Letter to a Neighbor
(Note I received permission from David Corn to post his piece in full.)
Received a copy of David Corn's latest brilliance. He takes NY Times columnist David Brooks to task and schools him. What David Corn did not know is that Mr. Brooks lives about 250 feet from my front door. So I took the opportunity to pen the following note, welcoming him to the neighborhood, and giving him a copy of Mr. Corn's excellent work. Here is my letter, which I dropped off tonight (Wednesday):
3 July 2007
Larry Johnson
Bethesda, MD 20817David (Brooks),
Read your NY Times piece today and felt compelled to comment a little more in depth. You are correct in one respect, Plamegate is farce, but not in the way you imagine. The farce is that folks like you are making farfetched excuses for perjury and obstruction of justice. You piece today is dishonest on so many levels. Fortunately, David Corn’s wit and imagination provide the appropriate skewering of your nonsense. I’ve attached a copy.
Forgive my grumpiness, but I actually worked at the CIA and trained with Valerie in the Career Trainee class that entered on duty in September of 1985. Every single member of our class was undercover. Every one!
We now established beyond a doubt (see statement by CIA Director Hayden, statement by Judge Reggie Walton, and sworn statement by Patrick Fitzgerald) that Valerie was undercover and was covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If you would like to discuss this in person I will be happy to fill you in on the details. We can do it over a glass of wine if you like. You can drop by the house and I’ll show you my two Exceptional Performance Awards signed by Judge Webster.
[I ended with a personal note that, in the interest of the neighborhood I'll keep confidential]
Welcome to the neighborhood.
Best
Larry Johnson
And here is the clever post of Mr. David Corn:
A Memo for David Brooks
www.davidcorn.com
July 3, 2007
MEMORANDUM
From: Copy Desk
To: David Brooks
July 3, 2007
Mr. Brooks, our apologies. There was a snafu yesterday, and we neglected to send you the edited version of your latest column, which contained several queries from us. What appeared in today's Times was the copy you initially filed--with all those queries obviously unaddressed. Again, we apologize for the error and hope this did not cause you any trouble or embarrassment. For the record, below is the marked-up version of your column.
By DAVID BROOKS
In retrospect, Plamegate was a farce in five acts. The first four were scabrous, disgraceful and absurd. Justice only reared its head at the end. [Powerful opening. Setting the bar high. Must be proved.]
The drama opened, as these dark comedies are wont to do, with a strutting little peacock who went by the unimaginative name of Joe Wilson. [Pot calling kettle back, Mr. Brooks? Besides, do most "dark comedies" open with plain-named birds. Query Mr. Rich?]
Mr. Wilson claimed that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to investigate Iraqi purchases in Niger, though that seems not to have been the case. [Chronology problem? Mr. Wilson did not "open" this "comedy" with such a claim. He began the episode by publishing an op-ed--on the very same page your column appears--that accused the administration of having "twisted" the prewar intelligence. The issue of his wife's involvement in his mission to Iraq came later.]
He claimed his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts, though his own report said nothing of the kind. [He did not claim his trip had "proved"--your word--the matter. He wrote that after speaking with past and present officials of Niger and "people associated with the country's uranium business," he had concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." (We can forward you a copy of his op-ed.) And, as you know, columnists of the Times are not fact-checked. But we would point out that in his Times op-ed, Mr. Wilson did not claim, as you state, that "his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts" to purchase uranium. He maintained that "there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired." And--not to belabor what might be a fact-checking issue--according to a Senate intelligence committee investigation, the report written by the CIA on Mr. Wilson's trip "described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to any rogue states."]
In short order, Wilson established himself as the charming P.T. Barnum of the National Security set, an inveterate huckster who could be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six layers of embellishment. [An idea: explain the "actual facts" and then list the "six layers of embellishment."] His small part in the larger fiasco of the Iraq war would not have registered a micron of attention had the villain of the epic ‚ ”the vice president ‚” not exercised his unfailing talent for vindictive self-destruction. [We suggest you peruse some of the clips of that time. Mr. Wilson's op-ed and his concurrent appearance on Meet the Press generated more than a "micron of attention"--and that occurred before the vice president responded to Mr. Wilson's charges.]
Act Two opened with a cast of thousands crowding the stage, filling the air with fevered vapors and gleeful rage. Perhaps you can remember those days, when the Plame story pretended to be about the outing of an undercover C.I.A. agent. [How can a story pretend to be something? And, if memory serves, there was indeed an outing of an undercover CIA official.] Perhaps you can remember the howls of outrage from our liberal friends, about the threat to national security, the secret White House plot to discredit its enemies. [For the reader's benefit, you might want to note Ms. Wilson's position at the time of her outing: operations chief for the Joint Task Force on Iraq, a unit of the Counterproliferation Division of theCIA's clandestine operations directorate. And you might want to note that her primary duty was overseeing covert operations designed to gather intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. Then again, you might not want to note this. Also, you seem to be suggesting there was no secret White House action to discredit Mr. Wilson. Are you aware that Mr. Libby met with Judith Miller, a former employee of this paper, and passed her classified information that he hoped would discredit Mr. Wilson? Are you aware that Mr. Libby conveyed classified information about Ms. Wilson to Ari Fleischer, then the White House press secretary, and Mr. Fleischer says he shared this information with reporters as part of an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson's charges?]
Perhaps you remember the media stakeouts of Karl Rove's driveway, the constant perp-walk photos of Rove on his way to and from the grand jury, the delirious calls from producers (The indictment is coming today! The indictment is coming today!). [Our readers might also remember that Mr. Rove leaked to Matt Cooper, then of Time, classified information regarding Ms. Wilson's covert employment at the CIA. As Mr. Cooper noted in an email, Mr. Rove did so "on double super secret background." They might possibly also recall that Mr. Rove confirmed Ms. Wilson's status as a CIA employee for Robert Novak, the first journalist to disclose her CIA identity.]
There were media types so eager to get Rove, so artificially appalled at the thought of somebody actually leaking classified information, they were willing to forgive prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald for throwing journalists in jail. [You cite many unnamed characters in this "dark comedy." Perhaps you ought to consider naming some of these "media types."] It was like watching a city of Ahabs getting deliriously close to the great white whale. [No one on our desk has read that classic recently. But a quick question: was Moby Dick ever suspected of having committed a crime?]
That was back when everybody thought Rove was the key leaker. But then it turned out he wasn't. Richard Armitage was, as Fitzgerald knew from the start. [See our note above. Mr. Rove did leak to Mr. Cooper and Mr. Novak. It was only because Time held its story for several days that Mr. Novak had the "scoop" and beat out Time. Had that not happened, Mr. Rove might have won the title of chief leaker.]
By the start of Act Three, nobody cared about the outing of a C.I.A. agent. [Nobody? We are relatively sure that the Wilsons cared, that CIA officials cared, that Mr. Fitzgerald cared, that congressional Democrats cared, and that thousands of Americans who followed this story in the media cared.] That part of the scandal disappeared. And all that was left of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame were the creepy photos in Vanity Fair. [You might want to consider describing the photos. A blonde in a convertible might not come across as "creepy" to all.]
Act Three was the perjury act, and attention shifted to the unlikely figure of Scooter Libby. [What is "unlikely" about a White House aide accused of lying?] As Joe Wilson was an absurd man with a plain name, Scooter Libby was a plain man with an absurd name. [What's in a name?] And the odder thing was that Libby was the only normal person in the asylum. [Have you read the sex scenes in his one novel? A girl with a bear?] People who knew him thought him discreet, honest and admirable. [We hear he was also a quiet man. Mention that?] And yet the charges were brought and the storm clouds of idiocy gathered once more. [We're not lawyers, but we do believe that there are instances when criminal charges are filed against people who other people consider admirable. You might want to explain why a special prosecutor should not file obstruction of justice charges against an official suspected of lying to investigators.]
Republicans who'd worked themselves up into a spittle-spewing rage because Bill Clinton lied under oath were appalled that anybody would bother with poor Libby over lying under oath. [Is there a continuity issue here? Above you contend that the charge was a product of idiocy. Shouldn't that justifiably cause Republicans to be appalled?] Democrats who were outraged that Bill Clinton was hounded for something as trivial as perjury were furious that Scooter Libby might not be ruined for a crime as heinous as perjury. [You seem to be skating past the case the Democrats made: lying to the FBI during a national security investigation is different from lying about sex in a civil proceeding.] It was an orgy of shamelessness. The God of Self-Respect took sabbatical. [Any word on what the God of Thou Shall Not Lie did at this time?]
