On The Outside

Andrew on Scooter, Bush, and Marty Peretz:

Marty is a great friend. I have no doubt he is sincere in defending Libby. I have no reason to doubt that Libby is a very nice man, for a perjurer and a smear artist for the powerful. But the law must always count for more than mere friendship. Libby broke the law and undermined the judicial system; and Bush's commutation of the sentence is a clear declaration that the rule of law ends at the administration's edge. Thousands of other perjured felons could get a commutation, but they're not friends with George W. Bush and Marty Peretz. And so they have no chance. The bottom line for Americans is this: George Bush's friends do not go to jail. Your friends do.

Well said. Bizarrely, The Washington Times seems to get this even if none of the rest of the conservative establishment does.

Comments

well, let's not get carried away with the "well said." libby didn't "undermine" the judicial system; BUSH "undermined" the judicial system, in an extraordinarily abusive way (also known as obstruction of justice).

but how "well said" can any piece of writing that includes the phrase "marty (peretz) is a great friend" really be?

Posted by howard | July 4, 2007 12:03 PM

If Bush had commuted the sentence to 15 months, we'd all be silent and the conservatives largely happy. A rational action like that, however, clearly causes Libby to go to jail, which I am increasingly convinced Bush promised would not happen when Libby took the fall.

Posted by Mudge | July 4, 2007 12:38 PM

"but how 'well said' can any piece of writing that includes the phrase 'marty (peretz) is a great friend' really be?"

I think it is silly to insist that Sullivan not only break with the neocons politically (as he has done) but break off any friendships he may have developed over the years with any of them as individuals.

I don't know about you, but I do not base my friendships on political agreement. (Though admittedly, none of my friends, even the most conservative, are quite as meshuga as Peretz...)

Posted by David T | July 4, 2007 1:23 PM

More than favoritism, it's obstruction of justice. Did Sullivan catch that? Libby is Bush's accomplice, not his friend.

Posted by John Emerson | July 4, 2007 2:42 PM

I think it is silly to insist that Sullivan not only break with the neocons politically (as he has done) but break off any friendships he may have developed over the years with any of them as individuals.

I think it is utterly craven of Sullivan to feel he needs to give Marty Peretz a warm fuzzy--in print--before daring to disagree with something Peretz wrote.

There was a time when it was considered possible for journalists to have political differences and still be friendly.

Posted by James Gary | July 4, 2007 3:12 PM

I think it is utterly craven of Sullivan to feel he needs to give Marty Peretz a warm fuzzy--in print--before daring to disagree with something Peretz wrote. There was a time when it was considered possible for journalists to have political differences and still be friendly.

Uh... it's his blog. He's not writing in any journalistic capacity, nor is he pretending to do so.

Posted by benny | July 4, 2007 3:27 PM

Look at the list of people who have publicly identified themselves as standing with Libby (Legal Defense Fund)

You could take the whole staffs of NYT, NPR, WP, CNN and every left blog and they wouldn't amount to a wart on the ass of the achievement, probity and public service of those who stand w/ Libby

Posted by jozef | July 4, 2007 3:52 PM

Probity has an ass now?

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | July 4, 2007 4:03 PM

Uh... it's his blog. He's not writing in any journalistic capacity, nor is he pretending to do so.

?

Posted by James Gary | July 4, 2007 4:12 PM

Just a nice, basically unnecessary reminder that Sullivan is a shit.

Posted by John Emerson | July 4, 2007 5:01 PM

James Gary:

Uh... okay. My point is that if you want to call out Sullivan for having no balls as a blogger, you're free to do so. However, if my reading comprehension skills do not fail me, you're calling him out for having no balls as a journalist. I'm just saying this is unfair, since in this particular instance, he's not writing an opinion piece for any official publication. He's just writing in his blog.

Posted by benny | July 4, 2007 5:06 PM

More than favoritism, it's obstruction of justice. Did Sullivan catch that? Libby is Bush's accomplice, not his friend.

Thank you! What Clinton did with David Rich--the thing that SO outraged the conservatives, that was inappropriate favoritism. That was treating your friends (and contributors) better than other people.

