Sunday, October 30, 2005

Press the Meat

Watching the Russert Show this morning, and the Monsignor is discussing the Libby indictments with the usual broad spectrum of political opinion, which today ranges from William Safire and David Brooks on the right, all the way over to David Broder and Judy Woodruff on the center-right. Damn liberal media.

Anyway, Brooks is parroting the New Conservative Truth, that because Fitzgerald didn't indict anyone on charges of treason, there's nothing more to this scandal. He said, and this is a paraphrase, "Fitzgerald has been at this for 22 months and he's gotten full cooperation and full disclosure from everyone, and he couldn't find anything." What? The main player in this scandal, Scooter Libby, was just indicted on five counts of lying to investigators, lying to the grand jury, and obstructing justice. How the hell is it full cooperation when the linchpin to the case lies to investigators at every turn?

David Brooks is a man who's made a career on trite stand-up sociological observations like "Blue State people drive like this; Red State people drive like that! Blue State people have names like Carl; Red State people have names like Lenny!" So, from him, this sort of inanity is to be expected. But luckily for us, there are actual sane people here on Planet Earth and they offer a more rational reading of the investigation.

At the Booman Tribune (found through Kos), Marty Aussenburg makes an excellent case for why Fitzgerald is only putting the squeeze on Libby and where he'll likely go next. Josh Marshall, meanwhile, sifts through everything over at TPM to make a good case for this leading to Cheney himself. The trail leading to Cheney is becoming so clear that even Nick Kristof -- Nick Kristof, for chrissakes! -- is calling for Cheney to come clean. As Al Franken noted, it's looking more and more like instead of a simple one-day Fitzmas, we're getting a drawn-out Fitznukkah, where the gifts are going to keep on coming.

They're all good, and all too nuanced to cut down to a blog-bite here. So go read them yourdamnself.


Studiodave said...

I watched it and it was great. The panel was essetially debating is the administration corrupt AND incompetent? No, Brooks argued, just incompetent.

Well said.

Thrillhous said...

I missed the broadcast. That broder is just too creepy. Reminds me of the grandpa in Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Thanks for putting those links; very hopeful stuff. On Friday I saw the pbs newshour, and they were talking to Richard Benveniste. He said the verbal language and the body language of Fitz told him it was over, just a little cleaning up to do. The other guest (Richard Ray?), another former prosecutor, said the same thing. I hope they're wrong, but I'm staying pessimistic for now.

Otto Man said...

Yeah, I go back and forth on all this.

Can't remember where I saw it, but someone drew comparisons between Fitzgerald's approach here and his approach in the Illinois case that brought down Gov. Ryan. In the first indictments, Ryan was listed obliquelu -- as another "Official A" -- and it was only after a lot of other convictions that Ryan was finally indicted and convicted himself. So it seems our current "Official A" (Turdblossom) might still be in his sights.

S.W. Anderson said...

I got such a kick out of the first paragraph of this post that I'm going to post it as a quote at Oh!pinion.

Same breadth of political spectrum on Chris "Nouveau Riche Republican Knowitall" Matthews' "Hardball."

ORF said...

I happened to catch the tail end of this yesterday morning, but didn't see enough to get the full gist of the show's topic. They were talking about Judy Miller by that point. Safire practically had a hard-on for her. He is so creepy.

I have never been a huge fan of David Brooks mostly because he just spouts a lot of poorly thought-out truisms that are idiotic. The camel's back broke when he published an article last year talking about how more women should consider the damage they do their careers by graduating college, working, going back to school, getting married, working more, having kids, quitting work for a while and then going back. When they go back, they are at a disadvantage for having left the workplace for so long and for that reason would be better off to go to college, get married, have babies and THEN get to work.

Right, because I have a whole fuckofalot of say in just when I can pop kids out and with whom. And going to law school when you have a five-year-old is a total walk in the park!

S.W. Anderson said...

orf obviously isn't sufficiently acclimated to the whole race-to-the-bottom thing we're all supposed to cheerfully accept.

See, you're supposed to stay home and raise the kid, accepting a lower standard of living as a small sacrifice for the privelege. If more lawyers are needed, the work can be outsourced to India or somewhere, or they can be brought in on special visas.

Once the kid is grown, you might be a little behind the career-starting power curve in law, but hey, they'll be hiring at Wal-Mart (Always Low Wages, Always!).

So relax, it's all part of the plan.