Posted on 10/30/2005 11:26:45 AM PST by Thumper1960
Published: Oct 29, 2005 11:45 PM EST
More Gil Smart
Smart Remarks
LANCASTER COUNTY, PA - Let’s talk about the smear.
Let’s talk about the smear because everyone’s talking about the smear. The left is rejoicing in the smear because vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby might wind up going to jail. The right is grousing about the smear, saying that liberals are trying to “criminalize conservatism,” as if conservatives aren’t doing a good enough job on their own.
The smear, of course, consists of the White House’s attempts to destroy former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who went out of his way a few years ago to try to discredit the White House’s preferred rationale for going to war in Iraq. Wilson is not some unimpeachable angel. He’s something of a publicity hound and has been caught in a couple of fibs. But, reported the Washington Post last week, his “central assertion —disputing President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger — has been validated by postwar weapons inspections.”
That’s the reason for the smear.
It doesn’t matter that the administration was wrong, that they cherry-picked the intel that bolstered their case while all but ignoring that it didn’t. For this was never the real reason for the war anyway, despite what we were told at the time. But it was the easily palatable excuse, the gut punch that Americans were most likely to respond to. Wilson was screwing it up. So he had to be destroyed.
The way the White House, or the “cabal” that former Colin Powell aide Lawrence Wilkerson recently suggested actually runs the show, went about this destruction was the focus of independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation. For weeks, it appeared that indictments \150 for leaking the name of Wilson’s wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, to the media \150 were imminent. Early reports suggested that several top-level officials could be in the cross hairs; liberals prepared to celebrate “Fitzmas,” complete with carols.
But when the indictment finally came down, only Libby was named, albeit with five counts, including obstruction of justice, making a false statement and perjury. The probe into what presidential adviser Karl Rove did or didn’t do will go on.
Over the course of the next few weeks, I quite look forward to our conservative friends going on at length about how lying under oath isn’t that big a deal.
You’ll recall that when President Clinton was impeached, it was quite a big deal, indeed.
But in the land of conservative fairy tales, Libby’s lies, or inadvertent omissions, or whatever phrase they’ll use to spin it, will be deemed different. For these lies had a noble purpose: Sending a message to those who would dare suggest that the administration is wrong, even when it is.
Notice, over the next few weeks, how seldom conservatives will invoke the letters W, M and D. Never shall they acknowledge that the most prominent rationale for the war turned out to be dead wrong, as in 2,000 dead wrong.
Never shall they acknowledge how eager and ultimately foolish they were to lap up whatever Ahmad Chalabi fed them. Never shall they admit to being arrogant dreamers who failed to consider what might happen if things didn’t go as planned.
These inconvenient truths were to be swept under history’s rug. But now, particularly if Libby goes to trial or enters into a plea agreement, they will be laid bare for all to see.
So the smear must continue.
You’ll hear more of it in the coming weeks. Wilson will be pilloried for his lack of credibility, as if that matters now. We’ll hear that this is all one big witch hunt, with the loudest protestations coming from those who spent the bulk of the 1990s hunting witches themselves.
For the right, writes Slate.com’s John Dickerson, see Libby as “merely fighting back against a partisan Democrat who lied about his mission and his findings.” He was protecting his boss, the vice president. And, writes Dickerson, he was “defending the case for the war against Saddam Hussein.” But that case was fallacious
.
And that this doesn’t factor into the conservative equation, even now, is nothing short of amazing.
So let’s talk about the smear, because the smear is the reason for all of this. But more than that, the smear is a metaphor for the administration itself: Arrogant, reckless and less interested in ensuring that the rationale for war was sound than it was in making sure anyone who undermined that rationale paid a price.
Now it’s Libby who may pay a price. Too bad it’s going to be so much less than that paid by the 2,000 soldiers whose bill already came due.
Folks are used to Gil's illness. Actually, he's more like a local version of Maureen O'Dowdy.
Enjoy!