Bush has already engaged in this kind of favoritism a thousand times. Look at his cabinet--stuffed to the gills with incompetent cronies. And there are many, many sins that have gone unpunished with this crowd because of who their friends are.

But what he's doing now is much, much worse than simple favoritism. He's like a Mafia Don with pardon power, making the cops release his soldier so the guy doesn't start squealing when he realizes he's facing hard time.

And what is this nonsense about Scooter having probation? For normal convicted criminals, probation means that if you break the terms of your probation, you go to jail. But for Scooter, jail is quite obviously off the table. So, if he breaks the terms of his probation...nothing. How can we call it probation if there's no punishment

Scooter got a de facto pardon from his partner in crime. And now his partner in crime won't answer any questions. It's obscene.

Posted by anonymiss | July 4, 2007 6:37 PM

However, if my reading comprehension skills do not fail me, you're calling him out for having no balls as a journalist. I'm just saying this is unfair, since in this particular instance, he's not writing an opinion piece for any official publication. He's just writing in his blog.

Well, there's a big banner graphic at the top of Sullivan's blog that says "The Atlantic," which suggests the blog might in some way be associated with that magazine of that name.

I don't want to seem combative, but I don't see any journalistic difference in writing for one's blog and writing an opinion piece for an official publication--are you suggesting blog posts should be considered "off the record" or "not for attribution" somehow?

Posted by James Gary | July 4, 2007 6:41 PM

No, it's not well said. He's defining one end of the "legitimate" debate, which is between "Scooter Libby shouldn't get special favors" and "Libby was harshly treated." The truth, which is that Libby had to be kept out of prison in order to keep his mouth shut, but could not be pardoned, also in order to keep his mouth shut - that can't even be hinted at.

Posted by Bloix | July 4, 2007 7:16 PM

While the particular quote excerpted here is not in my opinion as "well said" as some of his others, Sullivan has been the leading blogger in commenting on the outrageousness of the Libby commutation.

And for those that have actually read his blog, they would know that he has on more than one occassion pointed out that Libby was likely pardoned to keep his mouth shut. Indeed, Sullivan has even referred to the commutation as obstruction of justice itself.

Try reading this:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/commutation-bec.html

Posted by Brian | July 4, 2007 7:25 PM

But, anonymiss, what about what Clinton did with Susan McDougall (I mean the pardon part). That seemed pretty clearly one co-conspirator doing another a favor, no?

Please don't bore me with any anti-Kevin Starr distribes. Average people don't get to choose whether to testify based on their approval or disapproval of the prosecutor.

Posted by y81 | July 4, 2007 7:26 PM

Please don't bore me with any anti-Kevin Starr distribes

OK, I'll bore you with anti-Ken Starr diatribes.

Ken Starr was a hyper-partisan, cousin-humpin', leaking-like-a sieve, hit man for the GOP.

Posted by Sharon | July 4, 2007 8:01 PM

y81: BIG difference between Susan McDougal and Scooter Libby. Ms. McDougal spent 2 years in prison under the most egregious conditions for refusing to give testimony about someone whom she had not seen for a couple of decades on charges that have been determined to be meritless by the Pillsbury Report and repeatedly exonerated by the Republican first Whitewater special prosecutor (Robert Fiske), the Republican second Whitewater special prosecutor (Ken Starr), and the Republican third Whitewater special prosecutor (Robert Ray). Ms. McDougal spent a extended periods of time in solitary confinement and even spent time in the general population wearing the prison-issued clothes that are generally reserved for child-molesters and child murderers.

In contrast, Scooter Libby spent exactly no days in prison, but gosh, otherwise you've come up with a really close analogy.

Posted by J Bean | July 4, 2007 8:13 PM

"well, let's not get carried away with the "well said." libby didn't "undermine" the judicial system"

Howard, if this is snark then I'm too dumb to track it. If you're being serious, then you're the idiot.

Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice-- short of bribing jurors, there isn't a more clear cut way to "undermine the judicial system".

As for why Andrew is so gentle on Marty, consider that Sullivan is still on the masthead as a TNR contributing editor. Consider also that (from what I read), Marty kept him on TNR' health insurance plan even after Andrew was fired as editor and was diagnosed with HIV (good luck getting individual insurance with that preexisting condition).

