A Tightening Noose?
While I was romping about DC, NY Times reporter Judy Miller was released from jail for refusing to divulge her sources to federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is conducting a grand jury that is looking into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Almost shortly after getting her "get out of jail free" card, she suddenly "remembered" some notes she had that she hadn't previously disclosed to Fitzgerald, and this past Friday, she turned them over.
Over the weekend, I happened to run across a blog where some discussion was taking place about this whole fiasco, and there were a few links posted within that led to some very good analyses of what exactly is happening as the result of Miller's detainment and her release. I thus refer you to "Patrick Fitzgerald's Mousetrap," which itself contains links to excellent articles by Jane Hamsher (her blog is firedoglake; if you enjoy my spin on politics, you're going to be amazed when you check there) and a fellow named "emptywheel"(who doles out her wisdom at The Next Hurrah); I particularly liked Hamsher's take, but emptywheel's outline was amusing as well. Both point to probable perjury on Miller's part, which thus suggests that Libby, if not Rove, is most likely going to be handed an indictment in the next couple of weeks.
Read the first link I gave you first, "Patrick Fitzgerald's Mousetrap"-- then if you like, you can continue on your own at the individual blogs. Essentially what both blogs posit is that not only is Miller's goose cooked, but Libby and Rove could conceivably be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm amazed the Corporate Media isn't covering this far more than they have been, but then again, considering it's the Corporate Media, I shouldn't be too surprised.
What interests me as a historian, though, is that there are some parallels to Watergate here. Libby and Rove remind me in ways of Nixon's "German Shepherds"-- Erlichman and Haldeman. They're the guardians to the doors of the West Wing, the inner sanctum of the Oval Office. The dribbles of information are similar to Watergate as well; rather than a flood or steady stream of information, we're getting bits and pieces here and there. It's especially the case with the discussion regarding whether or not conversations Miller may have had with Libby took place before certain dates. A "June 23 conversation with Libby" type remark reminds me of the various dates and tapes that formed the basis of the case against Nixon. The widespread cast of characters is akin to Watergate as well, although not as diverse (no Cuban exiles, no ex-CIA agents, no spouses seemingly involved or present, etc.). There's a disingenuous press secretary (although McClellan somehow doesn't evince Ron Ziegler), for one. But we certainly don't have a Woodward or Bernstein these days-- instead we have a so-called "ace reporter" named Judy Miller. There also doesn't seem to be a Deep Throat as yet, or even a John Dean. These days the real John Dean is writing excellent columns about the intrasigences of this administration. I do wonder what Dean privately thinks about all this; in some ways it must be a bit of déjà vu for him.
Another similarity is that the whole mess thus far is ostensibly about Plame's identity, but really reaches back into the administration's attempts to create a credible rationale for invading Iraq. There's also the side issue of the ongoing struggle between the neo-cons and the CIA over pre-war intelligence. In Watergate, we had a "third-rate burglary" mushroom beyond the confines of the Watergate and explode into the realms of the 1972 election, attempts to discredit and punish administration opponents (exactly what's happening now, actually! The whole unmasking of Plame was an attempt to get back at her husband, Joseph Wilson), noises about dropping the investigation due to "national security", and ultimately, the misuse of the gummint and its various agencies (exactly what's happening now-- a lot of different people and agencies were used to make the case for Iraq).
Unfortunately, Congress doesn't seem to want to do its part this time around; instead of establishing committees and instigating investigations, House Republicans shot down attempts to set up probes into the whole mess. The reasoning for denying any formal action by Congress is that it might interfere with Fitzgerald's work. Funny, but I don't recall any such objections when Congress decided to set up their hearings while the Watergate grand jury was still operating and Archibald Cox (and then Leon Jaworski) was doing his job as special counsel. Considering how ethically challenged its leadership is these days, it's not surprising, although saddening. We need men like Peter Rodino and Howard Baker again, methinks. So while there are definite similarities, I'm not sure how this current scandal will play out compared with Watergate. But so far, I think the noose is definitely tightening for certain White House staffers these days.
Over the weekend, I happened to run across a blog where some discussion was taking place about this whole fiasco, and there were a few links posted within that led to some very good analyses of what exactly is happening as the result of Miller's detainment and her release. I thus refer you to "Patrick Fitzgerald's Mousetrap," which itself contains links to excellent articles by Jane Hamsher (her blog is firedoglake; if you enjoy my spin on politics, you're going to be amazed when you check there) and a fellow named "emptywheel"(who doles out her wisdom at The Next Hurrah); I particularly liked Hamsher's take, but emptywheel's outline was amusing as well. Both point to probable perjury on Miller's part, which thus suggests that Libby, if not Rove, is most likely going to be handed an indictment in the next couple of weeks.
Read the first link I gave you first, "Patrick Fitzgerald's Mousetrap"-- then if you like, you can continue on your own at the individual blogs. Essentially what both blogs posit is that not only is Miller's goose cooked, but Libby and Rove could conceivably be just the tip of the iceberg. I'm amazed the Corporate Media isn't covering this far more than they have been, but then again, considering it's the Corporate Media, I shouldn't be too surprised.
What interests me as a historian, though, is that there are some parallels to Watergate here. Libby and Rove remind me in ways of Nixon's "German Shepherds"-- Erlichman and Haldeman. They're the guardians to the doors of the West Wing, the inner sanctum of the Oval Office. The dribbles of information are similar to Watergate as well; rather than a flood or steady stream of information, we're getting bits and pieces here and there. It's especially the case with the discussion regarding whether or not conversations Miller may have had with Libby took place before certain dates. A "June 23 conversation with Libby" type remark reminds me of the various dates and tapes that formed the basis of the case against Nixon. The widespread cast of characters is akin to Watergate as well, although not as diverse (no Cuban exiles, no ex-CIA agents, no spouses seemingly involved or present, etc.). There's a disingenuous press secretary (although McClellan somehow doesn't evince Ron Ziegler), for one. But we certainly don't have a Woodward or Bernstein these days-- instead we have a so-called "ace reporter" named Judy Miller. There also doesn't seem to be a Deep Throat as yet, or even a John Dean. These days the real John Dean is writing excellent columns about the intrasigences of this administration. I do wonder what Dean privately thinks about all this; in some ways it must be a bit of déjà vu for him.
Another similarity is that the whole mess thus far is ostensibly about Plame's identity, but really reaches back into the administration's attempts to create a credible rationale for invading Iraq. There's also the side issue of the ongoing struggle between the neo-cons and the CIA over pre-war intelligence. In Watergate, we had a "third-rate burglary" mushroom beyond the confines of the Watergate and explode into the realms of the 1972 election, attempts to discredit and punish administration opponents (exactly what's happening now, actually! The whole unmasking of Plame was an attempt to get back at her husband, Joseph Wilson), noises about dropping the investigation due to "national security", and ultimately, the misuse of the gummint and its various agencies (exactly what's happening now-- a lot of different people and agencies were used to make the case for Iraq).
Unfortunately, Congress doesn't seem to want to do its part this time around; instead of establishing committees and instigating investigations, House Republicans shot down attempts to set up probes into the whole mess. The reasoning for denying any formal action by Congress is that it might interfere with Fitzgerald's work. Funny, but I don't recall any such objections when Congress decided to set up their hearings while the Watergate grand jury was still operating and Archibald Cox (and then Leon Jaworski) was doing his job as special counsel. Considering how ethically challenged its leadership is these days, it's not surprising, although saddening. We need men like Peter Rodino and Howard Baker again, methinks. So while there are definite similarities, I'm not sure how this current scandal will play out compared with Watergate. But so far, I think the noose is definitely tightening for certain White House staffers these days.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 11:03 PM
<< Home