the liberal mindset--a parallel universe divorced from reality
The White House would like to strip the guilty verdicts against Lewis "Scooter" Libby of any larger meaning. The White House also would like to change the subject.
"I think there has been an attempt to try to use this as a great big wheelbarrow in which to dump a whole series of unrelated issues and say, 'Ah-ha,"' press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday.
All right, then, dump everything out of the wheelbarrow except one rather weighty question: Did George W. Bush and his Cabinet lead the nation into war on false pretenses? Specifically, did Bush and the others know full well -- or, at a bare minimum, should they have known -- that the rhetoric they used to convince Americans of imminent peril from Saddam Hussein's purported weapons of mass destruction was based on sketchy, disputed and even fraudulent evidence?
That historical question was the context for Libby's trial.
Those were the opening words of the latest column (tantrum) from Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. See www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070312/OPINION/703120340/1002/OPINION I am constantly amazed at the difficulty most liberals have with reality. I know that it upsets my liberal readers when I do this, but I would like to list a few facts for the purpose of putting Robinson's diatribe in its proper context.
1. There is no "larger meaning" to the Libby verdict. A jury thought he lied under oath about when he first learned about the Valerie Plame affair and who told him. Period. The question about pre-war intelligence was never asked, never discussed, and was not a part of this trial.
2. George Bush was not the only human 5 years ago who thought Sadaam had WMD. Others who agreed were Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, the Clinton National Security team, the CIA, British Intel, Russian Intel, and French Intel. That's a fact that Democrats are desperately trying to make people forget, but it remains a fact.
3. On second thought, there is a bit of "larger meaning" connected with the Libby trial. The original purpose of the investigation was to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name. The prosecutor found out, approximately 30 seconds after the investigation started, that the leaker was Richard Armitage. Case closed, right? Wrong! He kept interrogating and interrogating, until Libby either told a lie, or got tripped up by faulty memory, and said something that wasn't true. I have no problem with Libby being convicted of lying. I happen to believe that he did lie. I do have a big problem with an overzealous prosecutor misusing the powers of his position to continue harrassing people even after the central question of his investigation has been answered. When he found out about Armitage, the investigation should have stopped. All Americans should be very afraid of this type of prosecutorial malfeasance.
You know, it's interesting to hear liberals get all mushy about civil liberties. When viewed in the cold light of harsh reality, it quickly becomes clear that liberals don't give two hoots about civil liberties. Or the truth.
"I think there has been an attempt to try to use this as a great big wheelbarrow in which to dump a whole series of unrelated issues and say, 'Ah-ha,"' press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday.
All right, then, dump everything out of the wheelbarrow except one rather weighty question: Did George W. Bush and his Cabinet lead the nation into war on false pretenses? Specifically, did Bush and the others know full well -- or, at a bare minimum, should they have known -- that the rhetoric they used to convince Americans of imminent peril from Saddam Hussein's purported weapons of mass destruction was based on sketchy, disputed and even fraudulent evidence?
That historical question was the context for Libby's trial.
Those were the opening words of the latest column (tantrum) from Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post. See www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070312/OPINION/703120340/1002/OPINION I am constantly amazed at the difficulty most liberals have with reality. I know that it upsets my liberal readers when I do this, but I would like to list a few facts for the purpose of putting Robinson's diatribe in its proper context.
1. There is no "larger meaning" to the Libby verdict. A jury thought he lied under oath about when he first learned about the Valerie Plame affair and who told him. Period. The question about pre-war intelligence was never asked, never discussed, and was not a part of this trial.
2. George Bush was not the only human 5 years ago who thought Sadaam had WMD. Others who agreed were Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, the Clinton National Security team, the CIA, British Intel, Russian Intel, and French Intel. That's a fact that Democrats are desperately trying to make people forget, but it remains a fact.
3. On second thought, there is a bit of "larger meaning" connected with the Libby trial. The original purpose of the investigation was to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name. The prosecutor found out, approximately 30 seconds after the investigation started, that the leaker was Richard Armitage. Case closed, right? Wrong! He kept interrogating and interrogating, until Libby either told a lie, or got tripped up by faulty memory, and said something that wasn't true. I have no problem with Libby being convicted of lying. I happen to believe that he did lie. I do have a big problem with an overzealous prosecutor misusing the powers of his position to continue harrassing people even after the central question of his investigation has been answered. When he found out about Armitage, the investigation should have stopped. All Americans should be very afraid of this type of prosecutorial malfeasance.
You know, it's interesting to hear liberals get all mushy about civil liberties. When viewed in the cold light of harsh reality, it quickly becomes clear that liberals don't give two hoots about civil liberties. Or the truth.
posted by hondo at 9:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home