Under the circumstances, I wouldn't have the balls (or perhaps, the gall) to talk junk about Marty either.

Posted by beowulf | July 4, 2007 8:15 PM

One thing that has always puzzled me is why there has been very little investigation into the origin of the so-called "Niger Documents" which started this affair. (If you're not up to speed on this, the documents which allegedly claimed that Iraq was seeking to buy yellowcake (uranium oxide) were claimed to have come from the government of Niger. The documents were obvious forgeries. They were leaked to SISMI, the Italian intelligence agency, and they found their way into the so-called UK "dodgy dossier", which contributed to the departure of Tony Blair as UK PM. George W. Bush cited the allegations in the 2003 state-of-the-union speech.) It was all malarkey.

This part of the investigation is public knowlege, but you'd have to search it out to discover it. This is a VERY BIG deal here, folks, for someone went way out of their way to try to flim-flam the entire world. The question is "Who"?

This is a dog that ought to be barking his head off, but he's strangely silent.

Here on Independence Day...

Posted by James Hogan | July 4, 2007 11:07 PM

I don't see any journalistic difference in writing for one's blog and writing an opinion piece for an official publication--are you suggesting blog posts should be considered "off the record" or "not for attribution" somehow?

Not "off the record" so much as "off the cuff". The Atlantic Monthly sponsors Matt's blog as well, and I'm pretty sure you don't consider his post on Art Brut to be professional journalism.

Posted by benny | July 4, 2007 11:13 PM

Average people don't get to choose whether to testify based on their approval or disapproval of the prosecutor.

Monica Goodling, anyone? Admittedly, that her testimony would have incriminated her (for violating the Hatch act), so she had a valid Fifth Amendment claim that went beyond "I'm afraid the congressional committee will be mean to me."

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 4, 2007 11:14 PM

This part of the investigation is public knowlege, but you'd have to search it out to discover it. This is a VERY BIG deal here, folks, for someone went way out of their way to try to flim-flam the entire world. The question is "Who"?

My google-fu isn't up to it tonight but didn't the Italian's fess up that some JINSA connected ex-CIA fed it to JINSA/OVPUSA connected Michael Ledeen and that was where all that came from?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 5, 2007 1:37 AM

Ms. McDougal spent a extended periods of time in solitary confinement and even spent time in the general population wearing the prison-issued clothes that are generally reserved for child-molesters and child murderers...In contrast, Scooter Libby spent exactly no days in prison, but gosh, otherwise you've come up with a really close analogy.

The relevant analogy is not the relative degrees of suffering by Libby and McDougal, but rather the relative merits of their respective pardons. Mr. Libby lied under oath, and should be punished. His lie, though, occurred during the course of an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing that remained just that, allegations. What's more, the infamous leak -- had it even constituted a crime -- was not Mr. Libby's doing. Indeed it would appear that Mr. Fitzgerald knew full well who had done the leaking by the time he got around to questioning Mr. Libby. This gives off the distinctive odor of entrapment. Mr. Libby's punishment -- legal bills, a tarnished reputation, a sizable fine, probation, loss of his lawyer's license -- fit the crime in a manner very similar to Mr. Clinton's punishment. Neither served a day in prison, which, given the flimsiness of both cases, was a just outcome.

Susan McDougal may well have gotten the shaft, but that hardly justifies doing the same to Mr. Libby. The real crimes have been committed by the president and vice president. There is recommended constitutional means of punishing them, of course, but some, ahem, people, don't have the balls for that.

Posted by Kobayashi | July 5, 2007 2:01 AM

I almost agree with you, but do you really think Scooter Libby is really going to pay anything? He won't pay that legal bill, he already has his defense fund paying everything, his reputation is burnished if anything by who counts in his circles, his fines will be paid by his sponsers, if he gets disbarred he'll just a Freedom Scholar for the AEI.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 5, 2007 2:16 AM

"What's more, the infamous leak -- had it even constituted a crime -- was not Mr. Libby's doing."

It should be pointed out that Novak was simply the only person leaked too who was stupid enough to commit that to print. A lot of people were leaked to by many people, including Armitage, Rove and Libby. Why do you think Judith Miller spent some time behind bars?

