NO CANCER IN WHITE HOUSE
In his New York Times column last Sunday, David Brooks made much of the point that no "cancer on the presidency" was found in the indictment issued by the grand jury investigating the White House leaks of the name of a CIA covert agent. He notes that independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence of a broad conspiracy. From this, Brooks reasons that assertions by Democratic leaders of conspiratorial behavior in the White House were "overheated" and represented a need to "stretch, distort, and exaggerate."
Far be it for me to argue with David Brooks. He is too intelligent and articulate. However, the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald apparently feels that he cannot prove a criminal conspiracy doesn’t mean that nothing bad was going on. This was not a leak designed to inform the American public of important policies. The leak was a mean-spirited effort to punish a critic, Mr. Wilson, by hurting the career of his wife, which wasted CIA’s work in creating her cover and is possibly endangering foreign agents who dealt with her.
Wasn’t this leak worthy of indignant language? As for conspiracy, maybe it didn’t amount to a provable crime but obviously these people were working together. It is clear that Mr. Cheney talked to the CIA and informed Scooter Libby of Mrs. Wilson’s employment. Mr. Libby talked to Karl Rove and others. Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove revealed
Mrs. Wilson's identity to at least 3 reporters. Does anyone believe that these leaks were just a slip of the tongue?
In his New York Times column last Sunday, David Brooks made much of the point that no "cancer on the presidency" was found in the indictment issued by the grand jury investigating the White House leaks of the name of a CIA covert agent. He notes that independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence of a broad conspiracy. From this, Brooks reasons that assertions by Democratic leaders of conspiratorial behavior in the White House were "overheated" and represented a need to "stretch, distort, and exaggerate."
Far be it for me to argue with David Brooks. He is too intelligent and articulate. However, the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald apparently feels that he cannot prove a criminal conspiracy doesn’t mean that nothing bad was going on. This was not a leak designed to inform the American public of important policies. The leak was a mean-spirited effort to punish a critic, Mr. Wilson, by hurting the career of his wife, which wasted CIA’s work in creating her cover and is possibly endangering foreign agents who dealt with her.
Wasn’t this leak worthy of indignant language? As for conspiracy, maybe it didn’t amount to a provable crime but obviously these people were working together. It is clear that Mr. Cheney talked to the CIA and informed Scooter Libby of Mrs. Wilson’s employment. Mr. Libby talked to Karl Rove and others. Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove revealed
Mrs. Wilson's identity to at least 3 reporters. Does anyone believe that these leaks were just a slip of the tongue?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home