The air is still filled with apologetics for the Scooter Libby commutation, and many defenders of the Bush administration continue to insist that there was no "underlying crime" in the Libby case.
Yes, these are all too often the same people who insisted loudly that Bill Clinton should be removed from office for perjury, what with his being, as they insisted on putting it, "the chief law enforcement officer" of our nation. Now, during the Bush administration it seems these same people have reverted to recognizing that the Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in the land, hence the appellation "general," no? But Congress has already discovered how difficult it can be to get the top law enforcement officer of the United States to enforce the law.
Still, here's the kicker -- the reason Libby's defenders insist that no crime was committed is that, according to them, Valerie Plame was not covered by the law in question because she was not covert. Never mind the fact that the CIA administration has repeatedly offered their opinion that Plame's status was indeed classified. If you go back to Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference announcing the Libby indictment, you will see that he carefully went over the elements of the crime under the statute and found that Ms. Plame's identity as a CIA operative was encompassed by the protections of that law.
SO, how do we explain the fact that the Bush administration went before a judge and got a ruling that Valerie Plame is not permitted to divulge the dates of her employment by the agency in her forthcoming book because, as the Bush CIA argues in their court filings, "such information is classified and should not be made public."
"Ain't they got no shame?" Nikki Giovanni used to ask in a poem . . .
Now playing: "Evidence" by David Murray