24 Comments

1. richard mcenroe:

As may be, but in a related development, following Fitzgerald’s byzantine baseball analogy, Dodgers owner Frank McCourt today offered him Paul DePodesta’s General Manager’s job.

Other sports experts remain divided as to whether Fitzgerald was claiming Libby was really John Rocker or Roger Clemons…

Oct 30, 2005 - 9:12 am 2. Curmudgeon:

I have no particular brief for Mr Libby, especially since he was associated with Marc Rich. If he committed provable perjury, by all means hang him.

That being said, I think Mr Davis protests a little too much. I can’t defend Hutchinson’s remarks (the only example he names) but I’ve heard plenty of rightish comments saying that Libby must be held accountable for perjury.

The dismissive comments have all been to the effect that the original “crime” wasn’t one, and the claimed motive (destroy Wilson’s wife to punish him) is risible.

It should be kept in mind that Libby’s perjury charge remains to be proven, while Clinton’s perjury was an absolute certainty from day one. However, if we are to maintain a single standard here, then Libby should get to stay in his job until the president’s term is over, then receive a meaningless slap on the wrist. He should then get to earn a fortune on the lecture circuit, moaning about his perscution.

Oct 30, 2005 - 9:27 am 3. David Thomson:

Oct 30, 2005 - 9:42 am 4. sammy small:

Lanny’s expose seems fair until he gets near the bottom where he presumes that the WH leaked the name and occupation of Plame and urges GWB to eat crow on this point.

Where does this presumption of guilt come from? Its a sneaky way of linking the Libby indictment for perjury with the original story of the leak. They have nothing to do with each other. Unfortunately the Fitzgerald investigation falls way short of shedding any light on the subject of the original leak.

Oct 30, 2005 - 10:11 am 5. David Thomson:

Oct 30, 2005 - 10:24 am 6. David Thomson:

Oct 30, 2005 - 10:32 am 7. sammy small:

That is absolutely correct.

Well, it depends on what the definition of “is” is!

Oct 30, 2005 - 11:31 am 8. cali_sun:

a couple of points, Fitzgerald has indicted 60 Republicans, and 2 Democrats. Smells funny? Also, Reid asks for a guarantie that bush will not pardon Libby, although Clinton pardoned Marc rich, who is currently on the Bribe list of the Oil for Food Program? Democrats are such hyocrites.

Oct 30, 2005 - 12:23 pm 9. Ed Poinsett:

It’s great to see Lanny pitching civility. He didn’t display any when he, Carville and Begala were attacking Starr. The politics of the personal do need to be toned down, and Lanny’s letter is a start, but I’m not certain whether this is just a convenient conscience purging or not.

Oct 30, 2005 - 12:28 pm 10. Sissy Willis:

While I agree with you re “the infantile partisanship dominating American political life” — today and throughout our nation’s history — I’m still gagging at Lanny Davis’s scare quotes attempting to gloss over the rampant Clintonian political corruption, from day one of the co-presidency, that was forever swept under the carpet with “I don’t recall” and “It depends upon what your definition of is, is.”

“All tactics and no strategy”

Oct 30, 2005 - 1:08 pm 11. Terrye:

I thought it was a pretty good oped except that I think Davis is being a little kind to Democrats.

I mean, come on, no indictments? Puhleaze..

And there is really no comparison between maybe lying to a reporter and for sure lying to the American people not to mention the grand jury.

I think Libby’s biggest problem is he was trying so hard to be evasive and not get in trouble for leaking anything that he got himself all messed up on who he talked to and just what he said. He was more interested in what he did not say than with what he said.

Oct 30, 2005 - 1:35 pm 12. MisterSnitch:

If you’re the original Roger Simon, who’s the other guy? An imposter? A clone? A ne’er-do-well using your credit card?

Oct 30, 2005 - 2:23 pm 13. Rick Ballard:

The other Roger Simon is a very annoying standard issue liberal. Roger L. Simon (D’Origine Controllato or DOC) is the never – OK, rarely – annoying former liberal.

The DOC Simon can be distinguished from the “other” Simon within thirty seconds bu even the most indiscriminating reader.

Oct 30, 2005 - 2:36 pm 14. Rick Ballard:

Btw – Lanny Davis’ contribution to the smearing of innocent women during his defense of Bubba is unforgiveable. I haven’t read what he wrote today and I will never knowingly read anything that he writes or listen to a word he says.

He remains as contemptible today as he was while attempting to destroy Bubba’s victims.

Oct 30, 2005 - 2:43 pm 15. PeterUK:

David Thomson,

I agree that Plame was inconsequential,her job has been boosted to make the offence more serious.

Is it legal for the CIA run operatins in the US, and was Plame resident when the alleged outing took place?

