Post-Gazette Editorial – 7/4/07

This page was last updated on July 4, 2007.

The Libby outrage: Bush sinks lower by commuting a felon’s sentence; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; July 4, 2007.

In my critique of a previous editorial on this topic I wrote, “With this editorial, the PG demonstrates it is in denial. This is what happens when you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). The PG had visions of Watergate and those dreams are dashed for now.” The PG continues the denial – and the lies – with this editorial and a column by Dan Simpson of January 31, 2007.

The PG published a bunch of Plamegate editorials dating back to 2003. I wrote critiques on only several of the more recent pieces. They were “Dump Rove,” “Above the law,” “Civil justice,” “Another twist,” and “Libby’s guilt.”

I’ve addressed some of the BS in this editorial in my critiques of the aforementioned editorials and column. As a result, I’ll try not to repeat myself too much below.

Even the reliably liberal and anti-Bush Washington Post (“End of an Affair,” 9/1/06; “The Libby Verdict,” 3/7/07) concedes the story trying to be spun by the PG is BS.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Two days before the Fourth of July, the president made a mockery of American justice. By commuting the 30-month prison term of I. Lewis Libby Jr., the vice president’s former chief of staff, George Bush showed he never intended to let the investigation of the CIA leak case lead where it may and he never expected to have members of his administration held to account.”

[RWC] If President Bush “never intended to let the investigation of the CIA leak case lead where it may,” perhaps the PG can explain why the Administration appointed a special prosecutor, never interfered with the investigation, and made no effort to block Mr. Libby’s trial.

“For Americans who have been appalled by the episode surrounding Valerie Plame, whose CIA cover was blown after her husband publicly criticized part of the Bush rationale for the Iraq war, this is the icing on a distasteful legal cake. It also tells law-abiding citizens that there are two kinds of criminal justice: one for most of us and another for those with friends in high places.”

[RWC] As noted in previous critiques, Joe Wilson’s “criticism” was long ago exposed as a bunch of lies. This is probably a good place to repeat a quote from the aforementioned Washington Post editorial. The Post said, “Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.”

“George W. Bush is by no means the first president to issue a pardon or commutation. In fact, we criticized President Clinton for the flurry of forgiveness that burst from the Oval Office at the end of his tenure. But throughout this investigation, which began in the fall of 2003, President Bush assured the American people that justice would be done.”

[RWC] It should be noted the PG criticism of Bill Clinton came after he left office since the pardons were issued on Mr. Clinton’s way out the door. We can all speculate if we would have seen the same level of PG criticism had Mr. Clinton issued the pardons while still in office.

We also need to remember there’s a great deal of difference between many of the Clinton pardons and President Bush’s commutation of Mr. Libby’s prison sentence. Among the Clinton pardons were people convicted of theft and fraud and included members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group. Mr. Libby was convicted of lying during the politically motivated investigation of what turned out to be a non-crime. Remember, no one was charged with a crime regarding the identification of Mrs. Wilson as a CIA employee.

“‘... [I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,’ he said almost four years ago. ‘And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.’

“As it turns out, Lewis Libby was taken care of Monday, when the president granted clemency that wiped out the 2 1/2-year prison term of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former aide. The action left in place, however, Mr. Libby’s conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice, a $250,000 fine and two years’ probation. Although testimony showed he was not the original leaker, the adviser did talk to reporters about Ms. Plame’s ties to the CIA. The judge and jury agreed that he lied to federal investigators.”

[RWC] Note how the fact Mr. Libby was not the “leaker” garners only part of a sentence out of a 525-word editorial. At the same time, the editorial also failed to note even the trial judge conceded there was no evidence Mr. Libby knew of Mrs. Wilson’s alleged (but never demonstrated) covert status at the CIA. As a result, even if Mr. Libby “did talk to reporters about Ms. Plame’s ties to the CIA,” it would not have been a crime even if the applicable law had covered Mrs. Wilson.

“The president’s action was unusual for the way it was carried out. Seemingly timed to accomplish ASAP, thus reducing the fallout for Republican presidential candidates in 2008, the order was issued before the Justice Department had a chance to review the case. Normally this is done after the convicted felon reports to prison.”

[RWC] Translation: Damn it! We wanted a picture of a handcuffed Lewis Libby being led into prison for the front page. With any luck, we could have superimposed the face of President Bush or VP Cheney on Mr. Libby’s body for dramatic effect.

“Mr. Bush’s claim that ‘I respect the jury’s verdict’ rang hollow (if so, then let punishment take its course). Then he added, ‘But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive’ -- a characterization attacked by the case’s lead prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who said the sentence imposed by the judge was consistent with the law. During the sentencing phase of the trial, Mr. Fitzgerald argued for a stiff penalty because Mr. Libby, an experienced lawyer, had lied repeatedly during the investigation and afterwards showed no regret for his actions.”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note the jury didn’t impose the sentence, the trial judge did. The editorial also failed to note the sentence imposed by the judge exceeded that recommended by the Probation Office by nine to 15 months.

The “no regret for his actions” comment is BS. Despite the conviction, Mr. Libby maintains he is innocent. To demonstrate “regret for his actions,” Mr. Libby would have to accept guilt.

Regarding Mr. Fitzgerald, he has little credibility with me for at least two reasons. First, it appears Mr. Fitzgerald made no effort to determine if a law had been broken. To this date, no one including the CIA has presented evidence demonstrating Mrs. Wilson was covered by the law everyone was squawking about. Indeed, as covered in “Dump Rove,” 36 news-related organizations filed a brief with the Supreme Court entitled “There Is Ample Evidence On The Public Record To Cast Considerable Doubt That A Crime Has Been Committed.” If no law has been broken, three’s no reason for an investigation.

Second, despite knowing Richard Armitage was the “leaker” immediately upon taking up the case, Mr. Fitzgerald proceeded with an investigation anyway.

“But all of that was lost on George Bush, the conservative talk-meisters and Republican White House contenders who are delighted that Lewis Libby won’t have to serve time.”

[RWC] How is a “talk-meister” different from an editorial or other opinion column writer?

“Six and a half years into this administration, most Americans are not surprised. It is one more outrage from a president whose leadership is bankrupt and whose integrity, we thought, could sink no lower.”

[RWC] Make no mistake about it. No matter what President Bush does, the PG considers it “one more outrage.”

Finally, to illustrate the purely partisan position of the PG, consider how editorials treated Bill Clinton’s former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger after he stole (and subsequently destroyed) top-secret documents from the National Archives. Though “Proper exit / Berger was too experienced to misplace documents” said Berger should not have removed the documents, the editorial was downright deferential to Mr. Berger. The editorial didn’t even use the word “stole,” didn’t mention the destruction of documents, and even presented innocuous reasons why Mr. Berger would steal – uh, remove – top-secret documents. The editorial even speculated that making public Mr. Berger’s transgression was a Bush administration scheme.

Other than as an aside in “Dump Rove,” no subsequent editorials mentioned Mr. Berger’s breach of national security. When Mr. Berger plea-bargained a deal that was no more than a slap on the wrist, there were no indignant PG editorials. As a reminder, Mr. Berger’s sentence was 100 hours of community service, two years of probation, and a $50,000 fine. Mr. Berger lost access to top-secret material, but only for five years.