Leaks, Libby, & Moving On
Is this the beginning or the ending of the story ?
Based upon the media response since Fitzgerald’s findings were made public, there’s disappointment in the air that Rove has apparently escaped (relatively) unscathed, although perhaps a bit angrier, and an indictment relating to the Iraqi war has been avoided.
The result seems to be an increasing hunger for a sequel that will bring forth findings of wrongdoing regarding the premise for the Iraqi war.
Catching Libby alone was like catching an undernourished bluegill, when you were angling for a whale or at least a decent size walleye.
After two years of hoping to see Karl Rove frog-marched in a perp walk, liberals got the veep’s chief of staff hobbling on crutches. The New York Times had to admit: “Even after the indictment on Friday of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Mr. Bush has no immediate plans to bring in fresh faces or fire any top aides, especially if his senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, is not charged in the C.I.A. leak case.”
Remember, this is the newspaper that instigated this investigation, demanded a special prosecutor and sent a reporter to jail to try to nail Karl Rove. Nope. But they have not given up trying. The summary for Frank Rich’s column today reads:
“Patrick Fitzgerald’s leak investigation is just one window into the genesis of the smoke screen that the White House used to sell the war in Iraq.”
And of course, over at the Nation, Tom Englehardt:
“Think of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictment of the Vice President’s Chief of Staff as but a judicial wade-in-the-water; and yet the charges against Libby already bring to mind the cover-up charges that unraveled the Nixon White House during the Watergate era.”
No, pal. Not. Within two years and two months after the Watergate break-in, Nixon had resigned. Within a year of perjuring himself in a deposition, Clinton faced impeachment. This case is not just beginning. It is ending. Indicted on five counts, pleads on two.
So, will the opposition be able to “move on,” and concentrate upon providing leadership, direction, and solutions for the future rather than trying to find fault in the past?