What do G. Gordon Liddy and I Lewis Libby have in common? Other than the obvious appelative similarity, they both have offered themselves (or been offered) as sacrificial lambs on the blood-soaked sands of the leotine media arena. It is an obvious but strange truth that reporters, once sensing political weakness, are not satisfied until there is a partisan jugular ripped open. (They then invariably go to sleep under a banyan tree while the other political impalas prance off into the veldt.) In this case, Scooter Libby turns out to be the unfortunate victim. But, like the weirdness associated with the Judith Miller affair, there are unanswered questions as to why Libby is the one who ended up being mauled. Scooter is not dumb … and he is an accomplished lawyer. So why did he make such obvious mistakes is dealing with the Special Counsel, Fitzgerald?
He gave evidence to the Grand Jury that was directly contraverted by documents he had also given them. He indicated that reporters and newscasters told him about Valarie Plame when they testified that they hadn’t. Why? The speculated answer was that V.P Chaney was his source and that Libby was protecting his boss. But he didn’t need to do this since Chaney had every right to discuss Plame and her husband, Joe “Yellow Cake” Wilson, with Scooter. I like to think that he did what he did to sate the media’s blood lust and, as a consequence, allow the Bush administration to get back to the business of fighting the war on terror. I also think that his punishnment will be mild if at all. And, if worse comes to worse, he will be pardoned when Bush leaves office in 2008.
But there is one other possible explanation – perhaps he was protecting instead Judith Miller as Cheney’s mole at the NY Times … or, even more likely, his paramour? Maybe, Miller would not rat Libby out until he assured her (on that personal phone call) that he would not reveal their secret(s)? (Note the similarities between Susan McDougal’s memory lapses when she stayed in the slammer to protect crooked-dick Clinton, her suspected lover.) After all, every other media luminary had blabbed on Libby to Fitzgerald with the ease of Joe Valachi spilling the beans on the Cosa Nostra. So much for reporters ”protecting” their news sources … particularly if these sources are from the right.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Monday, October 24, 2005
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Pardon me, but I have to snigger just a bit. Clooney in his righteous pontification and querulous pondering over the "Miller Miasma" - has drawn our attention to what might have been a meaningless whisp of smoke on a distant hill.
He was right to smell a scortched rat in Judith Miller's quixotic saga. The crackers in the bedlinen for Clooney is that he has uncovered - not a donkey-rat - but, rather, an elephant-rat.
It turns out that Miller is not the NYT left wing commie journalist that Clooney wanted to "out."
Nope. Now, it appears that she has instead been a longtime shill for the neo-cons in the administration, selling the war in exchange for insider tips that she did not have the security clearance to have access to.
Most of us do not considering it treason just because someone leaked the fact that administration dissident Joe Wilson was married to a CIA researcher who sat at a desk in D.C. most of the work day. And, we have always wondered why - if there was a crime committed - why was not Robert Novak the one who was in jail?
Now, the real story here is unfolding painfully for Clooney and his ilk. It is becoming common fodder that the neocons were very guilty of egregiously leaking secret information to the press in a Faustian bargain of doom for all involved.
For this abuse of power, the US Constitution provides harsh penalties. Thanks Clooney, for keeping the kleiglights focused.
He was right to smell a scortched rat in Judith Miller's quixotic saga. The crackers in the bedlinen for Clooney is that he has uncovered - not a donkey-rat - but, rather, an elephant-rat.
It turns out that Miller is not the NYT left wing commie journalist that Clooney wanted to "out."
Nope. Now, it appears that she has instead been a longtime shill for the neo-cons in the administration, selling the war in exchange for insider tips that she did not have the security clearance to have access to.
Most of us do not considering it treason just because someone leaked the fact that administration dissident Joe Wilson was married to a CIA researcher who sat at a desk in D.C. most of the work day. And, we have always wondered why - if there was a crime committed - why was not Robert Novak the one who was in jail?
Now, the real story here is unfolding painfully for Clooney and his ilk. It is becoming common fodder that the neocons were very guilty of egregiously leaking secret information to the press in a Faustian bargain of doom for all involved.