The trial and sentencing, Act Four, was, to be honest, somewhat anticlimactic. Fitzgerald, having lost all perspective, demanded Libby get a harsh sentence as punishment for crimes he had not been convicted of. [We realize you were not in the courtroom during the trial, but news reports and transcripts show that Mr. Fitzgerald argued that committing perjury during a national security investigation was a serious matter and that a stiff sentence was warranted for that crime.] The judge, casting himself as David against Goliath, demonstrated an impressive capacity for talking about himself. [Ditto the previous remark. Again, we do not fact-check columnists for the Times, but one of us did call--merely out of curiosity--several reporters who covered the case, and they told us that Judge Reggie Walton did not cast himself as a David-type figure, nor did he talk about himself more than the average federal district court judge. You might want to reconsider a characterization not supported by actual eyewitnesses.]
And finally, yesterday, came Act Five, and a paradox. Scooter Libby emerged as the least absurd character in the entire drama, and yet he was the one who committed a crime. [Another continuity problem? If the chief of staff to the vice president commits a crime, shouldn't there be a thorough investigation and even a rigmarole?] President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense. [A world likeBaghdad?]
His decision to commute Libby's sentence but not erase his conviction was exactly right. It punishes him for his perjury, but not for the phantasmagorical political farce that grew to surround him. It takes away his career, but not his family. [Fact: after Mr. Libby was indicted and resigned from Mr. Cheney's staff, he was named a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. The Washington Post reported that his salary is probably at least $160,000--perhaps more. Most readers would think that with such a position Mr. Libby's career was not over.]
Of course, the howlers howl. That is their assigned posture in this drama. They entered howling, they will leave howling and the only thing you can count on is their anger has been cynically manufactured from start to finish. [Once again, continuity. If Mr. Libby did commit a crime--which you bravely acknowledge he did--then shouldn't anger be an appropriate response. Who are the howlers whose anger was "cynically manufactured"? And who did that manufacturing? Specifics would help.]
The farce is over. It has no significance. Nobody but Libby's family will remember it in a few weeks time. Everyone else will have moved on to other fiascos, other poses, fresher manias. [Good teaser of an ending. It's as if you expect another Bush aide to be caught lying under oath.]
The only way I could get through Bobo's column was with the annotations, but I'm not quite sure if I should thank you or not. What a freakin' creep, that Bobo.
July 6, 2007 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
david brooks has an assigned role as well: to be a charming face for right-wing stupidity.
every so often, though, he forgets to apply the charm, and his underlying dishonesty comes through.
why it is that the ny times thinks that opinion columnists shouldn't be fact-checked is beyond me, but it's part of why the pundit as we know him or her is a dying breed....
July 6, 2007 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Brooks belongs to the type of personality which psychologist Robert Altemeyer labels "right wing authoritarian". The most relevant characteristic in this discussion is their ability to disregard facts which challenge their world view and/or to hold contradictory ideas simultaneously without suffering any cognitive dissonance.
Their main characteristic is their belief in a hierarchical social structure lead by a strong leader. They follow this leader the way baby ducks follow the first thing they see that moves.
Arguing with such people, especially by using facts, is unproductive. It does make for some witty postings, however.
If you aren't familiar with Altemeyer's work (it was the basis for John Dean's recent book) he has written a book describing his 40+ years of work and made it available online for free.
The Authoritarians
If you want to best your opponents it is wise to understand how they think
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
July 6, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A bit too coy, Mr. Corn. I think of Twain, who, in such an instance, wouldn't have pulled his punches out of paramount concern for the groundlessly polite "collegial respect" which so pollutes our "manistream" media today -- to the demotion and detriment of the truth.
Brooks is a conscious propagandist -- he knows he is repeating lies in his own conscious formulation of them. He is a lair, and he knows it. When will the media get back to telling the truth as it is, instead of coating it with the inapplicable and unacceptable truth-suffocating veneer of civility in false respect for the uncivil who constantly engage in the incivility the is lying?
In the end, your "editorial" comments on Brooks' lying leave him the opening to spin them, yet again, in pursuit of the continue deluge of lies from his corner of the right-wing lunatic fringe's favorite real estate: the cess pool.
When something smells badly, one endeavors to eliminate the odor, not merely wrinkle one's nose and endeavor to entertain its source with a "tut-tut," as if the odious odor is all within the game of reasoned civil discourse when it is plainly not. The result of fakely objective "equivalency journalism" is the enthroning of falsehood and lie on par with the truth, as if both are of equal validity, and then leaving it at that so continuing repetition and defense of the lie, which should have been demolished, is enabled.
July 6, 2007 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I look at pieces like this Brooks article and your response and rather than see the particulars I see the background. I can't read these posts and articles to the end anymore. I'm tired of them. The lies that Brooks puts out are the same lies that have been put out from the start of the Plamegate treason. The obvious and truthful counters that Corn puts forth have been made over and over again for years now.
The key though is the background. I don't know how much David Corn gets paid. I doubt that it's anywhere near as much as David Brooks. I don't know how much you get paid for what you do here and on the web and on the rare occasion that you are given some real estate at a major publication. Likely not very much, if anything. So where I get tired and Corn and you work for relatively small compensation and likely not enough to be motivating factors, David Brooks will never tire. Even if he gets bored, his task is like that of any regular job. He doesn't get paid for enjoyment. He gets paid to do what he gets paid to do - write propaganda.
The irony of the Brooks situation is that he works for what is considered to be the archetypical "liberal" publication. Even though this "liberal" publication was a primary force in spreading the lies that pushed America into the disastrous (for average people - good for the well connected) Iraq war - Dick Cheney and others quoted articles from this "liberal" publication to justify pre-emptive war - it's still demonized by the "Brooks" people of America.
Brooks is an ad man. Much like a television commercial, he's paid to repeat the same lines, the same slogans, the same "brighter than bright, whiter than white," "last throes" lines that he happily repeats. Brooks gets paid a six plus figure salary to do his thing. I don't get paid to read it and though my anger may be brought to a boil, like the "Brooks Brothers rioters" (no familial relation) in Florida 2000, if I were paid a six plus figure salary to be angry, there's much more likelihood I'd maintain it.
Or, like the high priced whores these people are, I'd be able to fake the emotion and passion more convincingly.
In America today, people like David Brooks and "Scooter" Libby don't have to worry about their next meal or job security or health care. They just have to clean their blue dresses regularly.
July 6, 2007 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"On July 6, 2007 - 10:56am rdf said:
"David Brooks belongs to the type of personality which psychologist Robert Altemeyer labels "right wing authoritarian"."
David Brooks is a liar. The more you complicate it the more outs you give to the liar.
"The most relevant characteristic in this discussion is their ability to disregard facts which challenge their world view and/or to hold contradictory ideas simultaneously without suffering any cognitive dissonance."
Many have said that before you. It is beyond the grasp of those who most need to understand it.
"Their main characteristic is their belief in a hierarchical social structure lead by a strong leader. They follow this leader the way baby ducks follow the first thing they see that moves."
Peaching to the choir. And I object to the comparison of serial liar Brooks with cute but honestly aggressive baby ducks.
"Arguing with such people, especially by using facts, is unproductive. It does make for some witty postings, however."
"Arguing" with such people is for the benefit of the reader. And the point is not to "argue" but summatively refute.
"If you aren't familiar with Altemeyer's work (it was the basis for John Dean's recent book) he has written a book describing his 40+ years of work and made it available online for free."
Anyone who goes back a few decades in studies of psychology know of numerous better known names who wrote eyewitness analyses of the authoritarian personality, many of those coming out of WW II. Altmeyer is not mentioned among them. Indeed, Dean had either to dig pretty hard to bypass the prominent and well known authorities (see as example [NY: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1951], Eric Hoffer) on the topic, or go to extra effort to sidestep those, in order to find the unknown Altmeyer.
The Authoritarians
"If you want to best your opponents it is wise to understand how they think."