Surely employing Wilson,a man with no expert Knowledge or ability to speak the language would arouse suspicion?

“Welcome to our country Mr Wilson,some tea perhaps,you did not bring your lovely wife the spy with you?”

Every interested intelligence service on the planet will have wondered what he was doing there.

The Grand Jury system sounds more like the Star Chamber than a fair legal procedure,no representation,outnumbered,absolute guarantee somebody will make a mistake.

It is interesting that there had been no offence until Libby was questioned,so in essence the procedure creates the crime.

Oct 30, 2005 - 2:49 pm 16. Rick Ballard:

Jonah Goldberg (scroll down) in re Lanny Davis:

If you didn’t know, Lanny Davis went ballistic last night on MSNBC’s Hockenberry because David Schippers didn’t use the word “alleged” before rapist. Davis said he felt “unclean” watching the interview. For more than a year Lanny Davis called Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Lucianne Goldberg, Linda Tripp, me, Michael Isikoff, and just about everybody else who told the truth about the president, liars. Sure, sometimes he did it by saying there is an affidavit which says this or that. Sometimes he was less subtle. But he has been an unpaid defender of lies and therefore a perpetrator of lies throughout the entire scandal. And now he’s going to lecture people about feeling unclean? Please.

Oct 30, 2005 - 2:56 pm 17. RogerA:

Lets give bro Lanny the benefit of the doubt–maybe the scurrilous SOB had an epiphany or was struck blind on the road to NY–I dont know. His performance during the Clinton years, and, indeed in the first four years of the Bush administration, leave one hell of a lot to be desired–

Frankly, Libby’s transgressions go beyond stupid–all the white house had to do was call a press conference and lay out their case against Wilson in open forum–yet the idiots apparently chose a whisper campaign–Give me a f****in break–These people are supposed to be adults. Libby deserves hard time for stupidity; Reid deserves to remain as the ignoramous Senate Minority Leader of a gang of misfits–

As I read my local paper in Eastern Washington–the scandal d’jour in DC among the chattering classes came in way behind the annual pumpkin regatta. Guess what–only the chattering classes give a damn; the rest of the electorate is busy going about adding to the GDP.

What a sorry lot are our chattering and political classes–pathetic.

Oct 30, 2005 - 4:31 pm 18. dougf:

Well I guess I understand the ‘anti-Davis’ attitude displayed by most posters, but frankly who cares that the messenger is somewhat tarnished.

At this moment in political history the Democratic party is morally/intellectually bankrupt and has ONLY a few cards left to play. Primary among these are SLEAZE and DISTORTIONS. They can no longer play meaningfully on the important fields of morality and/or grand ideas as they are running on empty and have been for decades.

Republicans should avoid getting down to their level and playing the politics of personal destruction. Not really because it is both diststeful and inherently destructive of the social compact(which is is), but because it levels the playing field. Why play ‘away’ games when that only suits the opposition?

Mr.Davis is 100% correct in the FOCUS of his piece and should be supported. The more the battle is about issues and not about flaws the worse positioned the Democratic Party is. It is effectively DEAD from the neck up;let’s do everything possible to bury the rest of it before it lurches into something valuable.

Oct 30, 2005 - 4:35 pm 19. mrp:

Roger -

Lanny Davis wrote:

Even before yesterday’s indictments, Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee were accusing the Republicans of being responsible for a “culture of corruption.” But I remember the outrage within the Democratic Party when Republicans rushed to the microphones to accuse the Clintons of “corruption” over Whitewater, the F.B.I. files, the travel office, campaign finance and so on – all issues that turned out to be rabbit holes without any findings of guilt, much less indictments. In the end, using an isolated scandal to tie up an entire administration only hurts the nation (and tends to come back to haunt the scandal-mongering party). (emphasis added)

Nothing superb about this column. Just the same old Clintonian strategy of mistruths and misleading equivalancies based on the falsehoods.

There has never been a more corrupt administration in the history of our nation than the eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Never.

With a hat tip to allthingsbeautiful.com: Not even close..

Oct 30, 2005 - 6:24 pm 20. AST:

I don’t know anything about Libby. I would have fired him for talking to reporters except on the record. And that breakfast with Judy Miller strikes me as inappropriate.

There seems to be way too much chumminess between political underlings and bureaucrats and reporters who prefer schmoozing to digging for real news, and scandal to anything else.

That said, it doesn’t seem just to conduct an investigation and, when you can’t prove the allegations it was based on, to prosecute the target for perjury. You can’t force him to give testimony against himself, but you can make life miserable for him if he offers to cooperate. How does that serve respect for the law? Why should anybody even try to cooperate in the future? When anything you testify to can turn into a perjury rap, why doesn’t everybody just invoke the Fifth Amendment?