For this abuse of power, the US Constitution provides harsh penalties. Thanks Clooney, for keeping the kleiglights focused.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Miller Miasma
I know I am getting very tiresome with this Judith Miller thing. But I am still bothered by the miasma surrounding this affair. Ms. Miller testified in front of the grand jury for the second time yesterday to answer more questions that arose after she had delivered to the special prosecutor last week a relevant E-mail that had been previously “overlooked.” Two things in particular gnaw at my craw:
1) You would think that Ms. Miller had plenty of time to remember all the details of her interactions with Scooter Libby as she was pacing the floor of her cell for three months. The fact that a significant document/event was left out of her first testimony is disturbing to say the least … and I think reflects on Ms. Miller’s veracity and her point of view. (I don’t believe the canard that she was a shill for Bush during the invasion of Iraq and therefore still is … she works for the NY Times after all.) I thought the slammer was supposed to “focus one’s mind.”
2) Ms. Miller’s attorney has admitted that Ms. Miller had had conversations with other people about Valarie Plame and that details about these other “leaks” were not discussed in her testimony as per the terms of her release from jail. Why is it that only Scooter Libby can be “outed” and her other sources can be kept behind the shroud. Doesn’t the special prosecutor have an obligation to get the “best evidence?” I can’t believe that these other interactions are not relevant to whatever determinations are made in this case. And if there are indictments, would not the defendents have every right to this information? Has the special prosecutor not painted himself into a corner with his treatment of Ms. Miller? (Perhaps that was his intent?)
1) You would think that Ms. Miller had plenty of time to remember all the details of her interactions with Scooter Libby as she was pacing the floor of her cell for three months. The fact that a significant document/event was left out of her first testimony is disturbing to say the least … and I think reflects on Ms. Miller’s veracity and her point of view. (I don’t believe the canard that she was a shill for Bush during the invasion of Iraq and therefore still is … she works for the NY Times after all.) I thought the slammer was supposed to “focus one’s mind.”
2) Ms. Miller’s attorney has admitted that Ms. Miller had had conversations with other people about Valarie Plame and that details about these other “leaks” were not discussed in her testimony as per the terms of her release from jail. Why is it that only Scooter Libby can be “outed” and her other sources can be kept behind the shroud. Doesn’t the special prosecutor have an obligation to get the “best evidence?” I can’t believe that these other interactions are not relevant to whatever determinations are made in this case. And if there are indictments, would not the defendents have every right to this information? Has the special prosecutor not painted himself into a corner with his treatment of Ms. Miller? (Perhaps that was his intent?)
Friday, October 07, 2005
Vexing Doubts
What are we to think about a supreme court nominee who reportedly was not joking when she said that George W. Bush is "one of the most intelligent men I have ever met." ?
Is this someone who has demonstrated the wisdom and experience to serve on the most powerful arm of US government?
Should we be afraid?
Was that an acorn falling from an oak tree or is the sky falling?
Is this someone who has demonstrated the wisdom and experience to serve on the most powerful arm of US government?
Should we be afraid?
Was that an acorn falling from an oak tree or is the sky falling?
Monday, October 03, 2005
Carpe Autumn
There is nothing as magic as an early morning stroll under a bright New England sky in October. The crisp, moist air hangs like golden wisps of smoke, whispering apples and pumpkins. Emily Dickinson found the slant of light on Winter afternoons to be oppressive, but the hue and angle of the light in Autumn is a tonic for the soul.
You can feel the promise of frost in the air. One night very soon, the tomato vines and marigold leaves will turn black. We will pull them up and toss them on the compost pile.
We will not mourn, though we will miss the fresh tomatoes and golden color of the marigold blossoms.
We who love the seasons welcome Winter. We do not carp about weather. We celebrate the changes in the skies. These changes give us a sense of urgency - adding punctuation to our life sentences. As we see the lifeline getting shorter, we eschew comfort and tedium. We embrace the challenge of slip and skid against our aging bones. Let the winds and seas rage. Let the snow pile high. Let the power lines fail and the toilets freeze. We'll survive.
Or, maybe not.
