Join The Debate!

End the circus

Although Buckley may have gone too far in asserting certainty that Libby lied, he is correct that a 30 month sentence is grossly excessive even if he did lie as charged. The most desirable outcome would be for the justice system to correct the excess. But if a presidential pardon is the only way to avoid Libby going to prison until all appeals are exhausted, then one is warranted. If Libby is not sent to prison during the appeal process and the sentence stands, then a presidential pardon is justified at that time on the basis that the punishment did not fit the offense.

This was the focus of the Buckley column, but the comments rapidly deteriorated into partisan and presumptuous bickering over what the Wilsons, President Bush, President Clinton, and others did and said. As a non-partisan who thinks both major parties are far astray, this is my take:

Wilson's 7/6/03 NYT article was an intentional and misleading attempt to discredit President Bush's statement in the 2003 State of The Union address that Saddam had SOUGHT uranium in Africa. Wilson claimed that his Niger visit showed that Saddam had not BOUGHT yellow cake from Niger and therefore he concludes that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat". His reasoning is revealed at the end of the article when he asserts that there are two ways his input could have been integrated.

" If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand .." (but would like to know why).

" If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses".

This is very arrogant, simplistic, incomplete, and illegitimate. The logical interpretation of the Wilson input to the CIA was that it was one small piece and likely already known (ie that Saddam's Niger purchase efforts were unsuccessful). The point that President Bush was addressing was that Saddam posed a threat because he had SOUGHT nuclear material in the past (and had a nuclear weapon intention), and was very likely to proceed if he could.

So who lied? Bush did not. Wilson did not technically but was misleading.

Then the thing descended into partisan La-La-Land when media partisans (most particulary Chris Matthews) repeatedly misled by claiming that "Bush Lied" because Wilson proved that Saddam did not obtain yellow cake from Niger ( a totally untrue and irrelevant claim). It is understandable that the Bush administration would make an effort (ultimately unsuccessfully) to correct the record. Mary Matalin (a Cheney advisor) has recently made this known, and she specifically cited Matthews as the prime offender. She advised that it would be useless to confront Matthews (because of his lack of objectivity) and recommended talking to Russert. Libby may have been the one who tried to discuss it with Russert, but it is obvious it did not help. The issue spiraled out of control and descended into a circus.

Wilson's wife working for the CIA (with ambiguous classification) and also influencing his selection for the Niger trip complicated the circus. The CIA official or officials who authorized that trip should have been fired for incompetence. Do we know who made that stupid decision and whether they have been fired? It is tragic that a man's life has been destroyed as a result of such trivial and partisan political distortion. This does not excuse any untruth by Libby when he was bound by law to be truthful. He should be held accountable in a just way. This whole affair has not been just.

I am not a lawyer or a philosopher, so perhaps my view is incomplete. But one thing is interesting that has not been given much attention. Is Tim Russert the only Washington hack who did not know that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and influenced his trip? His naivety is not credible.

Free Libby!