Libby and hypocrisy

Over at the National Review Online they continue to fulminate against the Libby verdict and offer startling justifications for why he should now be pardoned. Of course, the greatest impediment to their portraying Libby as a victim of Liberal spite is the fact that most of these same people supported the impeachment of Clinton on identical charges of perjury and obstruction of the course of justice.

Now, one of their journalists has decided to tackle the question of this hypocrisy head-on.

In an extraordinary article entitled, "It's Nothing About Libby" and subtitled, "Since when are people sent to jail in the U.S. because of disagreements over political policy?" Mona Charen argues:

If we’re going to have a hypocrisy contest, I’d be glad to put into evidence the thousands of liberals who sputtered with indignation at Clarence Thomas’s supposed sexual harassment of Anita Hill and at former Senator Bob Packwood’s groping of an assortment of lobbyists and staffers, but then hotly denied that Bill Clinton’s sexual predations were relevant to the public’s business.

You'll notice what Miss Charen has done there. She brings up two cases of alleged sexual harrassment and then compares this to Clinton having consensual sex with Monica Lewinski and implies that there is some kind of equivalence.

Remember, she is setting out to prove that Republicans are not hypocritical when they say Libby should be pardoned but Clinton deserved what happened to him. And she begins her defence of this point on a completely false premise. Indeed, by framing her argument in this way she invites you to view the Clinton/Lewinsky tryst in the light of sexual molestation. This is manifestly dishonest. One act is criminal, the other is not.

She then states, "That much having been said, I deny that the cases are comparable." On this we can agree, but not for the reasons that Miss Charen gives.

You see, she thinks Clinton deserved to be found guilty but that Libby was tried "for the Iraq war" rather than for any lies he may have told to a Grand Jury. To support this assertion she quotes the New York Times and Newsweek who both offered the opinion that they were pleased that someone from this administration was finally being "held to account". This she takes as the final proof that Libby was not tried for perjury, but merely used as a convenient scapegoat by a left wing unable to prosecute the real offenders.

Excuse me, but Libby is not being “called to account.” Tony Blair is called to account in Parliament at Prime Minister’s Question Time. Mr. Libby faces prison. And for what? Because a Kerry-supporting, proven liar called Joseph Wilson persuaded the press that the White House committed a crime in outing his CIA wife.

Let's leave aside the fact that she won't even concede that a crime has been committed here. She believes that Libby faces prison because, "Joseph Wilson persuaded the press that the White House committed a crime"? That is simply fantastical.

Scooter Libby faces jail because he was found guilty by a jury of his peers, some of whom - it is true - have sympathy for him and see him as "a fall guy", but none of whom appear to have any doubts regarding his guilt.

Juror Denis Collins, standing in front of the same microphone, spoke of the "tremendous amount of sympathy" jurors had for the man they convicted. "It was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here? Where's Rove, where's -- you know, where are these other guys?' " Collins said. "We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but that it seemed like he was . . . the fall guy."

She then, in Libby's defence, offers the exact justification that the jury of his peers rejected. That this was a trifling matter that was of so little concern to the administration that it would be unreasonable to expect busy people like Libby to remember petty details.

We are told that the case reveals how “obsessed” the vice president’s office was with the Wilson business. This is highly doubtful considering the range of matters the administration was then contending with. But suppose they were? The tacit assumption that there was something sinister about the vice president attempting to rebut a very damaging op-ed in one of the country’s most influential newspapers is nonsensical.

This is a textbook case of the criminalization of policy differences. If Bush haters believe that the president “lied us into war,” they are fully entitled to support a Democrat in 2008. But their blood lust will not be satisfied with that. Libby must be led away in handcuffs.

So here Miss Charen, who sees nothing wrong with Clinton's impeachment for lying about a blow job, lays out what she thinks should be the proper response of Democrats who feel that Bush lied in order to facilitate a war in which thousands have died.

"They are fully entitled to support a Democrat in 2008."

That's it. That's the proper response. You are "entitled" to vote Democrat. Indeed, anyone who believes that a President lying in order to lead his nation into a needless war represents a far greater crime than an extra-marital affair involving oral sex is a person displaying, "blood lust".

And anyone who has the temerity to think that the law regarding the legality of outing CIA agents out to be obeyed is engaging in, "a textbook case of the criminalization of policy differences". This is not a "criminalisation of policy differences", this is deciding whether or not the administration engaged in criminality, although I fully expect that point to be lost on a true believer like Miss Charen.

She ends on the rather weak point that blow jobs are more memorable than gossip which she purports proves Clinton's guilt and Libby's innocence:

Much as one hates to go over this ground again, let’s recall that President Clinton, by contrast, was testifying about matters that human beings simply do not tend to forget. Here is an excerpt from his deposition “Did you have an extramarital sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky?” Answer: “No.” Mr. Clinton further denied having encouraged Ms. Lewinsky to lie in a sworn statement (suborning perjury), and testified that he could not recall ever being alone with her.

No-one has ever denied that Clinton lied. However, Clinton was lying because he was having an extra-marital affair. People who have affairs lie about it. That is simply an indisputable fact. Is it honourable? No. Was he lying to cover a crime? No. That is the vital difference between the two cases. Libby lied to prevent an investigation into a Federal crime. Clinton lied to hide the fact that he had a blow job. The fact that the good people over at the NRO see both these lies as having equivalence and equal import says a lot about how skewered their moral compasses have become as they struggle to defend the indefensible and make comparative that which is not comparable.

I'm not going to even rebuke the point where she brings up the Paula Jones case as if this was in any way related to the instance where Clinton lied as by this point she is clearly clutching at straws.

However, she ends with the startling conclusion that, "this miscarriage will leave conservatives bitter", as if this bitterness was something that had only occurred as a result of the Libby trial:

Lewis Libby was doing his best to serve the country and was sandbagged by an out-of-control prosecutor and a lynch-mob press. This miscarriage will leave conservatives bitter. Don’t be surprised if the worm turns again.

If "serving your country" is sending young men and women to die in a war based on lies, then perhaps Libby was doing as she suggests. Indeed, perhaps in Miss Charen's world the outing of CIA agents is the noblest form of public duty.

And I do agree that he was, perhaps, not the only guilty party; but the truth is that - because of his lies - we will never really know as the prosecution was unable to establish the truth. He prevented them from doing so and perverted the course of justice.

That was the crime for which he was charged and that is what the jury found him guilty of.

There are many reasons to regard him as the "fall guy". However, anyone genuinely interested in justice, would not be calling for his pardon. They would be calling for the other offenders to be prosecuted as well.

But I don't expect to hear Miss Charen calling for that.

Tags: Scooter Libby, Bill Clinton, Iraq war, Fitzgerald, Plamegate, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, NRO