In our hearts, we know that the temperature of the earth is constant at a depth of six feet. And, lord knows, there will be plenty of time for that.
You can feel the promise of frost in the air. One night very soon, the tomato vines and marigold leaves will turn black. We will pull them up and toss them on the compost pile.
We will not mourn, though we will miss the fresh tomatoes and golden color of the marigold blossoms.
We who love the seasons welcome Winter. We do not carp about weather. We celebrate the changes in the skies. These changes give us a sense of urgency - adding punctuation to our life sentences. As we see the lifeline getting shorter, we eschew comfort and tedium. We embrace the challenge of slip and skid against our aging bones. Let the winds and seas rage. Let the snow pile high. Let the power lines fail and the toilets freeze. We'll survive.
Or, maybe not.
In our hearts, we know that the temperature of the earth is constant at a depth of six feet. And, lord knows, there will be plenty of time for that.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
What Bennett Said
I am seldom surprised these days by the collective ignorance and short attention span of the public. But, I am still naïve enough to expect the mainstream news to demonstrate an appearance of neutrality when it comes to reporting the facts.
An egregious example of bias is provided in today's Boston Globe, page A2 in a small, but prominently displayed piece, culled from the AP wire.
"THE NATION TODAY
Bennett's comments on abortions criticized
October 1, 2005
Washington, D.C.
The White House yesterday criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for remarks linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies. ''The president believes the comments were not appropriate," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. Bennett, on his radio show, ''Morning in America," was answering a caller's question when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up. ''But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," said Bennett."
This - seemingly factual - rendering of the story is almost criminal in it's misstatement of the simple facts. The most poffesnsive sentence in the AP story "when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up" is a lie.
Bennett was not taking issue with the statistical reportage of the book (Freakonomics). He was making an important point to demonstrate that government policy cannot be based simply upon the statistics. He said "economic arguments should never be employed in discussions of moral issues".
What the Globe (or was it the AP?) left out of the story was the actual point of Bennett's statement:
"That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
Bennett is clearly an opponent of abortion. Anyone who actually thinks he was advocating a position favoring the abortion of any color of unborn babies is a fool.
Naturally, The White House issues a dumpfuck statement to mollify the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons who feed on the public's ignorance, and the predictable outrage of lefties who never read the full story will resound for weeks.
The disturbing thing about this is that it is the latest in a series of examples of the media failing in their role as factual presenters of what, when, where and how. A pair of incidents that come to mind are the flap in DC in 1999 over the use of the word "Niggardly" Earlier this year Harvard President Lawrence Summers got misquoted (and roundly criticized) when he spoke about the disproportionate representation of woment in science.
These are just a few examples of apparent misunderstandings that were NOT corrected by a fact-centered press.
A cynical person might even suspect that the rascals in the editorial room may have intentionally withheld clarifications to generate even more juicy news in the reactions of a dumpfuck public.
An egregious example of bias is provided in today's Boston Globe, page A2 in a small, but prominently displayed piece, culled from the AP wire.
"THE NATION TODAY
Bennett's comments on abortions criticized
October 1, 2005
Washington, D.C.
The White House yesterday criticized former Education Secretary William Bennett for remarks linking the crime rate and the abortion of black babies. ''The president believes the comments were not appropriate," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. Bennett, on his radio show, ''Morning in America," was answering a caller's question when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up. ''But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," said Bennett."
This - seemingly factual - rendering of the story is almost criminal in it's misstatement of the simple facts. The most poffesnsive sentence in the AP story "when he took issue with the hypothesis put forth in a recent book that one reason crime is down is that abortion is up" is a lie.
Bennett was not taking issue with the statistical reportage of the book (Freakonomics). He was making an important point to demonstrate that government policy cannot be based simply upon the statistics. He said "economic arguments should never be employed in discussions of moral issues".
What the Globe (or was it the AP?) left out of the story was the actual point of Bennett's statement:
"That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
Bennett is clearly an opponent of abortion. Anyone who actually thinks he was advocating a position favoring the abortion of any color of unborn babies is a fool.
