Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Two birds, one stone

I've now been a fan of New Republic publisher Martin Peretz. His unconscienable derricking of managing editor Michael Kelly (too many anti-Gore pieces) prompted me to cancel the NR subscription I had carried since early graduate school--a journal I could disagree with half the time, but one that could still make me think.

It's worthwhile to note, however, that Peretz's new blog, The Spine, deals definitively with two issues of the day that I've followed, but--in the pressure of sixteen-hour days--I've not taken the time to note. As with all blogs, the art is in the scrolling. Up top is his meticulous, point-by-point defense of "The Path to 9/11." Further down is his take on Plamegate, which just about sums the matter up:

No one is interested in the case of the "outed spook" and her "outer" any longer. And that is because we now know who exposed the lady to Robert Novak, and he isn't and never was part of the Cheney White House. He was part of the anti-Cheney State Department, liberal heroes, sort of. That man is Richard Armitage, latterly deputy secretary of state and multi-lateralist par excellence. He has now expressed his soulful contrition for the leak. One thing everybody in Washington knows about Armitage is that he doesn't take another kind of a leak without asking Colin Powell first. So there is now added to this weird case the question of what were Armitage's--and Powell's--motives in this exposure. And they should also be asking about Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff at State, and his possible role in this affair. None of these men were especially taken with the Bush administration's war in Iraq. So they are, so to speak, off the hook with the anti-war folk with regard to the leak. The fact is that neither Armitage nor his associates ever told the president who was responsible for the leak. If I were George W. Bush, I'd be ripshit. And, since Armitage two weeks ago unambiguously admitted to being the culprit, should he not now face charges? Now, there is one person who has been indicted--not for violating the Intelligence Identification Protection Act, the law which Armitage has actually confessed to breaking--but for obstructing Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. (Read Jeffrey Rosen's TNR article "Overcharged," November 14, 2005, here.) The indicted man is Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and he has become MoveOn's designated scapegoat for the entire war. Folk who wouldn't have thought Alger Hiss or the Rosenbergs or Philip Agee guilty of treason have been calling him a traitor. This is laughable.

Let me concede: I am a friend of Scooter Libby. But I do not like his boss. And I do not like his boss's wife. I know this gets me no credit with the all-or-nothing crowd. Still, I like Scooter, who is quite brilliant, very honest, and brave. Also funny. I've contributed to The Libby Legal Defense Fund and have joined the fund's advisory committee, which is not large because in Washington old pals dessert when even their college roommate gets into trouble. In a time when self-styled civil libertarians are giving money to defend Muslim terrorists, I am happy to help defend an American patriot, some of whose politics I do not share and some of whose politics I do, from a cynical onslaught of the special prosecutor who put journalists into jail for not telling him what he already knew.


Just about precisely. The minute the collective Washington press realized that the trail went cold at Richard Armitage, it became bored and simply wanted the story to go away. Chris Mathews, who had turned many of his own shows into Rovewatches (anyone remember? Frogmarching? Handcuffs?), simply declared the whole matter "too complicated" and simply dropped the matter.

Collosal waste, all around.

No comments: