In the face of such execrable behavior, one wonders what kind of counsel he will provide Mrs. Clinton? And further, one can surely be forgiven for wondering if his "new employment" is a payoff for destroying heaven knows what damaging evidence of what the ex-president failed to do to properly defend this nation. Sandy has not covered himself in glory.
The handling of this case is in stark contrast to the Scooter Libby case wherein the prosecutor Fitzgerald knew full well that it was State Department's antiwar Richard Armitage who leaked the name of Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak, and not someone from the White House orchestrating some nefarious scheme to harm her husband. He knew that, because Armitage admitted it before the trial began. Libby was convicted by a D.C. jury for obstructing justice because he misremembered the first time he mentioned Plame's name, not to Novak, but to anybody. It is still impossible to disabuse writers to this opinion page, pundits and media types of the faulty notion that it was Libby who blew her "cover."
The alleged underlying crime was never prosecuted. The entire purpose of the trial was to determine who revealed an undercover agent's name to Novak. If indeed Plame was a covert agent during the past six years, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted, since he is the one who blew her cover?
Funny the media isn't asking that question. Nor is the media perplexed as to why Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was hauled before the snippy Senate to justify firing eight attorneys general when Clinton fired 92 in one fell swoop. These appointments are political appointments; everybody knows that. The president and his attorney general can fire any of them he chooses and doesn't have to justify the actions to anybody unless of course, you happen to be a Republican administration.
The damaging innuendo blathered about by the Democrat leadership regarding the hapless Gonzales was slanderous and specious. His biggest flaw was not being articulate enough to defend himself with vigor.
The folks in the Democrat leadership are masters at such tactics. The current ads they are running, along with the media spewing their talking points, are accusing President Bush of taking health care away from poor children because he vetoed the S-CHIPS health plan passed by a Republican Congress in 1997.
They all failed to mention that the amendments tacked on by the Democrats covered too many adults, not kids, required calling anyone up to age 25 a child for purposes of coverage, shifted 2.2 million children now covered by private insurance onto the government program and allowed government coverage for families with incomes up to 300 percent of the poverty level. In New York, an income of up to $83,000 per year in income still qualified a family for government coverage.
Bush wants to increase the amount by billions of dollars, but rightly sees these poison-pill amendments as the first steps toward socialized medicine. Not a good thing, if the UK and Canada are any examples. Unfortunately, the Democrats would rather have the "issue" than correct the flaws in the legislation.
Soon we will be hearing a flood of untruths about Vice President Dick Cheney as the Democrats gear up to slander him and mount some wild-eyed campaign to impeach him. Hide the children people, and drag out the tumbrels - the Democrats are on a roll.
Nancy C. Boyer