'Scooter' Only Part of the Problem

Why not
e-mail us?

e-mail

Faculty/Staff

Student

Resources

WebCT

Faculty/Staff directory

'Scooter' Only Part of the Problem

Mel Granger
Staff Writer

   A few weeks ago, Assistant to the President-the highest title in the White House-Lewis "Scooter" Libby was found guilty of four of five charges. Libby was also a close friend and adviser of Vice President Dick Cheney.

   Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, false statement of facts and two counts of perjury. He was found innocent of a second charge of false statement of facts. This was concerned with the outing of Valerie Plame-Wilson as a covert CIA operative, but it was not about the outing of Valerie Plame that he was charged with (stay with me, since this is complicated), but whether or not he lied to an FBI investigation and during his grand jury testimony. Libby maintained he didn’t know about Plame, but only learned about Plame being a CIA operative from NBC’s "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert, an assertion Russert denied. (The testimony showed the matter of Plame had been discussed with Libby nine times before his conversation with Russert, but Libby "forgot.")

   The suspicion being that someone in the Bush Administration leaked Plame’s identity in retaliation for her husband, Joe Wilson, having written an article stating that the Bush Administration’s assertion that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy radioactive materials from Niger, was false and misleading. The idea behind the obtaining of the nuclear materials is to construct nuclear weapons. It has even been stated that the declassifying of material is well within the administration’s legal limits, so Libby lied to the FBI about something that probably wasn’t illegal, which begs the question of where "Scooter" got his law degree?

   Now why in heaven's name should anyone care that "Scooter" was guilty of lying or obstructing justice? After all, he’s a lawyer, he’s a politician and we all know that they lie. They’ve been the butt of jokes about their honesty for centuries, on top of which, the nickname "Scooter" brings forth the mental image of a boy with roller skates, a slingshot and freckles (I think that "Scooter" does have freckles, but I don’t know about the roller skates and slingshot). Can you seriously worry about someone named "Scooter?" The case of "Scooter" Libby is only marginally interesting if nothing else about this case is looked at.

   At the root of this case is something far more troubling; were Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s closest advisor and the guru of the current White House, involved? Were they so paranoid that a simple opinion piece written by Wilson galvanized them into possibly outing Wilson’s wife, an active CIA operative, to protect their strategy toward declaring war on Iraq? One of the jurors on Libby trial, Denis Collins, said the question was asked several times while the jury deliberated, "…where’s Rove, where are these other guys…" that the belief from the jury members was that Libby was a "fall guy," whose job was to protect Rove and Cheney. I have to ask this question; at what point is it all right for me to attack your family, in order to protect my reputation? It is another chapter in the sorry saga that everyone who questioned or questions the Bush Administration about its policies concerning Iraq and, most importantly, our reasons for going to war with Iraq, were/are treated as an enemy who had/have to be discredited, or crushed..

   Little by little, the reasons for attacking Iraq (really Hussein) have been gradually shown to be patently false. We found no WMD, either nuclear or biological, even though we were told by George Tenet, former head of the CIA, that they existed. In fact, it was a "slam dunk." Cheney and Bush both alluded to the "possibility’ that members of al Qaeda had met in Iraq with Iraqi officials, the assumption being that they had formed an alliance. Since we knew that al Qaeda was responsible for 911, bingo, Iraq must be guilty as well, except Hussein couldn’t stand al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. If we would have declared war on bin Laden and/or al Qaeda alone, Hussein would have been in our corner.

   Other issues that have come to the forefront that should have been questioned are too numerous to mention in one article, but I will list some of the most egregious:

The passing of the Patriot Act - exactly what is patriotic about giving up some of your civil liberties is beyond me.
The imprisoning of "terrorist" suspects at Guantanamo Bay, depriving them, through dubious legal means, of due process. If they are terrorists, charge them, give them their day in court and present your evidence. Otherwise, let them go. All Americans should be outraged over this situation. It smacks of the internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry, whose only crime was that they were of Japanese ancestry. We express moral outrage at any country that does the same thing.
Torture has been approved, even though it has been proven that torture doesn’t work or gives unreliable information. The gaining of the person’s confidence yields far more reliable information.
The deplorable conditions that some of the soldiers, who have been wounded in Iraq, have had endure at Walter Reed and other Veterans Affairs' facilities. The men and women who have volunteered to help defend their country have heard their pleas fall on deaf ears, until news reports surfaced about the conditions.

   There have been many more assertions and accusations, proven and unproven, speaking to the idea that we have a government that is out of control, with no respect for the office they hold, for the American people’s wishes, and an "ends justifies the means" mentality.

   We have heard anyone who voices an opinion differing from the White House branded as an appeaser, unpatriotic and, at times, treasonous. It begs the question, at what point in time was it decided that to be patriotic, one must blindly follow the government’s policies, edicts and explanations? Wasn’t one of the basic ideas behind the founding of the United States distrust in the government? Weren’t the branches of the government - judicial, executive and legislative - set up to ensure that one part of the government didn’t acquire an undue amount of power? Didn’t our Founding Fathers install a series of checks and balances? Weren’t we meant to cast a cynical eye at our government? When did we give up the right to question our elected officials? Unfortunately I believe it started with 911. At that point in a swelling of national pride and a showing of solidarity, an overwhelming majority of Americans handed over their right to question, and now we’re finding that our own government is taking advantage of that feeling and solidarity..

   On "Countdown With Keith Olbermann," President Richard Nixon's former Special Counsel John Dean, who served time in prison for his part in the Watergate scandal, called this trial and the Bush White House "…much, much worse than Watergate." He served in a White House that also appeared consumed with secrecy and its image, to the point where lies, dirty tricks, attempts to smear the name of anyone who they perceived as a threat and bugging were an everyday occurrence. The trial of "Scooter" Libby is another look into a current White House that appears to believe that they have a "mandate" to do anything and everything, moral or immoral, legal or illegal, to achieve their agenda, regardless of what the people wish. In fact, the people are treated as if they are mentally challenged. I see little evidence that the Bush White House has any respect for the American people at all.

   I will save my biggest indictment for last, keeping in mind that I am a member of this party. To the Democratic Party, do something, anything, show some backbone and forget about getting re-elected. We are in a crisis situation. You were returned to Congress largely as an indictment of Bush’s Iraq policies. Live up to our prayers and hopes. To sit on the sidelines waiting for Bush’s troop surge to blow up in his face so that you can point to the Republican Party during the upcoming Presidential election is unconscionable.

Over 3,000 soldiers, our "best and brightest," men and women, have died. So have tens of thousands of Iraqis, who are not part of the insurgency, who only wanted the same things we want, a life relatively free from fear, to work, to know that their families are relatively safe. Perhaps my views might be naïve. I admit I don’t totally understand the political landscape and how things work in Congress, but I do know that thousands of people are dying, and many more thousands have been maimed, both physically and psychologically. If you don’t know someone who has been killed or wounded in Iraq, at this rate, you will.

A decade from now, the trial of "Scooter" Libby will possibly be only a footnote in a history text, but it might galvanize enough people to demand their government back. Because it is yours and my government, not George W. Bush’s, Dick Cheney’s, Karl Rove’s or even "Scooter" Libby’s. We gave it to them, now let’s take it back.

Have a comment? Please e-mail us.