I haven't been paying too much attention to this week's trial of the century. Having heard that prospective jurors were being screened by being asked whether they trusted the Bush Administration, I figured the whole thing was going to devolve into a marathon whitewash.
But then came this lede:
I. Lewis Libby Jr., the vice president's former chief of staff, was made a scapegoat by White House officials to protect the president's longtime political adviser, Karl Rove, Mr. Libby's lawyer asserted in his opening statement on Tuesday. (source)
Cat fight!
3 comments:
Then you'll just love the new Salon article Scooter's tragic innocence, subtitled: "Why my friend Scooter Libby is loyal to Bush, Cheney and an arrogant administration whose values are not his own."
The author, Nick Bromell, apparently has known Scooter since he was 11 years old, and is a fellow Andoverite.
Redux: poor smart Jew sucks up to powerful WASPs, gets used and tossed to the wolves.
Less an apology for Scooter (given that the author is an old friend) and much more a j'accuse against the East Coast dynastic forces.
In vain, I expect. There is a thread of sadness running through it, as we've all seen this movie before. It doesn't end well for the ladder climber.
Scooter, they were never going to let you into the club.
I second the recommendation to the article. I'm not sure I buy the conclusion, but the background on Libby is interesting.
Speaking as someone who endured three years at a school in the same mold as Andover, I certainly buy the portrayal of that twisted lifestyle.
Hi Vic --
Thanks for stopping by.
I don't think The Future Was Yesterday bans disagreement. Or maybe I haven't been trying hard enough. ;^)
It does take some time for comments to appear there, because he has chosen to moderate them. His blog, his rules, and he probably isn't logged in 24/7.
If you really want to disagree, and he's really not allowing your comments to appear, then do what the big-time pundits do: link to his post and write your reaction to it, all on your own blog.
Or do what the big-time Republican pundits do: don't link to the post you want to flame, but quote a small section of it, the more out of context the better, and then react only to that.
On the matter of Rove -- it's hard to see how this is a plot by him, but I've underestimated him before. On the surface, it looks like Libby has been tossed overboard, and the White House (Rove) isn't too worried about what he can say. There's a difference between an opening statement and testimony, after all.
A darker thought: they could be looking at their poll numbers and saying, "We're at 30, at best. Nothing we can do will move that number up at this point. On the other hand, despite the amount of idiocy and cynicism we've displayed for the past six years, 30% of the American public is still blindly clinging to us. So, who cares?"
I'm afraid I think this last is really what's going through their minds. Bush doesn't have to run again, Cheney probably won't, Rove knows he can get a job any time, any place, and the rest of the staff have guaranteed lobbying or think tank jobs, thanks to carrying the water for the super-rich this whole time.
I say "probably won't" about Cheney, because I have an occasional dread that he will, in fact, pull a coup de partie at the last minute, and somehow, a combination of dumb voters and Diebold voting machines will put him in office.
But that's a nightmare for another time.
Post a Comment