Know that they lie. Know the facts. Directly refute the lies with the facts. The psychobabble, arguable as to whether the theory applies (does the typical follower seek a "strong" -- "authoritarian" -- "leader"? No: they seek a confidence they themselves lack), is beside-the-point falderall.
July 6, 2007 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am very concerned about the value of Larry Johnson's house now that Brooks has moved in.
Larry, did you check to make sure that the neighborhood wasn't zoned for liars before you bought?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
July 6, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the way to do it. Bravo, David. Bravo Larry, for bringing it. The problem with most of the advocates for the 'right' is that they, in Mussolini's words, 'think with blood and earth'. In other words, they think with their guts. The rest of us are committed to thinking with our brains. Thinking from the gut requires no facts, no verification, no validation. Divine revelation of the truth through phantasy, dreams, tea leaves or the entrails of a young goat will suffice. David Brooks is hallucinating a vision of reality shared by many Republican nut cases for whom simple facts mean nothing.
"If you talk about it, even the simplest thing becomes complex and incomprehensible." -Herman Hesse
July 6, 2007 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, I wish I had the nerve to get up people's noses like that.
July 6, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm imagining a scene similar to American Beauty taking place in this piece of suburbia.
Move, Larry, move, before it's too late!!
I know what it's like to have a Bobo live next door and it ain't pretty.
July 6, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I take it you didn't read the book.
This type of research goes back to people like Adorno and Arendt, the difference is that psychological testing has progressed since the 1950's and the results gathered since then stand up to scientific scrutiny better.
Saying someone is a liar doesn't tell us much. Liars are not as dangerous as true believers, since they know the truth, but just don't care. There is always the possibility that they will feel some remorse and tell the truth. We have seen this happen in recent times, a good example being David Brock who started "Media Matters" to atone for his working for the right wing noise machine.
Perhaps what you really mean is a bullshitter - explained in the book "On Bullishit" by Henry Frankfurt. This is a person who says anything at any time as long as it serves their immediate purpose. Bill O'Reilly is this type.
Try to contribute something positive.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
July 6, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, of course Plame was covert, however, you should know that no amount of factual material ever "settles" anything once the nuttier right-wing elements decide to latch onto it.
Thr right wing's whole defense used to be "she wasn't covert", now, only the troglodytes are still spewing that line. Most on the right now claim the Libby prosecution was political, obviously a political prosecution orchestrated by the people involved in the case, all Republicans.
By the way, I keep seeing MSM anchors allowing Repugs to claim Plame wasn't covert
with no corrections by the anchors.
A final thought; congratulations to David Corn for hitting back so quickly, its what is needed when wingers like Brooks spew their tripe. Its too bad Corn doesn't appear on the front pages of the NYTimes or WaPo.
July 6, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
rdf, a decade or so ago I saw a Sacramento TV station interviewing highschoolers about lying, and just about all the interviewees agreed that lying was ok as long as you didn't get caught. It suggests to me that untruthing may have become part of culture, rather than the spurrous acts of individuals (who may be classified in a personality typography). Me? I join you and other commentors here who affirm the superiority of truth over falsehood, but I wonder if I am being hopelessly old-fashioned. Too bad the Republicans have already claimed the "let's return to good old american values" slogan. Come to think of it, perhaps "lying" is one of those values they are interested in. Didn't Leo Strauss teach that it was ok to lie?
Neoboho
July 6, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
...and continues with a polluted stream of writing by a stagnant pool of wastewater who goes by the unimaginative name of Brooks?
I think a visit to your neighborhood by the Environmental Protection Agency is appropriate at this time.
aMike
July 6, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
amike, heh, heh, heh, good post :-)
July 6, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truly.
It's a shame about the nosedive those property values are about to take.
July 6, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense."
Who would ever refer to Bush's world as a "world in which things make sense..."
Talk about "stormclouds of idiocy."
July 6, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how Brooks talks about this column and his work in general with a friend or colleague who has seen Corn’s line by line demonstration of the columns dishonesty and stupidity.
I wonder if a truefriend would ever tell Brooks that he sounds like he comes from another world, a world where the truth becomes what a well paid hack says it is.
July 6, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Say, isn't he "Joseph Wilson III"? At least the name has been in the family for a couple of generations.
Isn't is odd that people who have themselves altered their handles (like Amitai Etzioni -- nee Werner Falk) should be so preoccupied with the monikers of others?
Two rather undersized fellow who go by the preppie-sounding handles of "Brooks" (as in Brothers) and "Scooter" are not in much of a position to draw attention to the unremarkableness "Wilson".
July 6, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goebbels: "Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda should be true or false."
July 6, 2007 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"All successful newspapers are ceaselesssly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced upon them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else." H. L. Mencken (l880-1956)
July 6, 2007 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It’s funny really. David Brooks looks and sounds like a conservative's stereotype of a pointed headed liberal circa 1950. I’ve always felt that when conservatives see him, this is how they see us liberals. You know, the arrogant whiney nasal I know more than you do Adelaide Stevenson wimpy type. I find it ironic and almost surreal. That a stereotype so out of touch and irrelevant can be so well embodied by man who himself is so out of touch and irrelevant.
July 6, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I too wish I could be paid handsomely by a major American newspaper to write columns wherein I just make shit up.
I mean, seriously. He's not spinning the facts, he's just making it up out of whole cloth.
Whose dick did Brooks have to suck to get that gig?
July 6, 2007 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is Brooks making shit up... that's just lousy writing. He should enter this column in the Bulwer-Lytton Bad Writing contest.
July 6, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
This little piece of polemical journalism by Brooks reminds me of the fabulous science fiction novel by Phillip K Dick, called, 'The Penultimate Truth'. In the story, the masses are huddled deep underground in 'tanks'--factories where robot warriors are refurbished for the nuclear war raging across the surface of the planet, which is too radioactive to support human life. All the information a tank has about the world above is piped in through a large CRT screen that shows the images of war, the symbols of state, and the President, 'Yancy somethingorother'. But when the chief engineer of one of the tanks begins to suffer organ failure. The rest of the tank panics, and decides to send someone to the surface to find medical help. He climbs up through the ventilation shaft to the surface and finds a beautiful sunlit garden populated by the ruling class living in luxury. There is a class of illuminati known as Yance men--who write the words spoken by President Yancy--who is in reality an automaton nailed to the chair of the oval office.
David Brooks is a consumate Yance man--spinning fearful little fictions for the rest of us slaving down below in the tanks.
"If you talk about it, even the simplest thing becomes complex and incomprehensible." -Herman Hesse
July 6, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be, if you please, it is ok to myth make as long as you are a superior man and your ends are worthy. Schicklgruber did not say that any better...
July 6, 2007 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does it take, exactly, to get someone fired from the New York Times? Bad writing. Bad facts. And it's just dumb. This is the type of work that a high school newspaper would be embarrassed to publish. Apparently, the "Newspaper of Record" doesn't care.
Incidentally, this part I disagree with:
You seem to be skating past the case the Democrats made: lying to the FBI during a national security investigation is different from lying about sex in a civil proceeding.
Perjury is perjury, and our judicial system cannot allow people to lie to the court regardless of what kind of case it is. The difference between Libby and Clinton is that perjury is NOT the sort of crime which justifies impeachment. When Clinton lied, Republicans cranked the gears of a constitutional process that, due to its extremity, has gone essentially unused, but they are willing to let Libby go with very little punishment. That is the difference.
July 6, 2007 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was first rate of LJ to let the liar know friends of the Wilsons with CIA ties know where he sleeps most nights. That ought to be good for his digestion.
July 6, 2007 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just bought the book. [One click!] Probably because I really liked Harlen Ellison's "A BOY and His Dog" and your description brought it to mind.
I like Hess too, near as I can remember.
July 6, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, a Boy and His Dog is a great tale, albeit with a slight difference than the point Dick is trying to make--but I am reminded every time I watch my oldest son with HIS dog.
