Incredible Editorial on Libby

There really isn't much to say about this, if you adhere to the notion
that if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at

alt="Grand Rapids Press" border="0" height="50"

of perjury

Sunday, March 11, 2007

of vice presidential aide I. Lewis Libby last week had little to do
with the core allegations in the CIA leak affair, but it said something
big about American law. Perjury and obstruction of justice are about
basic citizen obligations to speak truthfully under oath and, at least,
not create barriers to official investigations.

Beyond that, this trial exposed a reprisal mentality in the office of
Vice President Dick Cheney, an overzealotry in pursuit of a political
attacker. Libby, then-chief of staff to Mr. Cheney, wanted to strike
back at former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV who in 2003 had published
in the New York Times a scathing criticism of the administration's
basis for invading Iraq. Libby's conversations with reporters about Mr.
Wilson and his CIA-employee wife Valerie Plame -- specifically whether
Libby was truthful in speaking with FBI investigators and a grand jury
-- became the meat of the trial. The 11-person jury believed the
journalists' version of those talks.

And that judgment deserves the respect of the country and certainly
should be a reminder of the seriousness of any citi-

zen's obligations when speaking under oath. That's despite the fact
that the scandal upon which this trial developed was hollow. A
bipartisan Senate inquiry in 2004 found that Mr. Wilson's now-famous
op-ed article was false -- that his report to the CIA did not dispute
British claims, cited by President Bush, that Iraq was seeking uranium
there but actually supported that conclusion. The claim that Mr.
Wilson's wife was a covert CIA agent and was outed by Libby's leaks was
similarly unfounded. She worked in an open CIA role, so disclosure of
her identity was no crime. In any case, that information came to a
newspaper column not from Libby but from a State Department official,
Richard Armitage.

So there was no crime at the center of this affair. Arguably, the case
never should have come to trial. But there was a duty for Lewis Libby
to be truthful to investigators. The jury's judgment that he didn't, at
least for now, has to be the nation's conclusion as well.


More like this

On my recent trip to Denver to see my brother's graduation ceremony, my father and I talked a lot of politics, as we always do when we're together. My father is a lifelong Republican who has, to my knowledge, never voted for anyone but a Republican in any race above the local level. Nonetheless, he…
It's amazing what a difference a few short years can make. Once upon a time, many prominent Republicans believed that perjury was a crime so heinous as to warrant throwing the president out of office. Today, however, we find that many of these same characters believe that any sort of jail sentence…
...And tell me what the poll means. These are from a poll conducted on July 5, 2007, by the href="" rel="tag">American Research Group (sorry, no permalink): cellspacing="0" width="90%">Question: Do you approve or disapprove of President George W. Bush…
According to former White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan, the Bush administration has been somewhat less than forthcoming: Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,”…

People buy that as news? It is full of blatant lies. Fitzgerald should read that. Apparently there is no duty for a newspaper to be truthful to readers or to investigate their stories.