Well, I just had to write this letter to David Broder:

[dave123williams]

This column just made me so spitting mad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802398.html

...that I couldn't help myself:



David,

Libby wasn't charged with a violation of IIPA. He was charged, tried and
convicted by a jury of his peers of lying to Federal investigators and a
Federal Grand Jury.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802478.html?sub=AR

"But the overwhelming weight of the evidence at the trial -- including
reporters' notes of their interviews with Libby -- showed that Libby had
indeed leaked classified information about Plame's identity, even though
that wasn't what put him in the dock."

If there was no underlying crime, David, then what was with all the lying
to the FBI and the Bench?

What was with the deliberate leaking of an American spy's identity,
though he wasn't the first or only administration tool to do so?

Hmmm?

I'm sure the next wet-kiss column you pen to your good pals in this small
'a' administration will answer this very direct question:

If there was no underlying crime, why did Libby feel the need to lie?

I'm of little doubt that your published answer will amuse, greatly.

Carrying as much water as you do, at your age, must be exhausting.


Dave Williams
(address withheld)

[kasseri]

1. Thank You

I hadn't seen (and do not seek out, for obvious reasons related to dangerous spikes in blood pressure, nausea and indignance) David Broder's column until you posted it. I liked your letter very much. You've inspired me to write to the "dean of the press corps" myself. I've watched this man's decline in rationality for over 20 years.

[gratuitous]

2. Nice letter

I doubt he'll even hear about it, but it was a pleasure to read, if not to write. Broder's so deep into his pals and his parties that he can't distinguish right from wrong anymore, just how it affects his social schedule.

[dave123williams]

4. I dunno - it went right to his email address...

[kimmylavin]

3. He actually said...

He actually said "pursued Libby relentlessly, well beyond the time that was reasonable".

Hmmm... where have we seen an ACTUAL case of a prosecutor pursuing a high-ranking government official relentlessly, well beyond the time that was reasonable? Hmmm...

[gratuitous]

5. Broder likes the Railroad School of Justice

And the reason it took so long to get Libby was because everyone was keeping quiet, and nobody was cooperating. Karl Rove was called five times before the grand jury! Apparently Rove couldn't remember much of anything until his last trip for questioning, and as I recall, was tipped off in advance that Fitz had the goods on him, and suddenly Karl was painted yellow and singing like a canary.

If the White House had cooperated -- as George Bush vowed it would -- from the get-go, Libby would have been just an obstructionist small fish, and the real criminals would have been nailed long ago. But the code of silence was wrapped so tightly around this episode, it was impossible to get to the bottom of it. Now, who wields that kind of fear and power in the Bush White House? Hmmmm, think, think.

[MasonJar]

6. I couldn't bring myself to read the Broder article, but I am thrilled

with your reaction and response. Thank you for taking the time to put Broder on notice that he doesn't speak for thoughtful people.

[MGKrebs]

7. Thanks for the heads up. I wrote one too.

Mr. Broder,
In the course of making a good point, you have made incorrect statements about the Libby case that only serve to increase public cynicism with the justice system.
You incorrectly state that there was "no underlying crime", and yet it has been proved conclusively that Plame was in fact a covert agent whose identity was clearly leaked to unauthorized people. That is a crime. Just because there is no conviction for that crime does not mean that the crime did not happen. By your argument, if we don't catch the murderer then there was no murder, despite the presence of a body with a knife in it's back.
Also, you complain that the prosecutor pursued his case for an unreasonably long period of time. What is reasonable? This witness lied to the grand jury, which almost certainly extended the timeline of the case and may have even prevented further charges. If you have a problem with the timeline, perhaps it would be more appropriate to criticize the lying witnesses and uncooperative reporters.

[blueworld]

8. Beautiful letter. The silence of his response will be deafening, I'm sure n/t