dr. elsewhere here
How gratifying is this, eh?? As predicted, not only do we see guilty verdicts, the jury was - and very appropriately so - meticulous and scrutinizing. There is something to be said for the training education, even advanced degrees, can bring to the table.
Enough chest-thumping; I'd like to alert everyone to attend carefully to the rhetoric we will now hear from the Libby defenders, both strong and weak.
They will be refusing to comment because the case is "ongoing." They will be claiming the jury was confused and/or partisan. They will be asking us all to move on and get to the business of governing. They will be continuing to cover Anna Nicole Smith.
They will be claiming Libby did not commit "this" crime, and therefore this investigation and trial should have never moved forward anyway. They of course miss the important point that lying to the FBI, committing perjury under oath in testimony to a Grand Jury, and obstructing justice are crimes. Very serious crimes.
Which of course raises the more important and far more interesting question as to just why Cheney and Libby would risk so much in order to out this CIA agent. There is absolutely NO talk about this, not even on the premiere news source on this scandal and the trial, firedoglake. Don't get me wrong; those folks over there, Jane and Christy and Marcy and Pac and the lot of 'em all deserve the highest praise, and they're getting it. However, this question cannot be left to die. I mentioned it in the above linked post, and Joe then followed up on it with more detail.
And for this reason, I encourage everyone out there to consider this Libby trial and verdict just the tip of the iceberg, and keep your eyes and ears and voices wide open to these questions. Namely, what about Plame's specific duties at the CIA? What of Brewster-Jennings? What of possible plans to plant WMDs in Iraq, and what might Brewster-Jennings have had to do with it? What is the possibility that Cheney managed to never meet Plame in his several visits to Langley in the run-up to war? How early did he know of her relationship to Wilson? And how much of this will come out in the civil suit depositions, the upcoming movie, and - hopefully - Congressional hearings?
This last source we can have some influence over, so get on the horn; you know what to do.
Oh, and so as not to leave this important specter hovering over this entire scandal, we'll also be seeing a whole lot of rhetoric about the role of the press in all this. Give that some very serious thought, because the First Amendment is under siege, freedom of the press not least among them. I'll be pondering the pressing press issues within the week, and will be most interested in your input.
Meanwhile, though, by all means - celebrate! This verdict makes me so damn proud to be an American. (And even more proud Fitz is one, too!)
10 comments:
If Plame knew anything about plans to plant WMD in Iraq then wouldn't she say so?
Still, I could see even if Plame didn't know, but other associates did know, and betraying Plame was a message to them.
Miss P.
The film is now of great interest to me, since it seems to be the only way to get some people to follow a story like this one...
Still, the hard core Bush supporters will denounce any product of "Big Hollywood." By the way, W actually once used that term to describe his term as governor: "Standing up to Big Hollywood." As though this place actually posed a threat of any sort to Texas...
miss p, i doubt that plame would be in a position to say so. remember, she's an cia agent, not a free agent. if she said anything, she'd also have to expose how she might come to know such things, which would then expose cia secrets about brewster-jennings, etc. not likely.
the way she's played it has been exceedingly quiet; indeed, silent. it doesn't surprise me one bit she hasn't said anything. the weapons were never planted; mission accomplished, keep your eye on the ball.
plus, given plame's role as director of the joint task force on iraq, and her important role with brewster-jennings, there has to be ample doubt she didn't know and others did. besides, her key role is just too coincidental.
and joe, those hard-core bush supporters are rapidly becoming a rare breed. should we be too worried about what they think about a film? as i recall, hard-core nixon supporters didn't think much of 'all the president's men,' but that didn't alter the fact that it was a really fine piece of work. won oscars. and it did a good job of presenting the facts. i watched it again recently; pretty impressive. if they can do that with the plame case, it could get mighty interesting.
I remember reading somewhere that Plame's group was investigating weapons sales and drug smuggling. Turkey and Saudi Arabia were 2 of the countries mentioned. It must be convenient for some to have that investigation destroyed as the poppy fields in Afghanistan began producing again. Didn't this also happen shortly before the armed 'insurgency' in Iraq?
Do you think there is a relationship between Miller's interest in Iraq WMD, Scooter's note to her about needing to cover Iranian WMD, and need to betray of Plame?
Miss P.
miss p, oh god yes, i do think there is some connection between miller's interests in wmd - not to mention her relationship with david kelly (doubt he's resting in peace) - and plame. in fact, did i read somewhere that plame may have been one of her sources?
hm. this is a thought that has popped into my head as i type, but as per your question, what if plame's brewster-jennings work was going 'too well' for those who were interested in the more contraband efforts? then miller's use of plame as a source would help get info about what she (and the cia) knew about what was going on.
boy, that is some wild speculation, but there it is.
and anon, i have no doubt turkey at least is involved with all this. that is why i mentioned sibel edmonds in the first post on the topic. i know she has never overtly mentioned anything like this, but she actually cannot say too much anyway. and that turkey connection is just too juicy, eh? and sibel did say that when you look at the whole thing, all the same players keep coming up.
dr. e., that's where I was going with the thought.
Her potential disingenousness struck me during her testimony where she emphasized that she didn't even recognize Libby at first when she saw him in Colorado. Duh, he was disguised and she stated the obvious a little too strongly - a red herring to me.
Miss P.
Though I was thinking of Miller as an informant for Libby...
Miss P.
informant for libby? oh, well; that, too!
On October 28th, 2005, on the show "4 a Closer Look", Indira Singh gave up some background on Fitzgerald. She basically called him a tool.
http://www.4acloserlook.com/october2005.htm
Is Singh on the level? Don't know, but she called it on this case, far as I can tell.
I this why Libby had that grin on his face?
Post a Comment