Via the NYT: Questions About Cheney Remain
In legal terms, the jury has spoken in the Libby case. In political terms, Dick Cheney is still awaiting a judgment.
To be honest, I am not so sure about that. While I recognize that many (for example, Andrew Sullivan) believe that the logical extension of the Libby trial is an investigation (likely Congressional) of the Vice President’s office, I must confess that I do not see that happening as a result of this trial.
One may believe that there are a number of serious questions about the Vice President and his influence over the case for war; however, the salient question at this point in time is: did the trial open any specific doors on that count in an objective sense? I would answer no. While the trial revealed that the Vice President and his staff were willing to attempt to manipulate the media to attempt to gain a political edge. One may not like that fact, but is there anyone out there who understands politics even a little bit who is truly surprised by that fact?
My basic point is: do we have some specific piece of information or set of clues that we didn’t have prior to the trial? I don’t see that we have. We have understandable and justified outrage that a high level official from Cheney’s staff lied to a grand jury, but beyond that, what do we have?
It isn’t even as if we have learned that Libby was the sole source of the information about Plame. It still appears to be the case that Richard Armitage was the source for Novak, meaning that the column that launched this whole investigation was not directly linked ot Libby’s behavior, or even to Cheney’s office.
Back to the NYT piece:
For weeks, Washington watched, mesmerized, as the trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr. cast Vice President Cheney, his former boss, in the role of puppeteer, pulling the strings in a covert public relations campaign to defend the Bush administration’s case for war in Iraq and discredit a critic.
I think the key word in that sentence is “Washington.” I have little doubt that Washington was mesmerized, but I don’t think that the country itself was–not enough to provide the political propellant needed to launch a massive investigation of the Vice President.
I don’t think that this event is going to have a massive political effect on Cheney, as his approval numbers were already horrendous to begin with.
Note: I am not arguing for or against an investigation. Rather, I am saying that based on the nature of Libby’s conviction and the lack of shocking revelations coming out of the trial that I don’t really think that the political status quo as been altered all that much. The event was dramatic, but not seismic.
As the NYT headline states: “Questions About Cheney Remain”–the questions were there before the verdict and they remain in place. I don’t think any especially new questions are on the table, however. Hence, if a massive investigation was unlikely prior to the verdict, I don’t see how that has been changed by the verdict.
Technorati Tags: Vice President Cheney, Lewis Scooter Libby, Plame investigation
Sphere: Related Content
March 7th, 2007 at 9:03 am
[...] What the saints and sinners say on what is and ain’t right here: Associated Press, Captain’s Quarters, CNN, Jon Swift, Washington Post, American Thinker, The Raw Story, Jules Crittenden, PoliBlog (TM), Kesher Talk, The Corner, Balloon Juice, Brilliant at Breakfast, The American Street, NewsBusters.org, Think Progress, State of the Day, The Daily Dish, Kiko’s House, Liberal Values and Better Living [...]
March 7th, 2007 at 9:20 am
The conviction of former White House official Lewis “Scooter” Libby on Tuesday dealt another blow to President Bush’s beleaguered administration and marked the latest chapter in a record of mistakes, missteps and setbacks growing out of an Iraq war policy that went badly awry.
What Libby’s actions do indicate, however, is a White House more than willing to play fast and loose with the truth, as well as spin everything necessary to justify its policies.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I suppose my point is that that was already the predominate view of the administration’s critics. Further, whatever revelations we received from the trial came as a result of testimony, not the conviction. As such, I am skeptical that the status quo has really changed.