Saturday, October 29, 2005

One down, how many to go?

So, the power supply went out on my desktop today. Anything interesting happen while I replaced it?

Oh that.

I, as did the rest of the blogosphere, tuned in today to watch Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference announcing the indictment of Darth Cheney's Grand Moff Scooter Libby. And though disappointed that he hasn't nailed Rove, yet, I was impressed by the thoroughness of his indictment of Libby as well as the way he handled the announcement. Very Jack Webb just the facts-ish, though with a surprising touch of humor.

I was most impressed though by the passion he showed when countering the Republican spin machine's canard that perjury and obstruction charges are mere "technicalities".

And more important than his passion, he laid out exactly why such charges are so serious: lying about a potential offence makes investigation of that offence nearly impossible. Thus the fallacy behind the spin is exposed. Failure to indict on the original charge, in this case the exposure of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame, is no weakness on the prosecuter's part, when the potential perpetrator of that act, Scooter Libby, lied so as to make ascertaining the truth impossible.

One question that comes to mind is why Scooter didn't take the fifth, as is his contitutional right. My guess is based on the timing of the FBI and grand jury interviews which you'll recall took place prior to the 2004 election.

My supposition is that Scooter's, at very least, a good soldier and took one for the team at a time when it would have been perhaps fatally embarrasing for a top BushCorp™ flunky to imply complicity in an act of treason.

And while we ponder might have beens, did you note that Fitzgerald said that the reason he couldn't bring indictments in 2004 was largely because of his inability to obtain Cooper's and Miller's testimony? Did then these two reporters enable Bush's re-election by delaying their testimony until after the election? That sems to be the obvious result.

Speaking of dear Judy, I was happy that Fitzgerald clearly explained his reasoning for subpoenaing the two reporters: that in this case their were only two witnesses to the crime: the person leaking Plame's identity, and the reporter to whom her identity was leaked. Failing to get the reporter's testimony would mean relying solely on that of the leaker. And as is self-evident in Libby's case, such testimony leaves much to be desired.

Questions remain of course.

Already there is speculation that Rove is the mysterious "Official A" of the indictment.

And who, exactly was Novak's 2nd source?

And finally, the big question, one that Fitzgerald will apparently never answer, as he sees it as outside his mandate, precisely how self-aware were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. when they sold us the Iraqi war based on a series of suppostions about nukes and WMD that were clearly wrong?

It's manifestly obvious that a Congressional investigation is order. And unless I'm much mistaken, it will take the election of a Democratic congress in 2006 to get one.

No comments: