|
|
|
November 17, 2005
Libbyrinth?
My reaction at the time the Libby indictment was announced: It's almost a labyrinth.Now that Bob Woodward has entered the picture with another one of his now-you-see-it-now-you-don'ts, "labyrinth" is almost too weak a word. This stuff has been going on for so long, it's a wonder someone hasn't outed Woodward. Worshiped as a god though he may be, Woodward does not pass my smell test. MORE: Carl Bernstein says that it's "outrageous to question Bob’s integrity." Does that mean I have to apologize? MORE: From Captain Ed: ....it does make the indictment look even more foolish if the CIA itself outed Plame to Woodward, one of the most famous journalists in America."Journalist" might be understatement. Or hyperbole. Or both. (Via The Tar Pit.) AND MORE: Michelle Malkin asks whether "a journalist at the Post" will be indicted. Careful, Michelle. Carl Bernstein might think you're questioning Bob Woodward's "integrity." AND MORE: Arianna Huffington and others continue to buy into the decades old myth of Woodward as a hero of investigative reporting and great exposer of the Watergate coverup (if not out-and-out savior of the Republic). In large part because of this deification campaign, many lingering questions about Watergate remain unanswered. If only there'd been a blogospere in the old days.... AND WAAAAY MORE: Speaking of the old days, Michael Barone's piece (via Glenn) made me think about whether an unelected group of spooks occupies a role similar to that of the Praetorian Guard during much of the later Roman Empire. After a while, this overthrowing business gets to be a habit.... UPDATE (11/18/05): As if Woodward's latest shenanigans weren't enough, John Dean is now sanctimoniously scolding Special Prosecutor Patrick Fiztgerald for not being "vigorous" enough in the perjury prosecution. Well, I guess experience counts. (They don't call Dean a "serial perjurer" for nothing!) UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds has been calling this case "complicated" from day one, and he's right. Heh. And Heh! (And why not an Indeed?) While I don't think this was ever intended to be figured out, I do think Zell Miller's piece (about a "spy thriller" and an opportunity to undercut the national leadersip) is worth rereading. posted by Eric on 11.17.05 at 05:45 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
CIA as Praetorian Guard? Hmmm.... I am certainly opposed to Communist infiltration in the CIA or any other of our intelligence agencies. As I understand it, the military has its own intelligence, so it would seem the CIA is redundant. Also, I see little need for an additional exeutive Department of Homeland Security when we already have the FBI and the Congressional power of investigation. We must revive Congressional committees such as the HUAC to investigate subversive activities.
Liddy interests me far more than Libby. George Gordon Battle Liddy. A hero. His style. He would have been a great warrior in any culture, even a General Horemheb.
As for Nixon, I have mixed feelings. Nixon started out as an anti-Communist. It was he, as a Senator, who helped Whittaker Chambers to expose Alger Hiss. And I will always love his style. But, as President, under the influence of Kissinger (who I believe was a Communist), he did far more to aid the Communists than had any previous President, Republican or Democrat. He bestowed the sanction of legitimacy upon Mao's murderous tyranny in China and then he pursued "detente" with the Communists in Russia, signing "arms control" treaties that disastrously weakened our own military strength while allowing the Soviets to engage in the biggest military build-up in history.
However, even in spite of all that he did to aid the Communists, the Establishment still could not forgive him for helping to expose their man Alger Hiss, the principal architect of that One-World Communist monstrosity known as "the United Nations Organization". So, in revenge, and in revenge for the defeat of McGovern, they staged the Watergate hearings in order to drive President Nixon out of office. They did not get McGovern, though. Instead, they got Ford, an old-fashioned Republican who vetoed many of their spending bills. Unfortunately, he, too, was still under the influence of Kissinger in foreign policy.
I do not, however, agree with President Nixon's invoking of "executive privilege", which is not a Constitutional concept. The Constitution instead mandates legislative oversight over the executive branch. Nixon, however, was far from the first President to invoke "executive privilege". Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower invoked this false concept to block Congressional investigations into Communist infiltration in the executive branch and its agencies.