Naturally, The White House issues a dumpfuck statement to mollify the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons who feed on the public's ignorance, and the predictable outrage of lefties who never read the full story will resound for weeks.
The disturbing thing about this is that it is the latest in a series of examples of the media failing in their role as factual presenters of what, when, where and how. A pair of incidents that come to mind are the flap in DC in 1999 over the use of the word "Niggardly" Earlier this year Harvard President Lawrence Summers got misquoted (and roundly criticized) when he spoke about the disproportionate representation of woment in science.
These are just a few examples of apparent misunderstandings that were NOT corrected by a fact-centered press.
A cynical person might even suspect that the rascals in the editorial room may have intentionally withheld clarifications to generate even more juicy news in the reactions of a dumpfuck public.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Schmaltz Herring
There is still something fishy about Judith Miller’s release from jail. (I’m not the only one who thinks so … just about every talking head is a scratching head over the circumstances surrounding this springing.) Ms. Miller says that she needed her source’s (Lewis Libby’s) oral assurance that she was released from her pledge of confidentiality even though she had a year-old signed statement from “Scooter” to this same effect. In other words she spent 12 weeks in the hooscow because she didn’t think it was proper to call Mr. Libby for this same (redundent) oral assurance. (He was apparently supposed to call her first.) This just doesn’t ring true.
However, I believe that the key to this puzzle can be found in this morning’s NY Times news story, viz, “Ms. Miller and her lawyers said she had agreed to testify because her source had released her from any pledge of confidentiality AND BECAUSE SHE HAD RECEIVED A GUARANTEE FROM THE PROSECUTOR IN THE CASE THAT HE WOULD RESTRICT HIS QUESTIONS TO THE ONE SOURCE.” (Caps mine.)
What is this? Was there more than one source? But, even though there seems to be much more to this story, most of the news media have slavishly followed the red-herring trail laid out by the Times and its lawyer. And, on top of that, these Casandras also get to use this story to plead for more legal protections from reporters’s having to disclose confidential sources (see the lead editorial in this same issue of the Times). Unbounded hubris thy name is Punchy Sulzberger.
Will we ever find out “the rest of the story”? I doubt it. But I can dream. And in my chimera the special prosecutor calls Ms. Miller back in in about a month and asks her about these other source(s) or even other piscene events based upon new testimony from others. (“How many other sources were there?” “Did they tell you things before or after Lewis Libby did?” “What did they tell you about Valarie Wilson, etc.?” “Who are they?”) If Ms. Miller again hides behind the First Admendment (or better yet the Fifth Admendment), then we at least know the degree to which most in the “free press” are willing to engage in duplicity and slight of hand to put forward their political agenda. And Ms. Miller will again be wearing stripes.
However, I believe that the key to this puzzle can be found in this morning’s NY Times news story, viz, “Ms. Miller and her lawyers said she had agreed to testify because her source had released her from any pledge of confidentiality AND BECAUSE SHE HAD RECEIVED A GUARANTEE FROM THE PROSECUTOR IN THE CASE THAT HE WOULD RESTRICT HIS QUESTIONS TO THE ONE SOURCE.” (Caps mine.)
What is this? Was there more than one source? But, even though there seems to be much more to this story, most of the news media have slavishly followed the red-herring trail laid out by the Times and its lawyer. And, on top of that, these Casandras also get to use this story to plead for more legal protections from reporters’s having to disclose confidential sources (see the lead editorial in this same issue of the Times). Unbounded hubris thy name is Punchy Sulzberger.
Will we ever find out “the rest of the story”? I doubt it. But I can dream. And in my chimera the special prosecutor calls Ms. Miller back in in about a month and asks her about these other source(s) or even other piscene events based upon new testimony from others. (“How many other sources were there?” “Did they tell you things before or after Lewis Libby did?” “What did they tell you about Valarie Wilson, etc.?” “Who are they?”) If Ms. Miller again hides behind the First Admendment (or better yet the Fifth Admendment), then we at least know the degree to which most in the “free press” are willing to engage in duplicity and slight of hand to put forward their political agenda. And Ms. Miller will again be wearing stripes.
