Poor Try From Moonie Paper
The Washington Times, the Unification Church-owned conservative mouthpiece, needs to do better research (or have a better memory) if it is to successfully shape public opinion in this town. Actually they need not bother, all the research and memory-improvement drugs in the world couldn't work a miracle of that size.
Today in an editorial, the Moonie paper actually has the cojones (what's Korean for balls?) to demand that Prosecutor Fitzgerald drop the charges against Lewis Libby.
Why, you ask?
The Washington Times actually thinks that Bob "The Slitherer" Woodward's revelation of having been told about Mrs. Wilson's true identity is somehow exculpatory for Mr. Libby.
Clearly there are no effing Einsteins writing editorials for the Times:
Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
Hello? Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment says that Libby learned of Plame's identity from Vice President Cheney "on or about June 12, 2003", and that was not the first Libby had heard about it.
Given the fact that the conversations in issue -- the one with Tim Russert and the one with Bob Woodward -- were separated by less than two weeks, and that officials like Mr. Libby juggle literally hundreds of matters on a daily basis, it is entirely plausible that he confused the two reporters.
Confused the two reporters? This is not even an issue. The "I learned it from a reporter" story was just that--a fiction (see indictment). Besides, nobody in Washington would confuse these two, not to mention that no policy-maker would confuse Woodward with anyone.
In light of these facts, it is at least doubtful whether a reasonable jury would find Mr. Libby guilty.
That what a trial will be useful for.
(U)nder the U.S. Attorney's Manual provisions, no prosecution should be commenced unless the attorney representing the government believes that he has evidence that will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.
Fitzgerald believes he has all the evidence necessary, because it is all there in black and white in the indictment.
I am perplexed by the very lameness of this editorial. With the administration so obviously swirling down the crapper, the stakes are very high for the conservative movement. Why then did the Washington Times publish such a pathetic composition?
Today in an editorial, the Moonie paper actually has the cojones (what's Korean for balls?) to demand that Prosecutor Fitzgerald drop the charges against Lewis Libby.
Why, you ask?
The Washington Times actually thinks that Bob "The Slitherer" Woodward's revelation of having been told about Mrs. Wilson's true identity is somehow exculpatory for Mr. Libby.
Clearly there are no effing Einsteins writing editorials for the Times:
Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
Hello? Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment says that Libby learned of Plame's identity from Vice President Cheney "on or about June 12, 2003", and that was not the first Libby had heard about it.
Given the fact that the conversations in issue -- the one with Tim Russert and the one with Bob Woodward -- were separated by less than two weeks, and that officials like Mr. Libby juggle literally hundreds of matters on a daily basis, it is entirely plausible that he confused the two reporters.
Confused the two reporters? This is not even an issue. The "I learned it from a reporter" story was just that--a fiction (see indictment). Besides, nobody in Washington would confuse these two, not to mention that no policy-maker would confuse Woodward with anyone.
In light of these facts, it is at least doubtful whether a reasonable jury would find Mr. Libby guilty.
That what a trial will be useful for.
(U)nder the U.S. Attorney's Manual provisions, no prosecution should be commenced unless the attorney representing the government believes that he has evidence that will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.
Fitzgerald believes he has all the evidence necessary, because it is all there in black and white in the indictment.
I am perplexed by the very lameness of this editorial. With the administration so obviously swirling down the crapper, the stakes are very high for the conservative movement. Why then did the Washington Times publish such a pathetic composition?
posted by Effwit at 2:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home