"If you talk about it, even the simplest thing becomes complex and incomprehensible." -Herman Hesse
July 6, 2007 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we nominate him, or does he have to nominate himself? He was talking about this on NPR with E. J. Dionne recently. Dionne was too mild mannered to really nail him to the wall, but he got in a few good ones.
aMike
July 6, 2007 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, for a falsehood to be perjury, it has to be 'material' to some legal proceeding (either criminal or civil). Not everything gathered in discovery is ultimately judged to be material; even if Paula Jones' suit hadn't been thrown out, it's highly unlikely that information about a consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky would have been considered 'material' to the case. To say that Clinton committed 'perjury' is to twist the meaning of the word beyond all recognition.
July 6, 2007 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's fine. got a cite on the definition or interpretation of "material"? I mean, I see it there in the federal perjury statute, but it does not say to what the fact must be material.
My point was from a talking points perspective, namely, that there is a way to be and appear consistent without reducing or minimizing what Clinton did. To that end, I kind of don't care what the definition of perjury is, but whatever.
July 6, 2007 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corn's memo is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. Aside from being a great put-down of Brook's column, it's a great send-up of a certain kind of snarky copy-editing
Of course, in this case, the copy-editor is serving the truth (not usually the case), but the tone is just right. (I've worked at the Times.)
July 6, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I see David Brooks, I think "manic." His bouncy style drives me nuts!
July 6, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I see his columns (which I can honestly barely do more than skim) and when I see him on TV, I wonder whether the money "under the table" is more than the money he earns "on the table."
Surely he's on the take!
July 6, 2007 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 6, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a lawyer
Well, you fooled me.
I think it's mistake to concede anything at all on this point.
Completely agree.
July 6, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I can say to David Brooks is:
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
July 6, 2007 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that line really stood out, which is impressive given the massive pile of BS around it.
To be honest, you have to wonder if such massive delusion won't backfire. How many casual readers of the NYT could actually have been suckered by such utter lunacy?
Even if a reader were somewhat with Brooks or giving him the benefit of the doubt up to that point, would they really follow him, like the lemmings he apparently thinks his readers are, over the cliff and down into Bushworld?
The numbers of people who believe Bush is otherworldly, as if he were a hero sent from heaven, have to be pretty diminishingly low at this point. In other words, David Brooks is really out there.
July 6, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perjury that is related to obstruction is the same as perjury that is not related. Ditto.
Is that what we take Reece to mean?
July 6, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not quite sure what Reece is arguing anymore.
I'd draw the line this way:
Both Clinton and Libby lied under oath in judicial proceedings. Both were disbarred as a result (properly, in my view).
But beyond that similarity, there are moral, political and legal differences of scale between being acquitted by the Senate on obstruction and perjury charges growing out of an aborted civil suit with no relation to official White House duties, and being CONVICTED by a jury of perjury AND obstruction of justice AND lying to federal investigators with regard to a criminal offense stemming from a breach of national security in which the White House was implicated.
If we let this become a fight about who lied under oath and whether that lie was justifiable, we merely allow the conservatives to shift the terrain back to their favorite stomping grounds.
July 6, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If we let this become a fight about who lied under oath and whether that lie was justifiable, we merely allow the conservatives to shift the terrain back to their favorite stomping grounds"
Agreed,
However I find these "but Clinton did it too" statements bizarre. IMO they should only be responded to with laughter and a "you got to be joking" statement. Derision is the only reply they deserve, loud and as often as possible.
Jack
July 6, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's a great send-up of a certain kind of snarky copy-editing." Wait till you try writing a textbook with me as development editor. I once wrote "gag me with a spoon" in the margins. Ok, I've learned since then.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 6, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, I'm not arguing anymore. But let me hit it again.
To restate the problem:
1. Clinton was impeached for perjury.
2. Libby was convicted of perjury.
3. Both apparently did lie.
4. Treating one person differently than the other would be inconsistent.
5. Being inconsistent such that one favors the person associated with one's political party opens the door to charges of partisanship.
As it goes, most people don't give a damn about convictions and extra charges and all that stuff. They see the same "crime" (meaning bad act) and the actions are equivalent.
So, how can we talk about this in a way that is not partisan?
In quite a straightforward way, we can assume that the acts were equal (and I believe they were on a moral level), but that doesn't fully answer the question. My point is simply that impeachment is not the proper response to presidential perjury. (Of course, it depends on the circumstances, but let's not get too wrapped up in that.)
In that way, the debate is not about who lied under oath and whether the lie was justifiable. I'm willing to admit that both lied under oath and that neither lie was justifiable. The proper response in both cases is to inflict some punishment on the perpetrator. But, in Clinton's case, impeachment was not the correct punishment to pursue.
And that's it.
July 6, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's what I'm saying for the purpose of influencing public opinion. As shown in Brook's column, the meme has already appeared that dems are pissed about Libby but light on Clinton while Repubs were hard on Clinton but light on Libby. My point is to address the issue in a way so that argument doesn't have any force.
When the details get too complex, the message gets lost.
July 6, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stuff happens. Once in the ancient (i.e. black and white screen) days of TV there was an updated score coming in to the sports cast at which I was working as floor manager. The director crawled on his hands and knees, took the page of script off the sportscaster's desk, and wrote "don't read this, Dick" by the score soon to be changed. Of course, he read straight through--including the line "don't read this, Dick". :-)
aMike
July 6, 2007 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
A reminder: an Impeachment is a trial. Clinton was aquitted in that trial. The term "impeachment," as odious as it is, does not prove guilt any more than a trial does, and Clinton was not found guilty in his impeachment.
So your comparison is inaccurate:
1. Clinton was impeached for perjury.
Clinton was tried in the Senate and found to be not guilty.
2. Libby was convicted of perjury.
Libby was tried for perjury and obstruction of justice, and found to be guilty of 4 felonies, including perjury.
3. Both apparently did lie.
Only Libby was found guilty of "lying" (another name for lying is "Perjury." Both probably did, however. We also know that George Bush lied about the reasons for going to war and killing thousands of people. Is the difference that he was not taken to trial, and so how do you want to treat his crimes? Should the gravity of the lying weigh in? How about Cheney's many verbal essays about AlQaida and Iraq? Rummy, and the rest of the neo-cons? Lying? How many died because of Clinton?
4. Treating one person differently than the other would be inconsistent.
Based on your flawed logic? And how many people are you including in the "one person being treated differently?" INCONSISTENT? INCONSISTENT? The Bush regime is a walking neon sign for inconsistency based on wealth! How about the many who have received similar sentences to Scooter's based on federal sentencing guidlines?
5. Being inconsistent such that one favors the person associated with one's political party opens the door to charges of partisanship.
But but but but Clinton did it!
Oh, grow up! And that's it!
Jan
July 6, 2007 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! I'd not seen this.
Since "Mr. Brooks lives about 250 feet" away, please arrange to visit. Could you manage a conversation with him? His columns and interviews make him sound too cowardly, but... please keep on with this. I've never seen one of these people close up, and I'd like to know how they respond, or at least how this one does.
July 6, 2007 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm Ron Burgundy?
July 6, 2007 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cville,
You've missed my point. I'm well aware of the impeachment and removal process for the President. The impeachment process itself is a much, much bigger deal than simply going to court and having a small criminal trial over perjury. My entire point is that Clinton should never have been impeached. That should never have happened.
Clinton was impeached for perjury. That is a fact. I don't even know why you are disputing it. It's like you've gone crazy. If I wrote Clinton was indicted for perjury, that would mean the same thing, except that impeachment is a special constitutional process. You say Clinton wasn't impeached for perjury, he was tried and acquitted. That's like saying Libby wasn't indicted for perjury, he was tried and convicted of perjury. In both situations, both things happened without excluding the other.
Clinton was impeached for perjury AND he was acquitted by the Senate. Libby was indicted for perjury AND he was convicted by a jury. See how that works?
Then you proceed by non sequitur to George W. For what it's worth, what Bush did to get us into Iraq is precisely the sort of thing the impeachment process was designed to protect against and I think he ought to be impeached along with Cheney, but none of that is relevant here.
My logic isn't flawed here, CVille. You've just gone nutty. If you can't follow the discussion, don't try.
July 6, 2007 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The David Brooks on the Lehrer Hour actually seems like a non mean spirited , somewhat self-mocking guy , not the sharpest knife in the drawer but , out of the serried ranks of the right wing commentariat the only one whom I might be pleased to find in the next seat on a 3 hour flight. So what went wrong ?
Why the personal insults , and cavalier treatment of the facts ?
Ultimately I was reminded of an over emphatic essay I once wrote which was returned with the single comment "Do you really means this ?"
What interests me is what caused him to
write this. Did he really mean it?
July 6, 2007 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not guilty of what?
If you can find a single person in all world who had the slightest acquaintance with the case and thinks Clinton was innocent, it would be interesting to hear more about such a person.
I won't bother getting into an argument of what perjury is except to note that the crime involved a cover-up rather than consensual sex that many love to focus on. Some folks here get a might touchy when the current White House does not cooperate with congressional investigations.
The problem in all this is that while the scope of the crimes committed by Bush dwarfs anything managed by any other president, it is not a particularly attractive argument that "your guy is dirtier than mine was."
Frankly I don't care whether someone was convicted or acquitted in any court and worse by an assemblage of politicians. The state of our justice system is so horribly flawed that it is all beside the point. All a verdict means is that one lawyer or set of lawyers won and the other side lost.
"Jury - A group of 12 people who decide which side has the better lawyer."
Best, Terry
July 6, 2007 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Bobo has probably hired bodyguards and taken out a restraining order.
July 6, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reece -- I think we're starting from the same place. I too believe we just come off sounding partisan if we deny any culpability on Clinton's part, or say that his lying was justified because it was a "witchhunt" (although I do think it was a witchhunt...). I just don't think that saying what Clinton did didn't amount to perjury will provide the sort of clear distinction you want, because it will ultimately come down to a debate about materiality that will be murky and will also allow conservatives to rehash Clinton's various sexual indiscretions.
So... I think the best we can do is to say while both cases involved lying on oath, Scooter's case is much worse (and deserving of the sentenced punishment), because
- he was CONVICTED, while Clinton was acquitted in the Senate and never charged criminally
- he was ALSO convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators, so it is not simply a question of perjury
- the lie in question had to do with a CRIMINAL breach of national security, not merely a civil allegation of sexual misconduct
- and it had to do with conduct IN the White House, as part of official duties, NOT something that happened years beforehand
Yes, I agree, it's not neat, but I think hitting at least some of these points (CONVICTED of perjury stemming from CRIMINAL conduct IN THE WHITE HOUSE regarding NATIONAL SECURITY) will ultimately be more convincing than trying to argue that Clinton's misconduct didn't amount to perjury because it wasn't material, etc. etc.
July 6, 2007 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the Brooks and Shields segment of the News Hour tonight, Brooks basically repeated his lying narrative. Mark Shields, who rarely calls Brooks out on his lies, tore him up by weighing the gravity of something like Clinton's perjury with Libby's obstructions. Shields pointed out that the whole Libby affair was part of a scheme to wage war under false pretenses. It was well beyond any partisan gotcha politics and the country knows it.
July 6, 2007 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
i have said it before, i shall say it again, you didn't need joe wilson to learn how false the niger story was.
and that is the real indictment of both the press and also the purportedly leftist electorate.
the niger sty was so astronomically false as to beggar the imagination.
joe wilson wasn't needed to discredit that bit of fiction.
concentrating on joe wilson perpetuates the fiction that only joe wilson could reveal the truth about niger and yellowcake. in fact, anyone with half a brain should have been able to reveal that niger could never have been a source of yellowcake to anyone other than the consortium partners[france, japan].
in all the writings about this issue, the monstrous deceit and all that bought into it, goes undiscussed.
it did not require joe wilson to reveal reality. reality was out there for anyone who cared to consider it.
the real question persists....why did no one care to consider the reality? all employed by the mossad?
July 6, 2007 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I know Judy Miller never revealed it. But the strange thing is that Libby is excused for revealing a covert operative's name and then lying about his naming names. But Miller goes to jail for refusing to name Libby. Who is working for who? Where is the public service from these "public servants?"
July 6, 2007 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the details are examined too closely the forest is lost. Isn't that what you mean?
When writing, we must remember not to solely focus on how we think it, but how the recipient receives it. If we are not trying to persuade them, then I guess there is no matter.
July 6, 2007 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what is even more often forgotten is the other guy may not be "my guy" in the first place.
Thats the whole problem with most the "republican" vs "democrat", "red" vs "blue" arguments. It presumes that one has to be locked in simplistic us vs them paradigms for an argument to take place.
Instead of us vs ourselves because as Willie Lynch once said, better to divide the slaves against each other to foment hate and division to keep them down than to beat them and shackle them.
Still got your collar on?
July 6, 2007 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you 100% on this issue. I've been trying to make the point repeatedly here at TPM Cafe.
It is a big mistake to extend the benefit of a doubt to people like Brooks. They are conscious liars and do not deserve the courtesy we extend to those who we disagree with but who are sincere in their beliefs. The liar deserves the back of our hand and that is a lesson--alas---that civil society does not seem to want to learn (is afraid to embrace?).
David Corn however is sincere and not a liar. You might have wanted to be a little easier on him. The disease seems to be prevalent and it would be useful to find out why that’s so.
My hunch is that the media's paradigm seems not to be that it's primary job is to report the truth but to report what public figures are saying and leave it up to the readers/viewers/listeners to decide who is right and who is wrong. That's a pathological desire for methodological "evenhandedness" that seems to prevail. Right wing propagandists have discovered this and are exploiting it to the fullest. Result: many people who do not follow things closely (the majority) fall victims of the lies.
This has to change. A liar is a liar and should be exposed for it not coddled.
A complicating factor in bringing a change is that since the media plays dumb as to who is honest and who is a liar, assuming a more aggressive posture is taken by such allies as David Corn and others has it's downside. Calling them out and out liars and propagandist will give the right wing propagandist the chance to label them part of the "fringe" left.
So unless we have a paradigm shift and demand that the public outlets fact check ALL things that pundits print/broadcast, things will not change.
I've heard people like David Gergen and Pat Buchanan admit that all these guys lie.
What we need is outrage over this situation not blase cynicism.
July 6, 2007 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You made me read a Brooks piece. Arghhhh.
July 6, 2007 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we agree on a lot. I think the thing that I wasn't making clear enough, but which I said below, is that I don't think impeachment proceedings should have ever been instigated against Clinton. It's the proceedings themselves that were a big deal regardless of how they turned out.
It is genuinely amazing to me that Republicans would even consider impeaching Clinton for perjury but they are willing to let Scooter go without any significant punishment. Impeachment by tradition has been such an extreme mechanism that it is basically never used--twice in 220 years.
July 6, 2007 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it was nice for a change. With the gracious Judy Woodruff as host Mark Shields used a toy hammer to pound a square Brooks into a reasonably round hole.
July 6, 2007 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly I don't care whether someone was convicted or acquitted in any court and worse by an assemblage of politicians.
Neither does BushCo, Terry. Welcome to Gitmo!
July 7, 2007 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deleted by SqueakyRat.
July 7, 2007 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually nobody much cares what judges and juries say except to make an argument, Squeaky. You can start with Nixon not being impeached, let alone tried and convicted.
The house where Lizzie Borden reputedly did a more professional hatchet job than David Brooks is now a bed and breakfast where they promise to feed you the same meal the Borden's ate the morning of the murders.
PTL they lie. The rotting mutton stew for breakfast might have done in the elder Bordens had not a hatchet been faster and cleaner.
Speaking of cleaner, I am one of those who believe Lizzie because of the lack of blood on her or her clothes. I admit to being somewhat taken by Lee Remick in the movie doing the deed by getting nekid but Lizzie was no Lee Remick.
The jury acquitted Lizzie. Few others did.
It never changes.
Best, Terry
July 7, 2007 4:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go fuck yourself, San Diego!
July 7, 2007 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Corn however is sincere and not a liar. You might have wanted to be a little easier on him. The disease seems to be prevalent and it would be useful to find out why that’s so.
I'm well aware that Corn is sincere, and not a liar. But such coyness not only plays into the lying, it is over the head of those who most need to learn how to evaluate media. Over the head of those who believe there is only opinion, and all opinions are equal, so one opinion is as good as another.
If you reread what I wrote, you'll note that I name the propagandist and liar -- and it isn't Corn. It is David Brooks. But Corn does verge on blase cynicism by engaging in a rather mild tete-a-tete with Brooks, as if Brooks would be worth sitting at dinner, or over a few drinks, with: what's to discuss with him? His propaganda and lies? Or the fact that he's a knowing and deliberate liar, and that he bases that on a fake moral superiority against lies and liars?
Treating a thug with kid gloves only increases the thug's contempt. Brooks is a bully and a coward yes; but indirect, "clever" critiques of his lying only stroke his ego and make him laugh all the harder. He needs to be called out as a liar -- that word and no indirecting euphemisms used -- and hit directly between the eyes with it so he is allowed no "wiggle room" within which to pretend the critique is other than it is. Or pretend that he doesn't know it is a critique.
Bottom line: to attack a person for being something he is not is ad hominem. But to attack a person for what he is -- in this case a liar -- is a statement of fact. Playing games with them wastes time, and does nothing to change the bahavior of the liar.
July 7, 2007 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush, caught getting a BJ in the Oval Office: "Well, well, Clinton did it too!"
The Forces of Wingnuttery: "MEGADITTOS GEORGE!"
(Is there an "e" at the end of megadittos?)
July 7, 2007 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why the title I cite didn't appear is odd: The True Believer, Eric Hoffer.
It goes back further than Adorno and Arendt in that it goes back to psychiatrists who were inmates in German concentration camps, and subsequently wrote about those experiences and their first-hand witnessing and anaylsis of the "authoritarian personality". Those are more credible even that of Arendt. And where was Adorno during WW II?
Another is Eric Fromm -- but Dean can't quote him as he was something of a non-right-winger.
True Believers are vastly fewer than the liars who "don't care". Are vastly outnumbered by those who swallow the lies, and act on them. I have a sister with no education; her effort to compete without having to make legitimate effort is to reduce everything to "opinion," and then insist that all opinions are equal. That obviously "leaves out" the more difficult question, "What is truth?"
And that -- the reduction of everything to mere "opinion" -- is a vastly common strategy of the illiterate and intellectually lazy and dishonest. A vastly greater problem than the statistically insignificant number of True Believers.
Another problem with dealing with those moral relativisits to whom everything is only opinion is giving them a platform, and even as they insult the host and abuse the platform, their access to the platform in order to shit on the livingroom rug and claim it's not merely legitimate "opinion" but also legitimate free speech, they are tolerated. Time and again they are allowed to so destructively act as result of a misguided tolerance.
Sociopathy and stupidity are not to be tolerated -- unless, of course, their "opinion" is as valid as all other opinions because there's no such thing as truth.
Psychological testing has improved since 1951? The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) -- probably the best of those instruments -- was last modified in 1948.
Contribute something positive? Like showing off one's "intellectuality" by making an issue of one book you read on the basis that it's based upon "improvements" in psychological testing made before earlier books on the exact same topic?
An ocean of illiterate liars spewing an extreme view they don't know is extreme is not addressed by going to one's own "responsive" extreme. Is the Bushit gang comprised of authoritarians? Yes and no. Are those who are True Believers in Bushit, et al., "authoritarians"? Very few; the vast majority are, as detalied, illiterates looking for a way to "pay back" all those who they perceive as "pretending" to be "better" than the illiterates; in fighting back they reach for the bully, not authority, because they reject authority to begin with. They don't care -- cannot even determine in many cases -- that O'Reilly, et al.'s "arguments" are not only false but incoherent; they only care about seeing those "fake betters" beat up and "proven" to be wrong, by means of which the illiterates finally, after all these years, "win".
July 7, 2007 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If you can't get a lie believed by any other way, get a newspaper to tell it." -- Mark Twain.
Twain trumps the fashionably cyncial Mencken 24/7.
July 7, 2007 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
See if you can find Robert Sheckley, his best being Dimension of Miracles, but also Mindswap being well worth the hunt. And The Status Civilization
The bite of Ellison with a superior satirical edge (if Ellison can be characterized as a satirist).
July 7, 2007 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
To restate the problem:
1. Clinton was impeached for perjury.
2. Libby was convicted of perjury.
3. Both apparently did lie.
So, how can we talk about this in a way that is not partisan?
Clinton [subjected to impeachment/trial by ahyperpartisan REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress] was tried and [nonetheless] ACQUITTED.
Libby [subjected to investigation and trial by REPUBLICAN-appointees] was tried and [nonetheless] CONVICTED.
July 7, 2007 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brooks has consistently been a pro-Bushit hack since 2000. This is not the only instance in which he lied, and lied, and lied again.
If Brooks were not a liar, it would be a "personal insult" to call him a liar. That he is a liar makes it not a "personal insult" but instead a statement of fact.
So, did Brooks mean it? Are you questioning the fact of his "sincerity"? Yes, Brooks meant it. And -- yes -- he is, and knows he is, a liar. The lying is rationalized as being "for the good of the cause".
July 7, 2007 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bobo's world.
July 7, 2007 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admit that this was just a mosquito on the elephant that is the right wing spin machine. But I think that it is the way to respond to the "Clinton did it, too" dodge.
July 7, 2007 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are both making this too complicated and accepting the premise that Dems must accept the Republican effort to equate the two.
Clinton lied about sex. The Bush administration lied about war. Americans do actually get that point and it will not hurt Democrats to keep repeating it.
July 7, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not miss your point. You missed mine. You say:
Clinton was impeached for perjury. That is a fact. I don't even know why you are disputing it.
I did not dispute that; what I dispute is that you are saying that Clinton's impeachment and subsequent aquittal equals Scooter's being found guilty of 4 felonies.
And how can you call a reference to Bush's lies to get us into war a nonsequitur? That is precisely what Scooter was covering up!
You have said twice that I am crazy / nutty. I'm sure your idol Bill OReilly would be proud if he took the time to read your stuff.
Jan
July 7, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell -- I do think the sex/war distinction is at the heart of the matter from a political or moral perspective, and if we can stop the Libby=Clinton equation by using that as a first line of defense, I'm all for it.
The discussion here, however, was what to do if that fails and they come back with the likely retort: our guy lied under oath, your guy lied under oath, how can you argue that Libby should go to jail and Clinton shouldn't? Once you get to that point, saying it's about sex doesn't have much traction: there's no rule saying lying in court is OK if it concerns embarrassing personal matters. Maybe there should be, but that's another question...
July 7, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help remembering an old essay I read (mid sixties): "War, Yes! Sex, No! Some Reflections on de Sade and Napoleon." I believe the author was Guy Endore, and published in ETC - journal of general semantics.
The premise was the question of why, in our public libraries, the war books were on open shelves, while the sex books were under lock and key. Interesting research followed - including an account of famous warriors whose kids became deviated preverts* - like Oscar Wilde's dad was a general, and I think de Sade's pop was a military hero also.
Something to think about while considering the sex/war distinction. I think you're on to something here, Blue in IA.
Neoboho
*Thanks to Col. Bat Guano.
July 7, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hector
"material" as an adjective with legal consequence has been defined many times in the courts. In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986), the Court wrote that a material fact was one that might affect the outcome of the case under governing law.
Under the criminal law of the United States (TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Chapter 79 - Perjury -- Section 1621. Perjury generally) "perjury" is defined and made a criminal offense, punishable by fine and up to five years imprisonment:
"Whoever -
(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States."
As to what is a "material matter", "material" as an adjective with legal consequence has been defined many times in the courts. In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986), the Court wrote that a material fact was one that might affect the outcome of the case under governing law.
As other commenters have noted, not every statement made in the pre-trial, discovery phase of litigation is admissible as evidence. But statements need not be admissible at trial for the "matter" about which they are made influence the outcome of the case. The fundamental point made by Patrick Fitzgerald regarding Libby's lies is that by lying Libby "affected the outcome of the case".
I think that judged on the basis of harm done to democratic government, not to mention world peace and the lives of hunreds of thousands of Iraqis and far too many Americans and others, the harm of Libby's lies literally infinitely exceeds that of Clinton's. Whether as a legal matter Libby's lies were any more perjurious than were Clinton's is a different question.
