Sir Henry Raeburn (British, 1756–1823) Mrs. Vere of Stonebyres, c. 1805 Oil on canvas 47 1/2 x 37 1/2 inches Corcoran Gallery of Art, William A. Clark Collection, 26.155
At the time, Nixon’s visit to China was often compared to the landing on the moon, and subsequent events have not made that comparison less apt. It seemed amazing that the thing could be done at all, and especially by a career anti-Communist like Nixon, but the tangible benefits to humankind were not self-evident…
The Washington Post yesterday reached a new low in mainstream journalism with its lead editorial on the verdict in the Scooter Libby trial (see text below). The paper tried to make the case that the real culprit was Joe Wilson, and called him a "blowhard" whereas he actually was a "whistle blower." The editorial also claimed that the real victims were the journalists who were required to testify and reveal their confidential sources, whereas the scandal actually revealed how many senior journalists allowed themselves to be used by the administration in a conspiracy to smear Joe Wilson and to destroy his wife's career. The Post even questioned whether a crime had been committed. Valerie Plame was definitely covert, no matter what the relevant statute may require. The real crime was the administration's manipulation and fabrication of "evidence" to justify the war on Iraq, but no one has been brought to account for that. The NYTimes editorial on the same subject the same day was not much better, and it contained an obvious factual error that any competent editor should have caught. It said the State Department had sent Wilson to Niger, whereas it was the CIA. And it again stressed that the victims were the journalists who were forced to become witnesses. Today's Post has an op ed by Robert Novak with the telling title "A Verdict on the Wilson Affair." This is going too far. The Libby affair has now become the Wilson affair, again focusing on the smearee rather than the smearers. Novak was the very person who first outed Valerie Plame, and he got off scot-free, whereas he should have received at least a public spanking for initiating this scandal.
BEGIN TEXT
*The Libby Verdict* The serious consequences of a pointless Washington scandal
Wednesday, March 7, 2007; A16
THE CONVICTION of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice was grounded in strong evidence and what appeared to be careful deliberation by a jury. The former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists but rather had learned it from them. But abundant testimony at his trial showed that he had found out about Ms. Plame from official sources and was dedicated to discrediting her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Particularly for a senior government official, lying under oath is a serious offense. Mr. Libby's conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations.
The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance. It was propelled not by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims, and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior Bush administration officials -- culminating in Mr. Libby's perjury.
Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.
A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.
The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.
It would have been sensible for Mr. Fitzgerald to end his investigation after learning about Mr. Armitage. Instead, like many Washington special prosecutors before him, he pressed on, pursuing every tangent in the case. In so doing he unnecessarily subjected numerous journalists to the ordeal of having to disclose confidential sources or face imprisonment. One, Judith Miller of the New York Times, lost several court appeals and spent 85 days in jail before agreeing to testify. The damage done to journalists' ability to obtain information from confidential government sources has yet to be measured.
Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in their handling of classified information. Mr. Libby's subsequent false statements were reprehensible. And Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess.
Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby's conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq.
