Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Dogs and Fathers, Fleas and Orphans

I'd like to take a moment of your time to praise the sensational analysis and commentary on the trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby which is being provided over at linked site Just One Minute and to especially praise the contributions of a couple of the contributors/commentators here. They know who they are. I hope you're doing okay, Syl. You're missed.

My recollection is that I happened upon Mr. Maguire's site while checking links provided in this post and the associated comments, but, if so, I'm not sure how. I did stumble upon it somewhere around 18 months ago and from time to time since I've gone back to find out what's happened lately.

I stand by my 7/12/05 comment:

I think I've only commented on this subject that once a few weeks ago when the Supreme Court declined their invitation to become involved. I think it's because I've always thought the proverb that best applies is:

If you lie down with dogs, you'll rise with fleas.

Plenty of dogs, if not a crime, here. Not much that could happen to many of the principals—surely Wilson, Plame, Rove, Novak, and Miller—wouldn't be their own stupid fault.

I do have a couple of additional thoughts after reviewing opening statements.

I did not include Libby in that list of principals back on 7/12/05 because I didn't know much about him. Had I, I would have included him.

I hope he's acquitted though I don't think Fitzgerald seriously overstepped in indicting him.

The proverb/aphorism that best applies, upon a better understanding of what the regular government employees were thinking and doing, might be: Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

No points for guessing what the failure was. Some here still don't think it was a failure.


Fresh Air said...

I have to say I strongly disagree. If there is no underlying crime, then prosecutors shouldn't bring perjury charges for covering up said non-crime. Encouragement of this sort of abuse only leads to fishing expeditions, and it could do the same damage to a Democrat just as easily as a Republican.

This is what happened with Arthur Andersen and we all know where that led. Fitzgerald has made a hash of this thing from the very beginning. And attempting to save face by ruining another man is simply immoral, not to mention unethical.

terrye said...

I think the whole thing has been a huge waste of time myself.

But you are right about JOM.

And where is Syl???

loner said...

Fresh Air,

Sometimes the only way to get people's attention is to show them that there will be consequences when you fail to cooperate.

I'm not going to speak to Fitzgerald's conduct except to say that if he did make a hash of it from the very beginning he wasn't the only one.


If I read her correctly, she's having eye problems.


David Thomson said...

"Sometimes the only way to get people's attention is to show them that there will be consequences when you fail to cooperate."

There was no reason for Patrick Fizgerald to demand cooperation of anyone. By this time, he knew that no crime had been committed! Interviewing Scooter Libby was a complete waste of time. He should have instead been shutting down the entire investigation.

terrye said...

Oh man, that is too bad. I hope she is ok.

Syl said...

I'm okay. Just tired lately. But I have to stick my nose on the screen to read the tiny letters for the security code to post at JOM. And reading too long gives me a headache these days.

Loner, conflating anything regarding Libby with your view of the war is a mistake. Cynicism is fine in small doses, but these are individual people we are dealing with, and justice shouldn't care who you or your friends and associates are. And if you are accused of one thing, you shouldn't be found guilty of that one thing just because people associate you with something else.

Wilson misled the country and the press wanted to believe. The administration had to set the record straight but it was difficult because they had to figure out what the heck was going on, who was this wilson, what was his trip all about, why didn't they know about it. And the info they needed to get out was all classified.

There was infighting between the administration, the OVP, State, and CIA which made matters worse. And the administration fumbled around.

And the press framed the pushback as an effort to discredit a whistleblower which carries heavy connotations. Sheesh, even the government has a right to set the record straight. In fact, the government has a DUTY to the American people to do so!

There are two main faulty assumptions that the press and Dems have that they base their thinking on. There are more, but these two remain the focus at this point in time:

(1)Wilson was a truth teller. And even though he was debunked, they either dismiss the debunking or consider Wilson to be fake but accurate. They want to believe that Bush and Cheney lied to get us into Iraq. And that colors their entire view of the case.

And even those who accept that Wilson was less than truthful, believe the next with hands grasped to their chests and eyes to heaven.

(2)The Administration and especially Cheney punished Wilson by outing his wife. Thus they react with joy at every indication that Cheney/Libby were discussing Wilson or his trip. They immediately assume they were discussing his wife. They assume that Wilson's wife was the heart and soul of the pushback.

