Fuzzy Logic vs Clear Thinking
Listening to all the discussions of Libby’s prison sentence commutation, I am struck by the fuzzy logic used by so many as they explain their support of Libby. Regardless of which side you may be on, think about the apples and oranges comparison continually made in these arguments. Does it make sense to say that since a rotten apple (the underlying investigation) managed to slip through, then a rotten orange (Libby’s felonies) should purposely be slipped through?
Using the fact that no one was indicted for the original crime under investigation, namely the outing of a CIA undercover agent, as a reason to excuse Libby is very twisted thinking. It is astounding how many public figures repeat this line without apparently hearing the absurdity in it. Last night on a CNN interview, Duncan Hunter, in a pompously dogmatic statement, did just that. Was he being disingenuous or is he not capable of critical thinking? Either way it is scary to think he wants to be our next President!
It seems very clear if we look just at the facts minus political considerations:
Libby was convicted of lying to Congress and obstructing justice.
These actions are, in and of themselves, felony crimes.
Felonies are indictable offenses.
The jury convicted Libby and the Judge, at sentencing, said the evidence was overwhelming.
If the President wants to commute or pardon Libby, that is his prerogative - although, with what seems a shared flaw in this administration, the President’s choice of explanations is off the mark. The sentence was not “excessive” it was well within the guidelines for such crimes. And do not be fooled, no matter what euphemisms are used, crimes are what we are talking about. Apparently any jail time was considered too much for Libby. Martha Stewart was convicted of similar offenses and she received a prison sentence, which she served. Of course, Martha is just rich and famous; she doesn’t have the political connections that Libby does.
The motives behind what Libby did may be interesting, but they are beside the point when it comes to his guilt or innocence. These offenses, serious enough in themselves under any circumstances, have much deeper ramifications when connected to the actions of the leaders of our country. Without prosecution of those who lie and otherwise attempt to obstruct investigations the entire oversight process is useless. It is impossible to find the truth if those in power are allowed to pervert the system by lying, refusing to testify under oath, and refusing to produce subpoenaed documents.
If you still want to talk about the underlying investigation of Plume’s outing, there are a couple of questions that seem pertinent.
Why would Libby lie if there was nothing to hide?
What might the investigation have uncovered if Libby had not lied and obstructed justice?