Rove and Libby probably thought they were undermining Joe Wilson’s credibility. This is the way you play the game, right? With any luck other pols will learn to quick leaking to their reporter acquaintances. Meet people like Wilson head on or don’t respond at all.

Oct 30, 2005 - 7:04 pm 21. neo-neocon:

Today Reid called for apologies (Cheney and Bush) and resignations (Rove) before anyone has even been convicted of anything, and in a case in which no crime other than the perjury of Libby is even alleged to have been committed. But apologies have become quite the thing lately–or, at least, demands for them.

And now in this Lanny Davis column, here it is again; a call for apologies:

[Bush] must send his press secretary, Scott McClellan, into the White House press room to apologize for his misleading the American people -probably based on incomplete or inaccurate information he was given – when he denied involvement by White House officials in the disclosure that Valerie Wilson was a C.I.A. officer.

It seems that now, apologies need to be tendered by heads of state and their spokespeople not just for wrongdoings, but for errors based on incomplete or inaccurate information. Maybe the President’s press secretary should just start each press conference with a blanket apology and skip the specifics.

It’s funny–until some time during the Clinton years I can’t recall that Presidents were routinely expected to apologize for anything. No one cared if Nixon apologized for Watergate–they just wanted him impeached or to resign. I, for one, am not nor have I ever been interested in Presidential apologies. If there is some wrongdoing that rises to the level of a crime, then there are legal remedies; if there are errors, they need to be corrected.

This clamoring for apologies has gotten way out of hand; the next logical step will be putting people in the stocks to humiliate them.

Oct 30, 2005 - 7:32 pm 22. Captain Hate:

“But I remember the outrage within the Democratic Party when Republicans rushed to the microphones to accuse the Clintons of “corruption” over Whitewater, the F.B.I. files, the travel office, campaign finance and so on – all issues that turned out to be rabbit holes without any findings of guilt, much less indictments.”

There were 15 convictions in Whitewater. One of the most contemptible traits of the Clintonbots is presenting lies as facts.

I’m with Rick Ballard: Even lower life forms would be taking unfair shots if I were to compare them to the likes of Lanny Davis. He was a snivelling little liar every time I saw him on tv during the 90’s. I doubt that he’s changed and even if he has, he’s still trash.

Oct 30, 2005 - 7:43 pm 23. Kevin P:

Roger:

The press and the Dem’s were all set for multiple indictments of Rove, Libby, and, they hoped, Cheney. They were all set for stiring op-ed’s on conspiracy, outing of C.I.A undercover agents, it’s the cover up.. They had their scripts written. They dusted off “a cloud hangs over the White House”, “a cancer at the heart of the Presidency” “a crisis of confidence”, Watergate, Iran Contra, Bay of Pigs.

There was only one problem. Fitzgerald didn’t deliver. No one was indicted for outing a C.I.A agent. It was perjury of one person, Libby. If, guilty( At first blush I think he is but I do want to hear his side) I will have no problem with the fact that the original charge didn’t stick. If you raise your hand to tell the truth, you can’t delibertly tell lies and work in the White House. If guilty he should be punished. But in the history of washington scandals this one will be a footnote, not even on the main text of any history book on this time.

But the MSM just went “it takes to long to write a new script, let’s just go with the one we had when we thought it would be multiple indictments for everyone involved for multiple crimes. Russert had old administration hacks comparing it to Iran Contra, Watergate, and yes, the Bay of Pig’s. All the buzzwords I jotted down in my first paragraph were trotted out in less then twenty minutes. It is absurd! It didn’t make any difference that Rove wasn’t indicted. They acted as if he had been. They were were pumped up for a massive scandal and when all they got was Libby on perjury they went with massive scandal anyway.

Fitzgerald says “This indictment is not about the War” Sorry Pete, Chris Matthews says it is all about WMD so you may have just perjured yourself. Matthews just told me you were going to expose how the Bush administration sold the lies that pushed the war so you should reread your indictment and what it is all about. Chris knows better, you better wise up.

Oct 30, 2005 - 8:04 pm 24. Michael_B:

Lanny Davis? In the context of this particular subject? Some other good ones:

Caligula – Benefactor and Family Counselor

Charles Ponzi – Venture Capitalist

Al Capone – Entrepreneur and Visionary

Count Dracula – Philanthropist

Bonnie and Clyde – Itinerate Bankers

Saddam Hussein – Social Critic and Novelist

Stalin, Hitler and Mao – Statesmen

Juanita Broaddrick – Bill Clinton’s date

The NYT – Authoritative News Source

Wish Lanny well by all means. But forwarding him as a mediating and authoritative figure in the context of this particular subject is risible.

Oct 30, 2005 - 11:55 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: