|
--stupid uninformed sheep, whose brains are fried by TV and can't think for themselves any more--really need to consider this verdict and these jury statements, and other evidence that the American people are actually doing pretty well, under a bombardment of 24/7 rightwing propaganda such as no people has ever been subjected to.
They knew Libby was the "fall guy." But that doesn't excuse what he did. That is a lot for a jury to think through. It might be easy enough for you and me to figure it out. But a jury is a hothouse, receiving a huge and concentrated amount of information--especially in this trial--all at once, and then having to put up with each other, in trying to sort it out. They dealt with the detail very well, from all reports. They were very careful about each of the charges, the evidence, and the "reasonable doubt" precept, and they acquitted on one count, where the evidence was thinnest. But they held him to account for lying and obstruction on all other counts (4 of them), even though it appears to have been the general opinion of the jury that others gave the orders, that Libby was lying to cover for them, and that Libby was/is the designated fall guy.
I'm reminded of something I picked up on, in opinion surveys about the war. Back in Feb. '03, before the invasion, 56% of the American people opposed the Iraq War. (56%! --that would be a landslide in a presidential elections--and probably was.) At the same time, about 50% of the American people believed that Saddam had WMDs and/or had something to do with 9/11. Think about this for a minute. That 56% who opposed the war from the beginning had to include some people who had this disinformation rattling around in their heads. So in addition to the people who knew that Bush was full of shit, from the beginning, there was this segment of the population that wasn't sure, but who decided for themselves, that, if Saddam had WMDs, it was not a serious threat, or if Saddam had something to do with 9/11, it was minor, and neither thing was worth a war. They believed bits of the propaganda, but they didn't trust Bush, and didn't believe he'd made a case for war. They were struggling to make their judgment of things, and some succeeded.
This was during a period when the war propaganda was thickest and most impenetrable. 2002-2003. And I find it very impressive. We were broadsided by a fascist coup, and were drowning in disinformation and warmongering. The best of our news sources became completely unreliable--the NYT being a prime example. The Democratic leadership was in full retreat (--although 156 of them in Congress voted against the IWR--never forget it). They even agreed to electronic voting, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations (fast-tracked across the country during the 2003-2004 period, with a $3.9 billion boondoggle!). Our own party was bloody useless as our advocates and touchstones. And some portion of the 56% of the American people who opposed the war did so IN SPITE OF the disinformation they had succumbed to.
So, some of this jury of random citizens of Washington DC, who had been weeded out by Libby's attorneys on the question of their dislike of Dick Cheney (any with strong anti-Cheney views were eliminated), believe that Cheney, Rove and others--and possibly Bush--were behind this treasonous act of outing a covert CIA agent and an entire WMD counter-proliferation, deep cover network. If they think Libby is a "fall guy," this obviously implies that they think that crimes were committed (why else have a "fall guy"?), and that others were involved, and it raises the question, who was he a "fall guy" for? And they convicted him anyway, because a National Security adviser, and special adviser to both the VP and the President, should have known better.
This conviction, and the jury's assessment of the case, are a Pandora's Box--in addition to being a credit to the American people. This is what ordinary people, and probably the great majority of Americans, believe. The Vice President committed crimes, and probably the President as well, and probably others in conspiracy with them. And if the outings of this agent and the CIA network were NOT a crime, why the coverup, and why didn't they fess up at the trial, and why don't they fess up now and throw themselves on the mercy of the American people and Congress?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
