MartiniPundit

Sleight of Senators at Reuters

Let’s stipulate at the outset that the Plame Affair has ended with a whimper. There has got to be disappointment amongst the lefties, the BDS sufferers, and other assorted moonbats that the best that the Special Prosecutor came up with was an aide to the Vice President that no one had heard of a month ago may have lied about a crime which was never committed. No indictment of Karl Rove, and no indictments for the alleged crime of outing Valerie Plame. (Who for the nth time, was not outed, was not a covert agent, and was clearly involved in a conspiracy against the sitting President of the United States.)

Yet I was struck by the reaction of assorted Democratic elected officials, spouting the same nonsense they always spout, which is that somebody, anybody in the White House should resign on account of the fevered illusions dancing in their heads. And preferably the resignee should be Bush while they’re at it. They naturally made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, which ceased to be worth watching the day David Brinkley retired. Here’s Reuters on the story:

U.S. President George W. Bush, whose top adviser Karl Rove remains in jeopardy in a CIA-leak probe, needs to shake up his White House staff if he hopes to revive a presidency reeling from multiple setbacks, Republican and Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday.

The lawmakers also urged Bush to investigate the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, whose chief of staff, Lewis Libby, resigned on Friday and was indicted on perjury and other charges in connection with the probe. Bush should take Cheney “to the woodshed” if necessary, one lawmaker said.

“You should always be looking for ... new blood, new energy, qualified staff, new people in administration. I’m not talking about wholesale changes, but you’ve got to reach out and bring in more advice and counsel,” Sen. Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Laying aside the fact that if Karl Rove were in jeopardy he would have been indicted on Thursday, read the excerpt again. Doesn’t it look like it’s Trent Lott saying that Cheney should be taken to the woodshed?

But if one keeps reading (as so few do), one reaches this penultimate paragraph of the piece:

“The president ought to do his own internal investigation of the vice president’s office, see what happened, set some standards and if need be take the vice president to the woodshed,” New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Oh, so not a conservative Republican but the uber-liberal Chuck Schumer. Now why do you suppose they would have wanted to mislead their readers up above?

To be fair, the story was later changed to add the word “democratic” before lawmaker in the above paragraph, but it seems clear to me that in the absence of any real crime, in the absence of any real malfeasance on the part of the administration, putting the frayed democratic talking points into Trent Lott’s mouth was their first reaction. The hand looks pretty weak from this side of the table.

1. Umm, actually Valerie Plame was a covert operative.

   Posted by  on  10/31  at  04:56 PM

2. At one time Valerie may have been covert.  She had been non-covert for over five years and the CIA took no positive steps to keep her identity a secret.  Therefore, no law was broken (according to the woman who drafted the law).  If PumpkinPie can provide any proof she was covert (something which nobody I have heard, right or left maintains) please provid back up.

   Posted by David  on  10/31  at  05:28 PM

3. Umm, nope, Plame was not a covert operative.  That, of course, is the entire point.  It may be amusing to continue to believe this mythology, but not true.  The 1982 law was crafted to protect the identities of covert agents enjoying brandy and Chesterfield straights with horrifically unsavory folks in Peshawar, or agents hunkered on rooftops in Baghdad “lasing in” guided ordinance from aircraft orbiting at 30,000 feet.  It was never designed to protect the identities of Washington, “party goin, wanna be” power couples.  The confusion is tragic.

   Posted by  on  11/01  at  12:49 PM

4. Rick’s overwritten pretensions notwithstanding, clearly there is a crime here. Please look to William F. Buckley if you have any doubts.

   Posted by bbbustard  on  11/04  at  09:30 PM

5. You are “clearly” inattentive.  Nobody was “outed”.  Denial is not healthy.

   Posted by  on  11/07  at  02:17 PM

6. Pumpkin Pie and bbustard,
   There is a possiblility that some laws may have been broken, but they seem to apply to perjury/lying under oath.  These will be adjudicated shortly.  The big one, the law you seem to want to have been broken has not been broken (Ms. Plame was not covert and thus did not fall under the statute).  If it had been broken, there would have been an indictment of the same.  There was not.  Since, to follow the logic of many democrats in the prior perjury case in politics, since there was no underlying crime the lie does not matter.  Personally, I feel that if Mr. Libby did lie under oath on purpose (knowing he was uttering a falsehood), he should be punished (as I believe former President Clinton should have been and Martha Stewart was).  I do not excuse the crime because I believe in the current holder of the White House and those who work for him.  If anything I want a higher standard for “my guys”.

   Posted by David  on  11/07  at  04:43 PM

<< Back to main

Home