guy. Didn't you read the news? Guilty.

[Della Street]

Oh, yes, I know the details of this case very well, indeed. I don't agree with the verdict at all as charges were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt at all.

[the Real fifi]

Starr fought the expansion of his assignment. The three man judicial panel supervising him, insisted he take on the extra issues.
Here, no one supervised Fitz and he could have and should have ended it at the start. Of course Armitage should have told the President and no special prosecutor would have been appointed in the first place.

[the Real fifi]

He did not lie--The court unfairly precluded the defense presentation of its case. Indeed, he was prosecuted for nothing on the flimsiest of evidence.