BCT Editorial – 9/12/06

This page was last updated on September 12, 2006.

No complaints; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 12, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“We have but two words for those who are upset over the conduct of the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame investigation: Monica Lewinsky.”

[RWC] I was expecting an editorial like this. As you will read below, the comparison is completely bogus.

“It turns out that prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald knew the identity of the Bush administration official (former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage) who leaked the name of the undercover CIA agent almost from the start of his investigation but kept pushing anyway, leading eventually to the indictment of I. Lewis Liddy, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.”

[RWC] I’ve previously written that liberals looked at Plamegate as their Bush-era Watergate. A typographical error (Freudian slip?) in the editorial helps my case. VP Cheney’s chief of staff was Mr. Libby, not Mr. Liddy. “Liddy” (G. Gordon) was convicted in the Watergate break-in.

The Times continues to refer to Mrs. Wilson as an “undercover” CIA agent despite the fact no one in an official position has asserted she was undercover.

“Fitzgerald’s critics argue that because he went beyond the scope of his original charge, he needlessly distracted the Bush White House when it had more important matters to tend to.”

[RWC] None of the critics I’ve heard claim Mr. Fitzgerald “went beyond the scope of his original charge.”

The criticism is this. As the editorial noted, Mr. Fitzgerald knew from almost day one who the “leaker” was and that no crime had been committed. If you know no crime was committed, what’s the purpose of an investigation?

“Their complaint about a special prosecutor going to extremes isn’t new. It was a long way from Whitewater to Lewinsky for special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, too, but Clinton critics, many of whom are Bush defenders today, didn’t seem to mind his zeal.

“If Starr’s excesses didn’t concern them back then, they have no grounds to complain now.”

[RWC] To show how ridiculous this comparison is, consider the following points.

· First, and most important, the charge underlying Plamegate turned out to be false and the special prosecutor knew this from day one. As noted in the September 1^st Washington Post editorial entitled “End of an affair,” “It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.”

· Regarding Whitewater, there were at least 12 individuals convicted for various felonies, including the Clintons’ business partners and the governor of Arkansas for fraud. Clinton pardoned one of those business partners (Susan McDougal) on his last day in office. Despite all the obvious criminal activity and convictions in the Whitewater scandal, the editorial “Double standard” referred to Whitewater as a “GOP-manufactured scandal.”

· Regarding the Lewinsky affair, Mr. Starr didn’t seek out that investigation. Attorney General Janet Reno and the Special Division of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit assigned Mr. Starr to investigate this mess after he was presented evidence Ms. Lewinsky planned to commit perjury in Jones v. Clinton. The background of the investigation is contained in the Independent Counsel’s report on the Lewinsky affair.

· Though the Senate didn’t convict President Clinton on his impeachment charges, it was clear Mr. Clinton committed perjury in his deposition for the Jones v. Clinton case. As a result, the Jones v. Clinton trial judge cited Mr. Clinton for contempt of court, his Arkansas law license was suspended for five years, and he settled the Jones case for $850,000.

After all this, how can anyone claim Plamegate and Lewinsky/Whitewater are remotely comparable?