Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Fred Hiatt, the consistently awful head of the Washington Post editorial section, writes another infuriating piece of drivel about the Presidential pardon of Scooter Libby.
Mr. Libby's trial provided convincing evidence that the revelation of Ms. Plame's identity was not the result of a conspiracy to punish her husband, administration critic Joseph C. Wilson IV -- the allegation that caused all the partisan furor surrounding the case and that led to Mr. Fitzgerald's appointment.
How did this trial do that? The one thing that was proven without a doubt was that Scooter Libby lied his ass off to the FBI and the grand jury. How then could this trial prove that Scooter Libby and say the sole member of the fourth branch of government, didn't discuss the fact that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative and they decided to proceed to destroy her career to send a message to Joe Wilson for speaking out of turn, not caring that they were blowing a spy's cover?
How can a person write this statement without blushing? Convincing evidence? Ok Fred Hiatt. Convince me that Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby were just innocently leaking the wife's name with the best of intentions here. Must you always be this wrong?
Outing Valerie Plame to blow her cover is a question of intent. By lying, Scooter Libby didn't allow the prosecutor to know exactly what he and Cheney knew and what their motives were in leaking her name. Convincing evidence? Scooter never testified even after his lawyer said he would. Please show the convincing evidence for those of us who are too slow to make such an intuitive leap.