He’s something of a publicity hound and has been caught in a couple of fibs. But, reported the Washington Post last week, his “central assertion —disputing President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger — has been validated by postwar weapons inspections.”
So, the TRUTH of the VALIDITY of the assertions were clearly fabricated, but thanks to hindsight, that in this case is poor (minniter(spelling?) debunks much of this) Wilson was RIGHT, for deliberately manufacturing superhero scenarios to oppose the bush administration because, well, because the author WANTS to say that, without speaking to the TRUTH of the FACT that were offered by wilson, and pretty much the entire news corps after the convenient mcuffin of Novaks IDIOTIC! choice to name third parties.
Also a quick question, since the author says "libby lied" and joe wilson "fibbed," what did Fitzgerald do? I can't keep the liberal counter-speak in order, so did fitzgerald "question," Libby and Rove? or did he "torture" them? I say we call Amnesty International.
He seems to have an adversion to telling the truth.
At most Wilson validated that no actual transfer of yellowcake to Iraq had happened recently...he didn't prove that Saddam wasn't trying to acquire it in Niger, or elsewhere. The real issue is whether Saddam's regime was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, as the Clinton administration asserted and as the Bush administration believed.
Fitzgerald's case may be factually correct, but the conclusion and charges derived therefrom will be near imposable to successfully prosecute.
The prosecution will be asked why they didn't clear up the testimony of a peripheral witness to their investigation. It would seem that Libby's testimony was not all that material.
Fitzgerald constructed a perjury trap for Libby and entrapped him by forcing him to repeat the erroneous testimony multiple times and finally to the grand jury.
We need a BARF alert
I think you mean that GIL! is the jackass. Thumper countered the original column.
There are two liberal lies that are easily punctured and I wonder why these points are not made often enough.
Lie #1: There was no connection between Iraq and AQ.
Response: Maybe so but who are we fighting in Iraq now? Well that would be AQ. So if Iraq and AQ weren't connected then they sure seem to be now. So did this connection just all of a sudden materialize after the invasion? And to what end? If the liberals like Vietnam analogies so much, it seems like AQ is the Viet Cong in the current conflict. But I never see this point made.
Lie #2: The current conflict is a "disaster", 2000 Americans "died in vain", "we should never have gone in there", "Bush lied, people died" etc. etc.
Response: Who are making all these statements? Well, people like Cindy Sheehan and her ilk who haven't a clue as to what is really going on on the ground. But what if you go ask the people that should really know? Who would those people be? Why, the people that are there now, to wit the U.S. service men and women. From what I can gather they would say in impressive numbers, that the mission is a worthwhile one, that we are succeeding, that no one died in vain. So in essence, the liberals are claming that they know better than the people who are actually there, the people who have the most to lose if their assesment is wrong. Essentially the liberals would have you believe that all of our servicemen and women have been "brainwashed" by Bush and the military. Well, I for one, just don't believe that and furthermore it is so typical of the entire liberal philosophy to say "We know better than you, we know best". Very analogous to saying we don't trust you to make good decisions about where to spend your money, how to educate your kids, etc. etc. I'll consider believing that Iraq is a "disaster" when I hear it from the people who are actually there. But that evidence is just not there.
You probably should have added a barf alert to the title.
I'm just so used to Gil's BS that BARFing isn't necessary.........anymore.
Well!
I'll be sure to send along to Smart that he's a Jackass.....but, he knows that and he's been called worse.
Everything except a "journalist".
I'll try to get one added.
His middle name is "thinks he is but he isn't".
No,I take that back, it has gotten very easy to believe that these Gil types can conjure up anything that sastifies their demented fantasies.
You really have to stop back every Sunday morning and read the verbatim posted online.
It's pitious.
Thanks!!!!
LOL!
Libby is being indicted on one count of lying to the FBI and 4 counts of being consistent.
Libby's first misstatement to agents may not have been a perjury trap, but knowinging dragging him before the GJ and forcing him to repeat it was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.