As to a response to the "Clinton did it" defense of Libby, in my view, the only responsible (and the only effective) answer to a "Clinton did it too" defense of Libby is to note that Libby, having been tried in federal court before a republican judge, found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury, sentenced by the republican trial judge who presided over his trial, told by a unanimous three judge (two of whom were republicans)appeal panel that his appeal did not present any matter likely to lead to a reversal of his conviction, was then permitted to avoid jail by the very man whose conduct was concealed by Libby's lies; that the president, having thus permitted Libby to escape jail, has very probably violated 18 USC §201(b)(3)(Bribery of public officials and witnesses)and §1510 (obstruction of a criminal investigation); and that one's interlocutor, having argued that "Clinton did it too", has just acknowledged that Bush too has committed a high crime or misdemeanor and should -- as was Clinton -- be impeached. As to Clinton, I would not waste my time -- or weaken the argument against Bush -- by offering any defense of the man.
July 7, 2007 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think if you lose the first argument, you've lost the second anyway. Unless people get the point that lying to abuse war powers is a more significant crime (a crime against the nation) than lying in the interest of sleazy personal expediency, you're not going to win the argument anyway.
You can't excuse what Clinton did. You can't excuse the Republicans raising it to the level of impeachment (high crimes) either, but Clinton hurt the Democratic party and undermined the integrity of his office by what he did.
But I don't believe that Americans, beyond the brainwashed robots, believe that the Libby commutation was OK -- so don't acknowledge their technical legal argument at all. Just refuse them their point, assert that Libby is covering up for Cheney and Bush, and dare them to prove otherwise. When they say you prove your case, say Libby lied, obstructed justice, covered up, that's why we can't get to the heart of the matter, and say if Libby has nothing to hide - let him talk to the press and discuss the matter fully on the record.
July 7, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
My thought would be that it's probably safer to hammer the point that Libby was convicted of obstuction of justice *not* just perjury, and to avoid the debate as to whether Clinton's lie amounted to perjury.
Here's why. The core common law definition of perjury, as Tom Hilton points out, is intentionally lying under oath on a material matter in a judicial proceeding. There's no distinction between civil and criminal cases.
In the Clinton case, you've got a judge's finding that he intentionally lied under oath in a judicial proceeding. So, you're stuck arguing materiality. Probably all of us at this site would agree that whatever consensual affair Clinton had with Lewinsky is not material to an allegation that Clinton sexually harrassed another employee (non-consensually). But that won't stop conservatives from arguing that it was material (presumably on some theory that someone who characteristically sleeps around at work is also likely to harrass people at work). And unfortunately, materiality is at heart an amorphous concept. I think their legal theory is incoherent, but getting bogged down in splitting "materiality" hairs is hardly a catchy talking point.
Rather than get enmeshed in re-arguing the Clinton case, I'd suggest emphasizing the point that it's not just about faulty memories or lying under oath -- it's about obstruction of justice, which means in this case deliberately interfering with a criminal investigation into a breach of national security. That, imho, is the distinction with a difference.
July 7, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan, why do you think you are the only one who has interpreted my above posts in this way? Why do you think you are the only one who thinks I idolize Bill O'Reilly? Why do you think you are the only one who hasn't been able to maintain a civil discussion on this thread?
July 7, 2007 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Clinton case, you've got a judge's finding that he intentionally lied under oath in a judicial proceeding. So, you're stuck arguing materiality.
Here is how I remember the case. If I have it wrong I hope to be corrected.
Consensual sex is pretty common. Has been for a long time. Until Clinton “committed perjury” he hadn’t committed a crime.Libby’s lies were part of an on-going crime.
Clinton was in a perjury trap but he had the right to defend himself in the legal proceedings. He was not obligated to offer information.
The perjury, as I understand it, happened when he was asked if he had had sex with Lewinsky. He asked the judge for a definition of sex. She defined it as intercourse. Clinton said no, we never did that.
July 7, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you still haven't read the book. You don't even have to get off the couch it's online.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
July 7, 2007 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reece,
You called me crazy and nutty when I simply wrote a rebuttal to your remarks. I made no disparaging comments about you.
You then responded by calling me names; saying I am mentally unbalanced. I drew the contrast between your techniques and Bill O's. I guess I could ask you if you know why you are the only person here who (so far) has accused me of being insane.
You have been uncivil; not I. Furthermore, I am not the only person who interpreted your post as I have. I will paste a comment that appears below because it is brief, and because it shows that JNagarya also felt the need to clarify the facts, which is all I was doing until you started insulting me!
JNagarya said:To restate the problem:
1. Clinton was impeached for perjury.
2. Libby was convicted of perjury.
3. Both apparently did lie.
So, how can we talk about this in a way that is not partisan?
Clinton [subjected to impeachment/trial by ahyperpartisan REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress] was tried and [nonetheless] ACQUITTED.
Libby [subjected to investigation and trial by REPUBLICAN-appointees] was tried and [nonetheless] CONVICTED.
So --> I propose that we agree to disagree because it is distracting from the thread and I prefer not to do that.
Jan
July 7, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
In actual fact, we don't know whether or not Clinton lied, or about what. The impeachment articles did not state what the lie was, nor were the Republicans willing to specify what the lie was in their presentation to the Senate. Later, a judge decided to hold Clinton in contempt of court, but did not say Clinton committed perjury, and to my knowledge did not specify exactly what Clinton said what was contemptuous of the court. Clinton to this day has been convicted of nothing. And, by our laws and our constitution he is therefore guilty of nothing. Being held in contempt of court is not a conviction. Clinton chose to pay the fine imposed by the judge, without contesting the contempt charge. That is not a conviction.
Libby was prosecuted for both perjury and obstruction of justice, and was convicted by a jury, which, unlike us, heard all of the testimony and arguments. Libby is therefore a felon, guilty of both perjury and obstruction of justice.
Perhaps someone smarter than me can see the above making Clinton and Libby equals in their law breaking. I can't do it.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 7, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I consider David Brooks a shameless propaganda pimp for all things Zionist and/or Republican Party. As such, I would not waste my time trying to "analyze" in detail the nakedly brazen bullshit he spews in service to those Seizure Class patrons who see to it that he lives a lavish style of life far in excess of that which an honest person of even minimal literary talent might otherwise earn by working.
Nonetheless, as just a simple point of historical interest, it has never -- through all the long ages of sophistry -- constituted a valid arugument to avail oneself of the Tu Quo Que ("you do it, too," or "misery loves company") fallacy. On the face of it, claiming that someone else deserves the label "guilty" as well as the convicted person only posits the existence of two guilty parties instead of only one. In fact and effect, this fallacy does nothing more than state "mea culpa" in other words that hopefully might lead the uninquisitive to suppose that "guilty" doesn't mean much of any consequence when applied to particular persons -- a legally and logically untrue assertion.
Also as a matter of fact, all citizens enjoy the presumption of innocence until such time as a jury of their peers finds them "guilty" through an orderly legal process. To my knowledge, no jury of his peers ever found Bill Clinton "guilty" of anything and so he enjoys today the same presumption of "innocence" as do the rest of us citizens. Seven-year, seventy-million-dollar Republican Party political witch hunts do not refute that simple truth. On the other hand, a jury of his peers did find I. Lewis Libby "guilty" of several crimes and so no valid comparison obtains between his legal "guilt" and Bill Clinton's legal "innocence." End of argument for those who consider the legal meaning of words dispositive in all legal matters.
I would end here except for one more observation I wish to make about the anti-intellectual jihad that David Brooks and so many of his illegitimate ilk love to wage on literate modernity itself. The [I allege that] "You do it, too" fallacy holds a certain attraction for the logically feeble minded because it supposes that sub-rational "lizard language" trumps linguistic precision for those who "don't care" what words actually mean in their appropriate contexts and who prefer to passively "emote" sympathetically in response to rhetorical cattle-prods instead of thinking. Brooks has in fact written and argued elsewhere that "words" don't mean anything anyway for those who get to "brush up against" George W. Bush in private meetings where Deputy Dubya's "animal magnitism" just somehow convinces them (by physical proximity to a gesticulating moron) that, as Brooks loves to drool: "This guy is really different."
Having someone as dim-witted and closet-queer as David Brooks move into your neighborhood certainly can't have done anything for plummeting housing values, if indeed his hyperventilating presence hasn't provided the final pin prick that bursts the hyper-inflated bubble.
July 7, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a little poetic follow-up to my comments above, with a hat-tip to Robert Parry of Consortium News, who wrote:
"For his part, [David] Brooks is famous for his semi-erotic man-love of George W. Bush, gushing after one meeting in September 2006 about how "every time I brush against Bush I'm reminded that this guy is different."
"A leader's first job is to project authority, and George Bush certainly does that," Brooks wrote in praise of Bush's animal magnetism. "Bush swallowed up the room, crouching forward to energetically make a point or spreading his arms wide to illustrate the scope of his ideas - always projecting confidence and intensity." [NYT, Sept. 14, 2006]
Hence, without further preamble:
Boobie Preternatural Semi-Eroticism
A gaggle of his sycophant
Stenographers convened
To quiver in his presence like
Some puppies never weaned
From off their mother’s suckling tit
Thus Dubya them demeaned
According to one David Brooks,
Dim Dubya spread his arms
To indicate “ideas” that
Had “breadth” among their charms
Which kept those in his audience
From sounding the alarms
The Boobie David Brooks, you see,
Disdains the thinking mind
And much prefers the glandular
Secretions of his kind
Whose little woodies stiffen when
George shows them his behind
Like David Broder gushing at
The flight-suit caper which
Once made him feel so “confident”
With each new pose and twitch
That “Top-Gun” George performed for him
With just one glaring hitch:
It seemed a little premature
To claim we had “prevailed”
When all the evidence to date
Had shown we’d clearly failed
And only rushed into a trap
In which we’ve flopped and flailed
Now over four long years have passed
Since Dubya did his dance
And senile David Broder swooned
Enraptured in a trance
Convinced that Dubya’s “movements” showed
A “learning” curve enhanced
Thus Boobies Brooks and Broder both
Seem prone to faint on cue
Whenever Dubya strikes a pose
Within their line of view
And glands into their boiling blood
Erotic hormones spew
Just like the Midnight Cowboy who
“Was formed in such a way”
To drive the women mad with lust
Till they would gladly lay
Upon their backs and part with cash
If Joe with them would play
Just so, George Bush the Younger wields
A power physical
Which neo-con Republicans
Find irresistible
When he invites them to his room
To wet their pants and drool
What Joe Buck was to women, George
Is to “conservatives”:
A loser whose grand schemes have use,
Like bowel laxatives:
He cures their constipation with
The tax-cuts that he gives
Korzybski named it long ago:
The hypothalamus
Which governs how the thoughtless live
Without a strain or fuss
When glands secrete a dreamy drug
Anaesthetizing us
Thus “body language” intervenes
When eyes cut out the brain
Appealing to the lizard that
Keeps hissing its refrain:
“Don’t mind that silly cortex ‘cause
Its thinking just brings pain.”
And so the Boobies huddle 'round
The light and heat of fire
As Dubya mimes a tale for them
About his new empire
Where advertisers specialize
In selling dumb desire
But Brooks and Broder and their ilk
Find written words a bore
At least when others use them
To elucidate the core
Of concepts Dubya can't convey
By playing cowboy whore
The midday Crawford cow-guy thus
Performs his manic act
While undisturbed by anything
Related to a fact
Content that both his Davids will
Supply what he has lacked
They like the way he “crouches” when
He “swallows up the room”
Projecting “leadership” to those
Who inhale his perfume
Neglecting to observe that he
Has “led” us to our doom
Michael Murry, "The Misfortune Teller," Copyright 2007
July 7, 2007 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hector
"spreading his arms wide to illustrate the scope of his ideas - always projecting confidence and intensity" -- Oh God in heaven -- the "scope of his ideas"! The scope of his delusional, utterly ignorant, self-loving fantasies.
July 7, 2007 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know. Have you asked Dan Quayle?
aMike
July 7, 2007 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone under twenty-five should like Hess. When you are older and have made some of life’s necessary hard choices he loses a bit of his luster.
July 7, 2007 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAh :-) :-)
July 8, 2007 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
flavius,
Better writers than myself have explored the differences in style and character between Brooks as partisan hack and as a journeyman observing politics qua politics. So I won't argue about whether this particular op/ed piece is an anomaly or not.
I do think your question of "did he really mean it" touches on something important. My impression is that he doesn't actually believe his own words.
There is a desperate nonchalance on display when Brooks trivializes the train of events that lead to Libby's conviction. The personal attacks and misrepresentation of facts do not add up to an argument over what happened or not but build the case that the "anti-Bush agenda" exists and is nurtured by a desire to destroy certain persons rather than expressing a demand for true justice. Brooks argument within the argument is that the whole affair is so fraught with bad faith and misleading motives that it deserves to go the way of last year's circuses so that new ones can take their place.
From this point of view, Brooks' article makes only one substantial claim; The party is over, everyone will now go home to sleep it off. If the obstruction of justice issues involved with Bush giving such a self-serving commutation of Libby's sentence continues to be pursued by the growing power of Legislative oversight, Brooks will simply be wrong, again.
July 8, 2007 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's the contradiction? The judge didn't find he'd committed perjury, but that he'd lied in a judicial proceeding (a deposition). For it to be perjury, you need the additional element of materiality. But even short of perjury, you still have duty to tell the truth when you're under oath, even if you're a civil defendant or if there's no underlying crime or if it's a so-called "perjury trap." We may think that, from a moral perspective, there's less culpability for lying in any of those situations, but the law doesn't draw such distinctions.
Again, the judge (who I think was a Clinton-appointee herself) didn't say it was perjury, and I'm not saying it was perjury.
July 8, 2007 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two nights ago a poll was released that showed 45% of Americans believe Bush should be impeached. 56% of Americans believe Cheney should be impeached. These are startling numbers, but as you are aware, the national media reflects none of this reality. The debate is whether Bush's pardon was politically appropriate or even wise. We know the reality of the situation. We can act. And the numbers support us. It's as simple as this. If everyone who felt that Bush and Cheney should be impeached called the White House, called Nancy Pelosi, called Harry Reid, called their congresspeople, the criminals would be gone.
If only ten percent of the people who felt that way called, the response would be the same.
It's as simple as that. If you act on your disgust, outrage, and indignation, change will happen. They will be gone. Democracy will be intact.
I encourage you to act.
Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965
Harry Reid: 202-224-3542
The White House: 202-456-1111
How to find your representatives.
July 8, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Desperate nonchalance," oh, that's Brooks all right.
July 8, 2007 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moat says:
"I do think your question of "did he really mean it" touches on something important. My impression is that he doesn't actually believe his own words."
I've watched politicians and columnists over the years and often said to myself;
"This person just cannot believe the bullsh** he/she is spewing." When a scandal erupts the ideologues know they must say something, anything, regardless of how mindless it may be, its the red meat to their cohort. Silence is the killer.
I call Brooks column for what it is; "He's spinning like a Whiirling Dervish."
July 9, 2007 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's how to submit entries:
http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/
The rules to the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest are childishly simple:
* Each entry must consist of a single sentence but you may submit as many entries as you wish.
* Sentences may be of any length (though you go beyond 50 or 60 words at your peril), and entries must be "original" (as it were) and previously unpublished.
* Surface mail entries should be submitted on index cards, the sentence on one side and the entrant's name, address, and phone number on the other.
* Email entries should be in the body of the message, NOT in an attachment. If you are submitting multiple entries, please include them in one message (and it would be really swell if you submitted your entries in Arial 12 font).
* Entries will be judged by categories, from "general" to detective, western, science fiction, romance, and so on. There will be overall winners as well as category winners.
* The official deadline is April 15 (a date that Americans associate with painful submissions and making up bad stories). The actual deadline may be as late as June 30.
* The contest accepts submissions every day of the livelong year.
* Wild Card Rule: Resist the temptation to work with puns like "It was a stark and dormy night."
* Finally, in keeping with the gravitas, high seriousness, and general bignitude of the contest, the grand prize winner will receive . . . a pittance.
Send your entries to:
Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest
Department of English
San Jose State University
San Jose, CA 95192-0090, or
To inflict your BLFC entry electronically, digitally stimulate Bulwer's nasal member (and please include your name, phone number, and addresses--Gastropoda and e-mail [Note: this data is for our contact information, no longer for public consumption. It is a convenience for interested media to be able to contact winners but we cannot post such information on our Web site, thanks to the cyber sociopaths who like to inflict viruses.]
July 9, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink