Libby repercussions


Reaction and speculation
Internet lists and billboards all over buzzing with speculation on the Libby indictment. This was my response to one email,

_____

This whole thing is getting just a bit silly.

This whole indictment was for a procedural charge. Still serious if it can be proven, but considering that several of the witnesses are reporters with an admitted bias against the Bush Administration, I am a little leery of taking their word at face value.

I am not defending Mr. Libby or any member of the Bush Administration. I just want more to go on. This investigation has been going on for two years.

It started as an effort to find out who leaked the identity of Valarie Plame, someone who had not been a covert CIA operative for sometime even though she still did classified work in a desk job for the CIA. She had been a covert operative before she married Joe Wilson, but that changed. While her employment at the CIA wasn't exactly listed in the phone book, it wasn't secret from all of her friends and relatives either. If she hadn't been a covert operative for five years, it doesn't matter who gave the name to Robert Novak, no law was broken.

The whole accusation of "going after critics of George Bush" came because Joe Wilson lied about what he saw in Niger. It wasn't the Bush Administration that determined that, it was a bipartisan Senate committee. Yet he is still lauded as if he were telling the whole truth, without any proof of what he claimed.

I don't buy into the whole "red state vs blue state" thing. I am a libertarian, I want to see LESS government. I don't want to see one exchanged for another, no matter how good the intentions are. Case in point, Democrats love to rave against the "rich white coporatists" who supposedly put George Bush in office, but they are only too willing to overlook George Soros. And if you don't know who George Soros is, I strongly suggest you look at some of the power struggles that are happening right now in the official Democratic leadership. Follow the money.

I hear modern liberals talking about how George Bush lied about Iraq, but somehow they overlook Bill Clinton in 1998. Or all the floor speeches by Democratic Senators in support of Bill Clinton's claims.

I'd have an easier time taking the Democrats seriously if they could say what they stood for other than "get Bush." And even that changes based on poll numbers.

I've seen accusation after accusation. I've seen one thing after another trotted out as the "Bush killer," the one item that was going to topple the "Bush house of cards." Most of them have turned out to be frauds (National Guard records, Downing Street memo, etc). Even now, the discredited stuff (ironically including Joe Wilson's ever changing story) is being trotted out along with the indictment as proof of a wide ranging conspiracy. This doesn't exactly help sell the case that "George Bush lied and people died."

If there were an election today and I had to choose between Republicans and Democrats, I would choose the Republicans. Not because I support the party or because I think they would be good for America, but because I think they are marginally the lesser of two evils. That is not saying much. And truthfully, I don't think the events of the last few years have helped the Republican cause much either. Fiscal restraint being just one very large example.

You want to sell the Democratic message, don't tell me what you are against, tell me what you are for. And be prepared to defend your claims.

_____

That is where I stand on the whole thing.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sat - October 29, 2005 at 03:45 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved