2.5 hours.
By on Mar 6th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
2.5 hours.
The time it took after Scooter Libby’s verdict was announced for the National Review to publish its editorial: “Pardon Libby.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rice
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
The NR guys are complete idiots.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pmThis is the perfect response from ReichWingNuts. They know they can get away with it.
Starting with Nixon, WingNuts learned they can do everything wrong and illegal while still getting away with it. They learned they will NEVER be held accountable for their crimes.
If the Dem’s let these crooks run free, mark my words, they will be back (just as soon as we forget what they did to us this time around - maybe two election cycles at the most)!
March 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pmThey had a defeat article ready, and a winning article ready.
Like tee shirts for the Super Bowl.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pmI nearly hurled before I finished the first paragraph.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm2.5 hours? You mean it wasn’t instantaneous?
March 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pmThe National Review is really soft on criminals.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pmF**k that sh*t.
Sorry TP, that’s as clean as I can make it.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pmWhat a bunch a pantywaist crybabies…waaaa.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:44 pmIt should have read
March 6th, 2007 at 3:44 pm“Pardon Libby, but he is a lying criminal whose participation in outing a CIA operative caused serious damage to our intel gathering apparatus regarding Iranian nuclear research.”
That room full of monkeys was really pumping out the BS over at the National Review.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmI nearly hurled before I finished the first paragraph.
Comment by klyde — March 6, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
I won’t read the crap these pukes write.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmLike my non-political friend said in his e-mail yesterday in regards to the Ann Coulter comment. “If the conservatives keep this stuff up, there won’t even be room for a moderate in the next election.
These people can’t figure out that America is on to their game. They aren’t going to get away with this stuff for very much longer.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmThis is so typical of the National Review, I don’t know why anyone would read them, they are in complete denial. As far as they are concerned, this whole case was lost because “President Bush’s failure to unify his own administrationn” (not, you know, the fact that he lied to federal prosecutors).
The worst part is how the National Review tries to downplay the severity of the crime of leaking a CIA agent’s name. (The ‘Review’ says “there had been no criminal violation since Plame wasn’t ‘covert.’) These editors are on a different planet, they seem to think that the GOP is infallible. You can always depend on them to just blindly attack the left, even when they are correct.
Bush won’t pardon Libby. Mr.”Support-the-troops” is in enough hot water over the atrocious conditions that veterans have to face when they come home (oh, and Bush cut the veterans budget, also.) Not to mention the firing of prosecutors who had recieved positive evaluations for “incompetence.”
March 6th, 2007 at 3:48 pmThe Damage Done By Libby
When Plame was outed, everyone associated with the Brewster Jennings cover was outed. This group was responsible for tracking weapons of mass destruction around the world, and may well have foiled a plot to smuggle WMDs into Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Mexico or even the US that could have been stopped.
This at best severely damaged CIA covert operations and national security and at worst did all that and got some agents killed.
Feel free to argue the trivia of legality but this did severe damage to our safety as a nation and the safety of all the other agents under the Brewster Jennings cover. How any American can defend this is beyond my comprehension.
Libby got off light. He should be hanging from a rope IMO.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:50 pmI too tried to read this tripe and couldn’t get past a couple of short paragraphs. The article reads verbatim just like all the talking points we here our trolls repeat here on a daily basis.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:53 pmHow’s this for a deal? Scooter gets his pardon only if Rove, Cheney, and/or Bush plead guilty to orchestrating the outing of Plame in order to discredit Wilson.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pmThe pardon seems inevitable, but that’s not an option in the Wilson civil suit, in which the Libby trial record is likely to play an important role. These guys are going down. Meanwhile, can’t help wondering: Did Libby’s PowerPoint slides help convict him? People rely on stories to enliven factual information with resonance and meaning. Packaging too much data as bullet points may confuse your audience. It may also convince them that you are trying to hide behind data, or that you are trying to manipulate them with bullet points because your story doesn’t make any sense. Which, come to think of it, was probably true in Libby’s case.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pmIsn’t it interesting that the article doesn’t say Libby is innocent, just that he isn’t any more guilty than others, and instead of going after the others who are supposedly as guilty as Libby, we should let pardon Libby?
Once more people. You CANNOT use the “Well they did it too.” claim to try to get people to think that no real crime was comitted. If some of the guilty people got away with it, then let’s talk, but if Libby did what he was accused of, then let him pay for the crime.
And what he was convicted of was perjury, not outing a CIA agent. Get the crime straight, then you can try to refute it.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pmCivilization & War Rant
Bush is not responsible for the war in Iraq. Al Gore said during his campaign against Bush II that Bush I should have finished the job; and we never tire of pretending these days that the Clinton-Gore government was not attacking Iraq…. they were, regularly and lethally. War is inherent to civilization; and that is why we’ll have more and more of it, and why it will eventually percolate from the peripheries populated by Dark Others into our suburbs.
Everything we have that we list in our catalogue of civilization is forged out of fraud, theft, and murder. The cities of the world are built up on fraud, theft, and murder. Show me the exception, and I’ll take it back.
The fine woods and metals and animal guts that make the orchestras, the stones and steel and trees for our libraries, the fabric and workmanship of our clothing, and the food displayed strategically along our supermarket shelves… they all require war. They are taken from cultures who first refuse to cooperate, then who are forced to cooperate or be depopulated.
The expansive and expanding heaps of technomass — of asphalt and glass and plastic and paint and shiny right-angles — are scraped out of hillsides and coastlines, with the corpses of biomes and simpler cultures left behind as the mizzens of this wretched thing called civilization. The more this disease has spread, the more it has manifested and magnified its most acute symptom: war.
Technology is driven by scarcity, and scarcity by pillage, and new technology to correct for the iatrogenesis of the last technology. This is not a mark of superiority, but the cascading catastrophe of power seeking the enslavement of first women, then slaves and colonies and nature…
Conquest is a necessity to continue civilization. How long would this country last as it is without the oil from abroad? What if those abroad said, No? Be real, be realistic before you answer this question with pious abstractions. How long would things stay “stable” hereabouts if the supermarket shelves were suddenly bare? If the shutters went up on WalMart’s windows? How much of what we take for granted each and every day comes from someplace else, where the cop with the truncheon stands near the worker, and the sea lane is kept open by a Naval battle group?
Every “advanced” society exists as a parasite on those less “advanced,” and that can be proven empirically and decisively. Civilization cannot exist in the absence of war, because civilization is itself inherently exploitative. Los Angeles cannot exist without the water from Colorado. New York cannot exist without the “inputs” from abroad. We know damn well this is true, so we conceal it under pretty abstractions like “free market,” and pretend that the wars required to maintain the power of the powerful are moral failures, anomalies within civilization instead of something as intrinsic as long ears on a rabbit.
Bring us to the point where we will at least admit of this truth; and there is a remote chance that we can figure out some tentative first steps how to stop the runaway train… that is, in the end, to change everything.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmHey, I am as glad as the next guy that Libby was found guilty. And, just like anyone that has 2 brainscells knows, NR is a biased rag. Did anyone expect anything different from them.
But, they do have the right to be stupid.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmI’m hoping he does pardon Libby. Just think of the firestorm that would follow Bush, Cheney and the republican party. The country is already against the conflict in Iraq, they already believe the charges against Libby are valid. This would push any last middle roaders over the edge.
They won’t go quietly into the night but they can’t stop the car without the brakes.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pmAg yes, I love to hear the law and order and personal responsibility crowd crying for healing and understanding and compassion.
It is always good for a laugh.
-GSD
March 6th, 2007 at 4:04 pmThe next one they need to go after is Cheney and then Old Bushies.
We need to impeach both of them. We need a woman as President.
That would be our Nancy Pelosi. GO NANCY GO!!!!!
March 6th, 2007 at 4:05 pmFree the Clot!
March 6th, 2007 at 4:08 pm“But, they do have the right to be stupid.”
Yes this is very true!!!!!! Unfortunately, they are read and believed by far too many people. Stupid breeds stupid.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pm#23 - That would be our Nancy Pelosi.
… but wasn’t it Nancy who said impeachment was “off the table”?
She’d better change course soon or the opportunity to do what voters elected Dems to do will be lost.
Impeach BushCO NOW!!!
March 6th, 2007 at 4:09 pmPoorly written and full of misleading and downright false statements. Where is the evidence that Plame was not covert? Clearly there is a lack of understanding of our justice system. Any frequent viewer of Law and Order knows that deals are made with those willing to talk and do not always reflect fairness.
Libby was caught committing perjury and obstructing justice and while many want the investigation to go further and examine the leaking of a CIA agent’s identity, that was not what the case was about. This is not the academy awards where a person is given recognition for past merits and not necessarily the current year. Only the specific charges are relevant in a criminal proceding and the defense had a very weak case arguing that a high level beaurocrat known for his “attention to detail” could have forgotten such sensitive information right after he was told it by his boss, the Vice President.
Furthermore, the “editors” of the National Review insulted our entire justice system and the jury by suggesting that any “reasonable” person would have found Libby to be the victim of simple memory loss. Even Libby’s attourney had the tact to state that while he is disappointed, he still believes in the justice system and the jury.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:11 pmWAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!
March 6th, 2007 at 4:12 pmlol - so NR is saying that it’s perfectly ok to get revenge on those who tell the truth about deceptive reasons used fool the public into supporting a war as long as the agent who was leaked was overt. lol oooooooooooook.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:17 pmFree the clot. It is a great country we live in. No matter what transpires it is a great day to be an american.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:21 pmI’m for personal responsibility - therefore, Joe Wilson should be sentenced to twice the time for outting his own wife. I dare say 99.999999% of you could not recall a verbatim conversation two weeks after that conversation took place - let alone a longer time span.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm“Where is the evidence that Plame was not covert?”
That is not how it works, Rob. It would be the prosecution’s burden to prove she was covert in order to secure a conviction for violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. It is up to the prosecution to prove each element of the crime.
Fitzpatrick’s failure to indict anyone for violating that statute means either he determined she was not covert as that term is defined in the statute, or that people were aware of her covert status when her name was divulged, or that that she had not served overseas within five years.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:23 pmCorrection: That should read: or that people were unaware of her covert status when her name was divulged
March 6th, 2007 at 4:26 pmOMG! I really hope President Bush really listens to this editorial and pardons Libby. I really do.
Can you imagine the uproar and clamor for impeachment then?
C’mon President Bush. Go ahead. Make our day.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:27 pmor that that she had not served overseas within five years.
Comment by Exley — March 6, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
… or that someone obstructed the investigation -which is what Libby was found guilty of.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pmvaliant venus,
Yawn!
Old, completely used up, bullsh!t talking points won’t go over very well. Find something new to spew.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:28 pmDear JJ Bush - You are a perfect example why GWB instituted No Chikd left Behind - your comprehension skills appear lacking. Russert and Cooper were looking for confirmation - Libby didn’t wake up in the middle of the night and decide “Aha….the way to get even with that liar, Joe Wilson, is to out his wife the desk jockey.”
Your tax dollars hard at work…..
March 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pmI’m for personal responsibility - therefore, Joe Wilson should be sentenced to twice the time for outting his own wife. I dare say 99.999999% of you could not recall a verbatim conversation two weeks after that conversation took place - let alone a longer time span.
Comment by valiant venus
That’s a lie — again. You are not for personal responsibility, Hagette, or you would have apologized fir your dispicable masquerade as Mighty A.
Yes, actually, if I were committing a crime such as our Man of Conviction, I would remember it quite vividly.
Gotta a link for your assertion that Wilson outed his own wife?
Didn’t think so.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:29 pmSponge-Cake - New talking points won’t change old stories.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:32 pmBut Gregor, if Fitzpatrick was able to prosecute Libby for obstruction than that means Fitz has independent knowledge of the true facts. In other words, in order to prove succuessfully that Libby was not telling the truth, Fitz would have to show to the the jury what actually unfolded. Thus, Fitz does know what happened, despite Libby’s perjury and obstruction, and still Fitz chose not to indict anyone for violation of the IIPA.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:34 pmI dare say 99.999999% of you could not recall a verbatim conversation two weeks after that conversation took place - let alone a longer time span.
Comment by valiant venus — March 6, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Gosh MA, that’s not true. If it were you could still post under your old moniker - you know, the one where you had 4 kids, a career in the military, and a successful law practice. See, we remember things….btw, have you eaten today?
March 6th, 2007 at 4:39 pmThus, Fitz does know what happened, despite Libby’s perjury and obstruction, and still Fitz chose not to indict anyone for violation of the IIPA.
Comment by Exley
Not entirely true as usual. He may know enough to prosecute Libby for perjury because he knows the facts that he perjured himself on. although he may not know enough facts to prosecute anyone for the higher crimes because he does not know or have enough facts to do so because someone was lying to him (Libby). Now if Libby decides to talk and speak truthfully about all the events that took place then maybe Fitz will have enough facts to proceed with further prosecution. Not that hard to figure out.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:45 pmThus, Fitz does know what happened, despite Libby’s perjury and obstruction, and still Fitz chose not to indict anyone for violation of the IIPA.
Comment by Exley
My sweetie Fitz is not going to bring charges that he doesn’t think he has the evidence to convict. That’s how good he is. Better to wait until you have what you need to convict. If the statute of limitations runs, fine. Best to have a good case.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:46 pmAnd the mighty wurlitzer cranks into high gear. The trolls have their talking points and no amount of facts will deter them from their mission.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:48 pmNow if Libby decides to talk and speak truthfully about all the events that took place then maybe Fitz will have enough facts to proceed with further prosecution. Not that hard to figure out.
Comment by dlet
Our Man of Conviction’s attorney will advise him not to speak — so he doesn’t mess up his own appeal. Sorry.
Unless, of course, he develops some actual convictions. I’m not holding my breath.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:48 pmif Fitzpatrick was able to prosecute Libby for obstruction than that means Fitz has independent knowledge of the true facts.
Comment by Exley — March 6, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Hold your horses: Fitzgerald’s failure to indict anyone means that someone obstructed justice by giving false and misleading testimony -which is what Libby was found guilty of.
Fitzgerald doesn’t have to have “independent knowledge of the true facts” to realise someone is lying to him in the course of his investigation; that’s bunkum and you know it. There is a reason Libby was found guilty of perjury, and obstruction of justice. Or maybe that fact hasn’t sunk in yet.
I have to say, I love how you leave out of your list the actual reason why nobody has been indicted of leaking Plame’s identity. Nice sleight of hand.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:51 pmI dare say 99.999999% of you could not recall a verbatim conversation two weeks after that conversation took place - let alone a longer time span.
Comment by valiant venus
What is comes down to is remembering to do the job you took an oath to do. Is that so hard?
March 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pmIndeed. Libby is a hero for exposing the Al Qaeda/CIA mole.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:57 pmZooey, Obviously Fitz will not bring charges unless he has the evidence to back it up. Otherwise, he’d be violating his oath as a lawyer and a prosecutor. Thus, the fact that he has not indicted anyone for violating the IIPA means there is not sufficient evidence. That is all I am saying. If he did have the evidence, he would have indicted. But he didn’t and has no said the investigation is inactive.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:01 pmZooey,
Oh I am sure Libby won’t speak. I should have said a “big if”. But hopefully there are other ways Fitz can get some more info. I doubt the sentencing will prod Libby to open up since A) it won’t be a long sentence and B) he will be pardoned anyway.
From the photos I saw of Libby’s wife today though I think there might be some hell to pay at home. Could loosen up any man’s tongue not matter what his convictions are.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:03 pmBush should pardon him on Monday and watch the moonbats scream. If Bill Clinton can pardon Puerto Rican terrorists and Chi-Com bagmen, then Bush can pardon American heros, he can pardon those two border guards while he is at it.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:05 pmBut he didn’t and has no said the investigation is inactive.
Comment by Exley
It’s a continuing investigation. There’s not sufficient evidence NOW, but maybe there will be. When these idiots stop lying, if they can.
Still gotta be right on every p & q, don’t you?
March 6th, 2007 at 5:06 pmFrom the photos I saw of Libby’s wife today though I think there might be some hell to pay at home. Could loosen up any man’s tongue not matter what his convictions are.
Comment by dlet
One can only hope. I know what I’d have in store for him.
Who knows? Maybe he’ll be begging Chimpy not to pardon him. :D
March 6th, 2007 at 5:08 pmLibby is the administration’s fall guy. The “good” soldier took one for the team. He will not be pardoned, at least not until Bush’s last day in office.
Their hope is that we will be satisfied that someone was punished and move on to other matters. Fat chance! We want Bush & Cheney!
March 6th, 2007 at 5:13 pm#46
“I have to say, I love how you leave out of your list the actual reason why nobody has been indicted of leaking Plame’s identity. Nice sleight of hand.”
Which is?
Maybe Wilson should testify under oath.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:16 pmMaybe Wilson should testify under oath.
That will never happen unless a Federal prosecutor forces him to and even then he can take the fifth.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:21 pm2.5 hrs.?
Hey,spin takes time.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:29 pm@hacker bob:
And, just like anyone that has 2 brainscells [sic] knows, NR is a biased rag.
At least you recognise your limitations.
Cheers,
March 6th, 2007 at 5:31 pmLying in the course of a federal investigation is a crime. It’s perjury if it’s under oath. That and other behavior can obstruct justice. The jury found Mr. Libby guilty of all three.
Had he and others in the White House complied with Mr. Bush’s order to “fully cooperate” with the investigation, there might have been no obstruction and we might know whether Ms. Plame’s outing violated federal statutes or the confidentiality agreements signed by senior White House staff.
Everyone with a driver’s license knows that if six cars speed past the Highway Patrol at twice the speed limit, six drivers are violating the law. When the patrolman stops and tickets one, it’s no defense for the driver to ask, “What about all those other guys?”
Mr. Fitzgerald has no obligation to prove who outed Ms. Plame or who else might have more carefully lied to cover it up. He did his job by proving that Mr. Libby committed four felonies. Mr. Libby should not pass Go or collect two hundred dollars. He should go to jail.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:46 pmpathetic - Treason like this won’t soon be forgotten, no matter how badly the perps pals would like it to be.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:53 pm“I AM the law…
…and I absolve you Scooter”…
WHAT! WHO WANTS SOME?
-GW Bush-
March 6th, 2007 at 5:56 pm#52…Not trying to be difficult here, Zooey, but here are Fitz’s exact words today regarding the status of the investigation:
FITZGERALD: I would say this: I do not expect to file any further charges. Basically, the investigation was inactive prior to the trial. I would not expect to see any further charges filed. We’re all going back to our day jobs.
If information comes to light or new information comes to us that would warrant us taking some action, we’ll, of course, do that. But I would not create the expectation that any of us will be doing further investigation at this point. We see the investigation as inactive.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:58 pmAnd facts won’t wake you up to the truth dipsh!t.
Your old, tired, busted, debunked talking point is just as invalid now as it was then.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:17 pmNot trying to be difficult here, Zooey, but….
To paraphrase Baby Jane: “But cha are, Blanche, ya are…!”
March 6th, 2007 at 6:46 pmHopefully, the smoking gun from this case won’t be a mushroom cloud. NR’s article clearly illustrates the hypocrisy of NR, large segments of the media, and the Republican party. While the aforementioned worthies accuse everybody under the sun of “being soft on terror” , they are apologists for destroying Valerie Plame’s Brewster Jennings weapons of mass destruction trafficking network. In other words, they have no problem with “aiding and abetting” the enemy. It apparently hasn’t occurred to the bright bulbs at NR and other media outlets that they live in target cities and are among the most vulnerable to a terrorist attack, using the now unguarded weapons of mass destruction
March 6th, 2007 at 6:56 pmThe right wing nuts had their plan A and plan B essays and talking points at the ready. No matter which way this turned out, they would be prepared to fire their ammunition (in this case) or to gloat sanctimoniously (which they can’t).
March 6th, 2007 at 7:04 pmIn an effort to avoid all the partisan name calling I have to take some issues with #19. I think this blogger has some valid points but oversimplifies the current world situation - as if to say that attacking an innocent country and killing a lot of innocent people is “just what stronger countries do-deal with it” and that is “OK”.
To paraphrase (hopefully true to what you are trying to convey), the basic gist of your argument is that there always has been and always will be a stronger entity and a weaker entity and that the stronger entity will always exploit the weaker entity.
As much as we hate to admit it, a lot of good comes out of even the worst wars. I’m certainly not condoning the Nazi party, but they did make considerable gains and contributions in human anatomy, altitude sickness, hypothermia and jet propulsion. I guess my beef is how you seem to be defining “stronger” and “weaker”.
Applying your definition of the two and using your logic, then it is OK if a man beats his wife (because he is stronger), or a stranger rapes your wife, daughter or sister (because the rapist is stronger), or hey… why don’t you tell me where you live because I am sure that there are a few things that I’de like to steal from your house - things that you earned through an honest living and hard work.
Obviously you can not say that being “stronger” is the same as being “morally right”, which is where you seem to be going.
Personally, I think the stronger of two men (or women) is the one who communicates his feelings of anger and hurt to his spouse (or partner) through words rather than his closed fist.
To accurately define “strong” you have to look at a civilizations values. The Aztecs, Mayans, Aborigines and ALL native peoples were not weak because another group came in and slaughtered them. Though small in numbers compared to the past, even to this day, there cultures go back thousands of years beyond “modern” man’s. The reason why most native cultures fell to the knife, sword or gun is that they, as a culture, valued a path of spiritual insight, rather than the commercial (ie: the person with the most “stuff” is the strongest) cultures of the Spanish, English etc etc. This is not to say that fighting did not exist within these native cultures. Certainly it did. But you can’t make the comparison that “modern culture” is the stronger of the two since they have eradicated most of the indigenous cultures and are therefore morally right, deserving to be in power over native peoples.
Sure, America is the world superpower. There is no debate about our dominance. But I feel that with that title we have an even greater responsibility to solve problems through communication rather than throwing the punch as the first option when another country disagrees with our interests. Because of Bush’s Iraq, no wonder most of the world now sees America as more of a bully than a country to be admired with a political/economical system to be modeled from.
Can ALL problems be solved through communication? No.
Your right, Bush didn’t start the Iraq war. Saddam did because the only reason GW has given justifying the war that has not turned out to be a lie is “after all this is a man who tried to kill my father”. (sarcasm)
Now there is a thing called “trade” which civilizations (CIVIL-izations) have been taking part of peacefully for thousands of years so, no, NOT EVERYTHING has been acquired through rape and plunder as you suggest. Sometimes, we even make things ourselves rather than take it from someone else at gunpoint.
I guess it is the same old story… brains vs. brawn. The cave dwellers smart enough to run from the T-rex rather than fight it armed only with a stick, or smart enough avoid the quicksand or tarpits because they have seen what could happen to them through experiences of others are the cave dwellers that survived to pass on their genes. That’s called “evolution” and through successful evolution, we are ensuring our survival as a species and surviving is what it is all about. No matter how you cut it, brains still wins.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:17 pmE. A. Presely,
Yes, I Want the United States to Lose
Send me to Guantanamo right now. I’m packed and ready to go.
It’s time for the Patrick Henry response.
Alrighty, then.
I’ve had it with what appears to be the most popular latest smear being used by the warmongers — although now that I think about it, this smear has been widely used ever since our latest war of aggression began. That smear, uttered by Limbaugh, every other rightwing hack you can name, and every defender of the ongoing slaughter in Iraq, runs along these lines, and is now hurled at anyone who dares to oppose the latest insanity, the troop “surge” in Iraq:
Why won’t you even give it a chance? Don’t you want us to win — or do you actually want us to lose? Is that how much you hate Bush, and how much you hate America? Or don’t you think the Iraqis deserve freedom? Do you think they’re lesser human beings than we are? Are you really just a racist?
Hmm. That’s a whole bunch of smears, isn’t it?
Let’s put the most important issue first. In the end, this is the only one that matters:
Iraq did not attack us.
Iraq did not constitute a serious threat to the United States.
Both points were unequivocally and indisputably clear before the first American soldier set foot in Iraq.
There is only one conclusion: this was a war of blatant aggression, launched against what our leaders knew to be a third- or fourth-rate power. It had nothing to do with national defense, and it has exponentially increased the threats to our country. Moreover, it is entirely clear that our leaders lied about their reasons for going to war.
“Victory,” as Bush originally defined it, would be a “democratic” Iraq — although not “democratic” to the extent that Iraqis might elect leaders we strongly disapproved of and/or who were not sufficiently pro-American — an Iraq that was self-sustaining and capable of defending itself. This fantasy rests on the indefensible notion that “everyone wants what we want” — which was one of the notions that led to the disaster of Vietnam, as well as to the disaster of Iraq. As Barbara Tuchman stated the point:
Americans were always talking about freedom from Communism, whereas the freedom that the mass of Vietnamese wanted was freedom from their exploiters, both French and indigenous. The assumption that humanity at large shared the democratic Western idea of freedom was an American delusion. “The freedom we cherish and defend in Europe,” stated President Eisenhower on taking office, “is no different than the freedom that is imperiled in Asia.” He was mistaken. Humanity may have common ground, but needs and aspirations vary according to circumstances.
And even if many Iraqis did want what we want, the notion of quickly transplanting anything even close to our form of governance still remains indefensible: it flies in the face of history, culture, and the recognition that the history and culture of any country is critically relevant to what is possible there. There is nothing remotely racist in this observation, which history has demonstrated countless times. It is simply a recognition that history and culture matter and that, in numerous critical ways, they are determinative. Our particular form of government arose in a specific place, at a specific time, in a particular historical context, and amid very particular circumstances. In addition, there was nothing preordained about the American Revolution and the founding of the United States. Had Britain acted differently in key ways, we might never have fought a war of independence.
But speaking of racism, who actually are the racists here? Not me (or Barbara Tuchman, I dare say) — but perhaps the label might fit the American military commander who said:
“You have to understand the Arab mind,” Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. “The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face.”
This reveals the operation of one of the key mechanisms involved: projection. The advocates of this disaster threw insults and smears at anyone who dared challenge their nonsensical, insupportable plans, insults and smears that were supported by precisely nothing. But when their immoral and criminal occupation doesn’t lead to anything even beginning to approach their propaganda-induced fantasies, they themselves blame the Iraqis (and Arabs and Muslims generally) — and reveal themselves to have been the racists all along.
Our governing elites pride themselves on the fact that they are not obliged to know anything at all about the countries where they decide to meddle, and the United States has been interfering in very major ways in the Middle East since the end of World War II. More generally, the West has been a constant presence in the Middle East since World War I, and periodically for centuries before that. And our “Sacred Ignorance” led to one entirely predictable result — a result that many of us opposed to this monstrous war did in fact predict before the nauseatingly-named “Shock and Awe” campaign began. We were doomed to lose before even one American soldier entered Iraq — because we didn’t have the vaguest idea what we were doing. We are the “city on a hill.” We are the “last best hope of mankind.” Everyone wants to be just like us. We don’t need to know anything about anyone else, or about any other country on earth. We did Iraq a favor by invading and occupying it — just as we did a similar favor in the war with Mexico in the mid-nineteenth century:
Perhaps to dignify the nakedness of Polk’s land lust, the American citizenry had got itself whipped into an idealistic frenzy, believing with an almost religious assurance that its republican form of government and its constitutional freedoms should extend to the benighted reaches of the continent then held by Mexico, which, with its feudal customs and Popish superstitions, stood squarely in the way of Progress. To conquer Mexico, in other words, would be to do it a favor.
In fact, Bush said precisely this once, in his 60 Minutes interview:
PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?
BUSH: That we didn’t do a better job or they didn’t do a better job?
PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.
BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we’ve endured great sacrifice to help them. That’s the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq.
Well, of course. Every decent American “wonder[s] whether or not there is a gratitude level that’s significant enough in Iraq” — immense gratitude for destroying their entire country, and murdering over half a million innocent citizens. I suppose that means I am definitely not a decent American.
So let’s be completely clear, and restate it once more for emphasis. We invaded and occupied a country that hadn’t attacked us, and that was no threat to us. Our government has murdered more than half a million innocent Iraqis — and destroyed an entire nation. Our government has also murdered and maimed tens of thousands of Americans.
To be entirely accurate and to state what should not require identification, but which we must state given the extraordinarily corrupt atmosphere of our national debate, it’s obviously not that I or anyone else “wants us to lose.” The smear is entirely invalid at its foundation, because we never could “win.” Our invasion was profoundly immoral from its very first moment. In any case, what I want doesn’t matter a damn. Our catastrophic “mission” in Iraq was doomed before it began. We lost four years ago. It would require a miracle for us to achieve any sort of “success,” and for us to “win.” Miracles of that kind and on that scale do not occur in this world, nor have they ever occurred in history. Our leaders simply refuse to acknowledge that we’ve lost. So many more people will die and be horribly maimed.
But in the moral sense — in the sense of destroying human life with no justification whatsoever — we certainly deserve to lose. It would only be just, and it would be minimal justice at that. We have committed a monstrous, unforgivable war crime, indeed a countless number of war crimes. If you care at all about the sanctity of an individual human life, and if you still give a damn, that should matter to you. Nothing in the world is more important.
So, yes, in the sense I have described, I want us to lose. We already have. There is no forgiveness for what we have done. Do I want American soldiers to die? Of course not. I never wanted them to be sent to Iraq in the first place. If we had never begun this catastrophe, those who have died would be alive today — as would over half a million Iraqis.
One might hope that we’ve learned something from our indecent and immoral acts, and that we will be more careful in our future actions. In a tragedy beyond measure, it is already entirely clear that we have learned absolutely nothing — just as we learned nothing from Vietnam. All of the forces that led to more than a century of unending war are still in place. We have learned nothing.
Well. Someone had to say it. So I just did.
I’m ready for Guantanamo now. I’d like to say goodbye to some friends and spend time with my cats before I leave. You can pick me up in the morning.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:40 pmThe NATIONAL REVIEW(tm), that BASTION OF BASTARDS, SHIP OF DELUDED PSYCHOBABBLE GOBBLEDYGOOK SPEWING IMBECILES, TOWER OF BABEL BABBLING HALFWITS, repugnant-repug rightwingnut crank fudge-pachyderm G(houlish) O(pportunistic)
March 6th, 2007 at 10:46 pmP(arty) BOMBASTIC IMBECILES and MENDACIOUS MORONS of course has such ILLUSTRIOUS(sarcasm) CONTRIBUTORS TO ITS SHIT-SKID-MARKED PAGES WHO DISPLAY THEIR SHIT Oops–WIT and WISDOM(?) like William F. Buckley Jr., that EFFETE and NASTY Dean of American CON-servatives, Rich Lowry, current Buckley butt-boy editor and EARNEST LITTLE NAZI-FASCIST CREEP, and ASSORTED EVIL FOSSILS AND CRAZED CON-servatives like Jonah Goldberg, Larry “Stinking Old Fart” Kudlow, “Haggish Harridan” Kate O’Beirne, “Pointy-Headed Pinheads” John Podhoretz, Victor Davis Hanson and Ramesh Ponnuru, Fascist-Jingoistic-Demagogue and Propagandist Salsa-Lipped-Creep David Frum, ASSORTED FOOLS and IDIOTS Richard Brookhiser, Dave Kopel, Byron York, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Jed Babbin, Dinesh D’Souza, Claudia Rosett, Stephen Moore, Paul Johnson, Denis Boyles, Michael Graham, Catherine Seipp, ODIOUS MEDIA CREEPS Mark Levin and Jim Geraghty, Phil Kerpen, John Derbyshire, Myrna Blyth, R.V. Young, Michael Ledeen, Donald Luskin, Mark Steyn, Jay Nordlinger, Joseph Skelly, Deroy Murdock, W. Thomas Smith Jr., David Pryce-Jones, John O’Sullivan, and THREE I HAVE SAVED FOR LAST, ONE OF WHOM I KNEW PERSONALLY WHEN I WAS BUT AN UNINFORMED NOVICE–Michael Novak, WHO I ADMIRED AT ONE TIME BUT NOW DESPISE FOR HIS VIEWS AND POLITICAL AFFLIATIONS–LIKEWISE Pat Sajak! of WHEEL OF FORTUNE(tm) and Tom Wolfe! WHOSE BOOKS I ENJOYED READING–ALL TO BE SHUNNED AND DESPISED FOR SIDING WITH CHIMPya, Bushland Uber Allies and NATIONAL REVIEW(tm)!!!!! PHOOEY!!!!!
Bye, Rachel. Good luck down there.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:01 amBye, Rachel. Good luck down there.
Comment by barrelhse
It was just a figure of speech, sorry.
March 7th, 2007 at 12:38 amKrikey! Well said #68! (Are you sure you are the same person as #19?)
Leave it to the GOP when they are the controlling party to mess things up and then turn around when the DEMS take over and say “oh they are bad - they are unpatriotic and going to raise your taxes (whisper - to pay for the record deficite we ran up using “reaganomics” and the war we are losing - whisper)
March 7th, 2007 at 11:16 amExley,
You’re wrong about me being wrong :-) Just because Fitzgerald didn’t charge anyone with outing a covert agent doesn’t mean it didn’t happen or that he doesn’t believe it happened. His comments during and before the case indicate that he probably does feel this happened. The fact that no one was charged with outing Plame rather means that he didn’t think there was enough evidence to convince a jury of that fact. Government prosecuters have to weigh their odds of conviction against the public cost of a court case to determine whether it is worth prosecuting someone of a crime. It seems fairly obvious that Fitzgerald was very close to charging Karl Rove with similar charges to Lewis Libby. Karl managed to produce enough doubt by coming forward “on his own” (thank you Vivica Novak) to make Fitzgerald doubt his ability to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt.
You’re using faulty logic here. Just because something can’t be proved does not mean the opposite is true.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:57 pmReading through the other comments, Zooey made this exact point above. Also, I should not say Fitzgerald “probably does feel this happened”. This is my speculation that plenty of others agree with but, of course, no one can say for sure. Unless new evidence comes up or Libby decides to strike a deal for a reduced sentence, Fitzgerald will most likely be done with the case. I don’t know what kind of deal Libby could make post trial. It would have to be something good I imagine.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pm#74
“Also, I should not say Fitzgerald “probably does feel this happenedâ€.”
Or as with most people here….they hoped it did happen.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:40 pmActually I don’t really hope it happened. It’s a terrible thing to do and in another situation could have been very dangerous to agents overseas. I do hope that if it did happen people will be held accountable for it and not be able to get away with committing treason for political reasons.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:45 am