This is from Jef Peckham…
Lately, you have been opining quite a bit about the Plame/Rove story and the DeLay indictment. Please allow me to opine a bit.
It's all boring, and IMO means next to nothing, no matter which side of the political spectrum one happens to fall on.
Ultimately it comes down to the 'Bush-haters' trying to do just what the 'Clinton-haters' did during his presidency. The biggest difference to me seems to be that the current crowd is after revenge only, while the previous bunch seemed to at least have some scruples or principles. Plus, at least some of the Clinton crowd did actually break some laws. So far, that has not been shown to be the case with the Bush crowd, although I am sure some of them probably have done so. They are politicians in Washington, after all. (I only wish I were joking there.)
Now about those two specific cases:
DeLay: I have no doubt that guy is a crooked as a three-dollar bill. But what has he been charged with in this case? Conspiracy to violate a law in Texas two years before that law was passed. This indictment sounds mighty fishy to me. Could he still be convicted? Sure he could. Remember, Martha Stewart was convicted for lying to the Feds about a crime that the jury decided did not happen.
Rove, Plame, Libby, whoever: From the reports I have heard on the news from TV, Radio (NPR), and the right- and left-wing talking heads, the only law any of them have mentioned that the Grand Jury is looking at for a possible violation is one that makes it a crime to reveal the name of a covert operative at the CIA. Ms. Plame was not a covert operative, and had not been for at least five years from what I have heard. Apparently she was an analyst for the the agency. Revealing that fact would not be a violation of this law. The right-wing talking heads also insist that she was known to be a CIA analyst in the social circles in Washington. If that is the case, then I don't see where any law was violated by the Bush bunch. Now if the investigation has turned to obstruction of justice, or conspiracy to obstruct, and fraud, there may be a chance for indictments. But those should not be limited to Rove or Libby or others in the Bush bunch.
With all of this being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", I would find it extremely funny if indictments came down against some of the 'Bush-haters' and not just the Bush bunch. (Think about it. Wouldn't it be hysterical if Joseph Wilson is indicted for a crime because of the investigation over his wife's identity? Or would that just be ironic?)
Most of the "opining" I've done about the Plame/Rove squabble has been that I don't think we know as much about the case as we think we know. We're listening to a lot of analysis by folks who are guessing or basing their arguments on rumors of dubious origin. This Special Prosecutor's office and Grand Jury don't seem to have leaked as voraciously as some, thereby creating a certain vacuum that partisans have been able to fill with spin. Being largely unencumbered by the true details of the case, I think both sides have spun in some fanciful (or at least, arguable) directions.
Your explanation of why Valerie Plame was not an operative may be correct but I've also read just the opposite interpretation of her situation and the law (here's one example) and I don't know who's right. Ultimately, I suppose I think that (a) both sides are engaged in a certain amount of wishful thinking and (b) none of the folks making the case either way on Internet forums are the ones who'll make the final determination. I have the feeling that no matter who winds up being "right" in the sense of corresponding to the final legal decision, it won't necesssarily be for the reasons now being stated.
During the Clinton years, we lived through a lot of adamant explanations about how Filegate and Travelgate were certainly crimes that could not help but land Bill and/or Hillary behind bars. That was above and beyond all the years they'd definitely be serving over Whitewater, where there was a "mountain of irrefutable evidence" (to use Bob Dornan's term) of criminal action on their parts. I dunno what laws you think the Clinton crowd actually broke but I'd hope you'd entertain the notion that a lot of the charges against them were politically-motivated bunk. I'm certainly open to the idea that all this "Rove is certain to be indicted" talk is of the same stripe.
I think I'd disagree with you that any (or most) of the folks going after the Bush crowd are after revenge. I don't think revenge ever gets you anywhere in politics and so is rarely a motive. In fact, it strikes me that very few folks in that line of work are ever interested in much more than what will help them and/or their cause tomorrow, and are too eager for advancement to look back. Look at how John McCain, Hillary Clinton and many others have found it advantageous to work with people who, it could be said, were once involved in ruthlessly attacking them.
What I think the anti-Bush folks are after is to make more of America view this administration the way they do, which is as a bunch of thugs who smear their opponents. They also think this scandal will "expose" the many character flaws they see in G.W.B. If he keeps making lame, evasive statements like he made yesterday, he's going to make their job a lot easier.