Posted by Reality Man | July 5, 2007 6:58 AM

On Marc Rich:

"Facing intense questioning from Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pennsylvania, Libby hedged on whether he thought Clinton's pardon was justified, infuriating the congressman.

"Did you represent a crook who stole money from the United States government, was a fugitive and should never have been given or granted a pardon by the facts that you know?" snapped Kanjorski. "

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/

Make of that what you will.

Posted by Reality Man | July 5, 2007 7:23 AM

The relevant analogy is not the relative degrees of suffering by Libby and McDougal

Sure it is.

McDougal wasn't in jail for a crime. She was in jail for not saying nasty things about Clinton. Her husband was in jail for a crime & he wasn't pardoned.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 5, 2007 7:35 AM

Posted by James Gary | July 4, 2007 3:12 PM:"There was a time when it was considered possible for journalists to have political differences and still be friendly."

There was a time it was possible for politicians as well. This is the main thing wrong with American politics in my opinion. It has got nasty. Very very nasty. As actually ten minutes reading the comments here would show.

Posted by HeiGou | July 5, 2007 7:38 AM

As actually ten minutes reading the comments here would show.

As if the Arkansas Project weren't sufficient.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 5, 2007 7:59 AM

Mr. Libby lied under oath, and should be punished. His lie, though, occurred during the course of an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing that remained just that, allegations.

Great point. I wondered why Libby lied though. Could it have had anything to do with preventing the prosecutor from proving the allegations of wrongdoing? Nah, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory. People just lie sometimes.

What's more, the infamous leak -- had it even constituted a crime -- was not Mr. Libby's doing. Indeed it would appear that Mr. Fitzgerald knew full well who had done the leaking by the time he got around to questioning Mr. Libby. This gives off the distinctive odor of entrapment.

Another great point. It seems quite possible that the Vice President knew that Plame was covert and nevertheless ordered Libby to leak her identity to the press. Fitzgerald knew this -- and yet he still asked Libby about how he found out about Plame! I can't imagine a better example of prosecutorial overreach. And then in an awful stroke of bad fortune for Libby, he lied about this total random line of inquiry! Amazing!

It's a good thing that President Bush stood up for the little guy and commuted Libby's sentence.

Posted by Barbar | July 5, 2007 8:00 AM

The problem is, the laws don't make these subtle nuances that everyone desperately makes to shield Clinton's perjury conviction.
In reality, they look pretty much alike. Libby lied, Bubba lied. No underlying crime and no one died. And yet, it's somehow 'different' when it's Clinton.
(hint: it's really not different at all...)

Posted by Fred Jones | July 5, 2007 8:57 AM

to shield Clinton's perjury conviction.

WTF? When was Clinton convicted of anything?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 5, 2007 10:05 AM

"Indeed it would appear that Mr. Fitzgerald knew full well who had done the leaking by the time he got around to questioning Mr. Libby."

Wrong. Libby had lied up a storm to the FBI long before Fitzgerald came onto the case. That's not entrapment. That's obstruction.

Posted by Jon H | July 5, 2007 11:41 AM

No underlying crime and no one died

How do you know none of Valerie Plame's WMD contacts didn't die after her (and her front company's) identity was revealed?

Posted by Col Bat Guano | July 5, 2007 2:16 PM

How do you know none of Valerie Plame's WMD contacts didn't die after her (and her front company's) identity was revealed?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? If you have some evidence that I'm not aware of, please, please bring it forth.

Posted by Fred Jones | July 5, 2007 3:11 PM

How do you know none of Valerie Plame's WMD contacts didn't die after her (and her front company's) identity was revealed?

Are you asking me to prove a negative? If you have some evidence that I'm not aware of, please, please bring it forth.

Posted by Fred Jones | July 5, 2007 3:11 PM

How do you know none of Valerie Plame's WMD contacts didn't die after her (and her front company's) identity was revealed?

I don't. But Mr. Libby was not convicted of the crime of divulging Valerie Plame's covert status. Mr. Armitage apparently is the person responsible for that particular outrage. Mr. Libby, as you'll recall, was convicted of the crime of lying about a non-crime.

Posted by Kobayashi | July 5, 2007 7:23 PM