Letters to the Editor
-
Dear War Room...
I don't see much point in the blow-by-blow commentary on the Scooter Libby trial. Why not do an end-of-day rundown of the salient developments of the day? I can't help but think that there's a whole helluva lot happening right now in Congress, the White House, Iraq, etc. that affects us more than Judy Miller's memory problems.
-
Miller's Claims Credible
I despise Miller as much as the next person, but to be fair, I find her explaination that she didn't remember the meeting at all until she saw the notes and now has a very clear memory of things to be listed in the notes, completely believeable. It is the way my own memory works and the way I have observed most other people's memory work. Furthermore it is supported by a great deal of research on how memories are stored and accessed. It is very common for someone to not be able to access a memory and then have it jogged by notes, a picture, a smell, more information from someone you are talking with - whatever - the important thing is something clicks in your brain and you suddenly have an access point to that event. Once that memory is accessed, many, many other related memories coming pouring forth with great deal and clarity and the result is you are suddently able to remember an event or even many unrelated things with great detail and clarity, despite the fact that moments before you had no recollection of it.
-
Huh?
Can anybody ever remember any other criminal trial in which the prosecution didn't have any witnesses that could talk about any kind of crime being committed?
The Clintonistas might say, "Yeah, Elephantman! Remember Whitewater?"
I rest my case.
So we got Judth Miller. Scratch Judy; her testimony wouldn't convict anybody. We got Ari Fleischer; but his testimony apparently blew up the moment that John Dickerson, covering the trial for Slate, heard it and wrote that it sure didn't happen the way that Ari remembers it. Even though the jury hasn't been filled in on that little detail yet, the other shoe will drop. Who the heck is next?
Too bad none of these witnesses are allowed to provide opinion testimony: "Do you [Richard Cheney/David Addington/Karl Rove/Cathie Martin/Richard Armitage/Ari Fleischer/Judith Miller/Robert Novak/Bob Woodward] believe that Mr. Libby is guilty of any crime?
-
what a waste of time
No crime was committed. Fitzgerald had to reach to the bottom of the barrel and come up with a "fake" crime; Libby has a bad memory.
And why isn't Salon covering the Sandy Berger purloined documents scandal, where Berger stole and possibly destroyed highly classified (and politically embarrasing) documents in order to save Bill Clinton's ass?
Oh, wait, this is Salon. They've never heard of balance or actually covering news that matters.
-
oh, and don't forget ...
... that Joe Wilson is a proved liar and politcal hack who sent this entire story into motion for his own political and monetary purposes.
-
Judith Miller is obviously a liar
and way beyond meriting the benefit of the doubt.
It's totally implausible she forgot that conversation with Libby about Joe Wilson when you look at the circumstances.
Joe Wilson had just written an editorial in the NYT, where he credibly dissected the Administration's WMD claims. It made a huge splash.
Judith Miller was well aware of her own prominent role in disseminating WMD lies through the NYT, which could obviously wreck her career.
Libby tells Miller that Wilson's wife is at the CIA and hints their plan is for character assassination on nepotism... probably hoping for Miller's help as seeing the WMD issue go away is obviously in her best interest as well.
Miller, to her own credit for once, probably realized she'd only be digging herself a deeper grave if she jumped on the anti-Wilson bandwagon, so she declined the story.
Thereabouts Miller sees Novak run the Wilson's Wife story, and gets roundly drubbed as a shill for the administration, and she congratulates herself for not taking the bait for once.
And Miller forgets all that? Totally implausible.
-
Libby,
if convicted, will get a pardon. My guess is he will be convicted, but then, I thought the same of OJ. There seems to be plenty of evidence in the transcipts that Libby lied about the outing of Ms. Plame to cover up for Cheney, but I can only surmise that from what I read. It is impossible to say what the jury is thinking. They are actually there in the courtroom, and my observations are colored by what reporters choose to report about the demeanor and appearance of the witnesses.
I can't wait to read what Cheney has to say on the stand though, he is a terrible liar (meaning, it's easy to tell when he is lying, he gets defensive and blustery) and will be forced to lie, or take the 5th, to cover up his crime.
Thank god, Bush is already a lame duck and the republicans are headed for a wipeout of epic proportions in 2008.
-
"healthy skeptic" is neither
Joe Wilson had just written an editorial in the NYT, where he credibly dissected the Administration's WMD claims.--healthy skeptic
You're neither healthy nor sufficiently skeptical if you believe that. Wilson was caught at so many lies after this op-ed that you'd think he'd be embarassed to show his face in public.
The chief lie, which Libby and others saought to dispel, was Wilson's claim that he'd been sent by the vice president when in fact he was sent by the CIA at the request of his wife.
-
Question for the Salon readership
If everyone at Salon is so convinced that "Bob Novak lied, Judith Miller lied, Cheney and Rove committed treason, and virtually everybody whose name has surfaced in this investigation is probably guilty of national security crimes and treason," you all must have very little faith in the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who hasn't seen fit to bring any of those charges and it appears that he never will.
-
Q-Bert, get a clue
The chief lie, which Libby and others saought to dispel, was Wilson's claim that he'd been sent by the vice president when in fact he was sent by the CIA at the request of his wife. -- q-bert
Get a clue. You're either dumb enough to believe republican talking points, or someone attempting to be an ironic troll. Either way, it's pretty stupid.
Quote from Joe Wilson's editorial "What I Didn't Find in Africa" NYT 2003:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
Those are facts. Cheney's office did send the memo which is now a matter of public record.
Nowhere does he claim Cheney personally sent him to Niger. He does rightfully states:
a) Cheney's office did instigate the investigation into Yellowcake from Niger as they were seeking evidence for WMD to bolster the case for war.
b) Agency officals chose to send Wilson due to his prior qualification in the region and in such matters.
Later the records of the internal decision process within the CIA have also been made public, and contrary to what the Administration attempted to insinuate, there was no nepotism and in fact the process was handled by higher management, his wife had no authority in the situation, and the process was merit based.