The NIE? a side issue to them. Wilson's actual report which bolstered the admin's case? Irrelevant. The State Dept's view of the trip--that it was basically a meaningless endeavor? ::fingers in ears::

That all the above constituted the information Cheney/Libby were trying to get disseminated? a red herring!

Look. Look. It was the wife. It was PLAME they wanted to get out.

Even after learning that Armitage was the leaker to Novak? doesn't matter. That was a separate thing.

Though I read yesterday someone waiting for the evidence that Rove made Novak get the info out of Armitage. ::nudge"" ::nudge:: ::wink:: ::wink::

Even though Novak said (and, I think, testified under oath) that the info was handed to him--he didn't ferret it out--the belief is so strong that nothing will dissuade them.

Now, the trial isn't even about Libby leaking because he did not. But that is not what people, including many on the jury, believe.

vnjagvet said...

Excellent recap, Syl.

In addition, the infamous 16 words:

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

...were true, and despite Wilson's oped to the contrary, were backed up by Wilson's own report after his trip.

"sought" is not the same as "bought".

When the oped came out, which was the real lie, Wilson was committed to working for the election of John F. Kerry.

Somehow the press got it screwed up.

Imagine that.

ex-democrat said...

Vet - and Tenet's 'retraction' of the 16 words threw gasoline on the fire. was that venal or just dumb?

loner said...


I agree with everything you wrote except the conflating part. None of this happens absent the failure to find stockpiles of WMDs. None of it.

Syl said...


None of this happens absent the failure to find stockpiles of WMDs. None of it.

So what? If we had found stockpiles, they would not have been enough, or the wrong kind. Or whatever could be used to damage the administration.

As it was, what we DID find was that Saddam kept all his programs ready to re-start at a moment's notice. Like if the sanctions were lifted which was the push before 9/11.

The very fact you blame the lack of finding stockpiles for all the disinformation about the runup to the war is simply an excuse.

cf said...

charlie(colorado) asked for this on JOM and I don't know how else to reach him. If she shows up point him to this thread, please:

Here is the original recipe I modified:

Green apple risotto

2 tablespoon Sweet butter; plus 2 T
2 tablespoon Virgin olive oil
1 large Red onion; finely chopped
2 Granny Smith apples, peeled, cored; sliced 1/8" pieces
1 ½ cup Arborio rice
1 cup Dry white wine, such as Albana di Romagna
4 cup Homemade chicken stock; simmering
¼ cup Freshly grated Parmigiano-Reggiano
1 bunch Italian flat leaf parsley, finely chopped; to yield 1/
Salt and ground black pepper; to taste

In a 12- to 14-inch sauté (sic) pan, heat 2 tablespoons sweet butter and virgin olive oil until, melted together. Add onion and cook over medium heat until soft and not yet browned. Add apples and rice and cook about 3 to 4 minutes, until rice has acquired a pearly opaque quality. Add the wine and simmer until evaporated. (***)Add enough warm chicken stock to cover rice and cook until the level of the liquid goes down below the top of the rice. Continue cooking, adding stock and stirring constantly until most of stock is gone, about 15 to 18 minutes. The rice should be tender and still retain an "al dente" bite. Stir in the remaining 2 tablespoons butter, grated cheese and parsley and season with salt and pepper. Serve immediately with additional grated cheese on the side. Yield: 4 servings Recipe By : Molto Mario Posted to MC-Recipe Digest V1 #317 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 17:56:55 -0500 (EST) From: Sue
If you do it in a pressure cooker-do it to (***) and use only 1 cup of rice and 2 cups of stock.
Add the stock all at once , cover and bring to the highest pressure..Keep it at the pressure for seven minutes..use a quick release (cold water on lid to bring the pressure down and you can remove the lid) It should be perfect at that point, but if it isn't stir over fire until the liquid is all absorbed..Off fire,add the buuter, grated cheese ,parsely , salt and pepper).

It was great with some slices of seared foie gras and a fig and balsamic vinegar reduction. (Heat a fry pan really hot, sear slices of foie gras about 2-3 minutes each side (pouring off excess fat after each batch so you don't set yourself and your house on fire).Place the seared foie gras on a platter covered with a paper towel..When all the foie gras is ready ..leaving only a couple of tablespoons of duck fat in the pan add the vinegars and boil down quickly.
Place risotto in a bowl, add the foie gras to one side and drizzle the reduction over it)

Even without the liver, the risotto is delicious--as one course in a meal of several, it is sufficient for 6....With a salad and dessert it could be a main course for 4.