Bush & Co. Seek to Discredit Fitzgerald
Well, they're running true to form.
Needless to say, anyone who disagrees with this administration wants the terrorists to win, and anyone who thinks they've ever done anything wrong must either have a screw loose or be out to get them.
I had intended to post on this long ago--folks on the right and left needed to learn about Fitzgerald's reputation and methods and commit themselves ahead of time to one of the following propositions: (1) F is a responsible investigator; (2) F is not a responsible investigator; (3) We can't tell whether or not F is a responsible investigator.
Sadly, that's one of those posts I never got around to posting.
Everything I've seen has indicated that Fitgerald is a responsible investigator, so I've been prepared to accept--subject to reading his actual findings, of course--his conclusions as prima facie reasonable. I didn't look far enough into the issue, however, to be able to hold this opinion with much confidence. At any rate, I saw enough to conclude that there was no reason to believe that Fitzgerald was biased or "over-zealous."
But--of course--this is not how those now in the White House think. They employ what a friend of mine calls "The Method of Inverse Criticism." The rational person inspects evidence and forms his opinions on the basis of that evidence--even if he doesn't like the opinion he is forced to accept. He who employs the MOIC inspects the conclusion first, determines whether he likes it or not, and then accepts or rejects the reasoning accordlingly. This reminds me of several people of my acquaintance who will accept any argument--no matter how patently fallacious--so long as its conclusion is 'God exists,' and who reject any argument--no matter how apparently sound--so long as its conclusion is 'God does not exist.' (I know atheists who do exactly the same thing--by which I mean exactly the opposite thing--of course.)
One is reasonable insofar as one can be moved by reasons--by evidence. But the remaining 38% of the population that does not think Bush is a terrible president is probably the 38% that simply cannot be moved by evidence on this point. I mean, what exactly are they waiting for? Laser base on the moon? Cheney stroking a white cat during the State of the Union address? The Republican Party changing its name to 'The Legion of Doom?'
At any rate, this is all too predictable. Obviously no evidence that points to ineptitude or wrong-doing by the administration can be veridical. They are--apparently by definition--right in all things they do. And if Patrick Fitzgerald looks at the evidence and disagrees...well, then he--again, by definition--is a partisan hack. Or incompetent. Or over-zealous. Or _________ (fill in the blank)
Well, they're running true to form.
Needless to say, anyone who disagrees with this administration wants the terrorists to win, and anyone who thinks they've ever done anything wrong must either have a screw loose or be out to get them.
I had intended to post on this long ago--folks on the right and left needed to learn about Fitzgerald's reputation and methods and commit themselves ahead of time to one of the following propositions: (1) F is a responsible investigator; (2) F is not a responsible investigator; (3) We can't tell whether or not F is a responsible investigator.
Sadly, that's one of those posts I never got around to posting.
Everything I've seen has indicated that Fitgerald is a responsible investigator, so I've been prepared to accept--subject to reading his actual findings, of course--his conclusions as prima facie reasonable. I didn't look far enough into the issue, however, to be able to hold this opinion with much confidence. At any rate, I saw enough to conclude that there was no reason to believe that Fitzgerald was biased or "over-zealous."
But--of course--this is not how those now in the White House think. They employ what a friend of mine calls "The Method of Inverse Criticism." The rational person inspects evidence and forms his opinions on the basis of that evidence--even if he doesn't like the opinion he is forced to accept. He who employs the MOIC inspects the conclusion first, determines whether he likes it or not, and then accepts or rejects the reasoning accordlingly. This reminds me of several people of my acquaintance who will accept any argument--no matter how patently fallacious--so long as its conclusion is 'God exists,' and who reject any argument--no matter how apparently sound--so long as its conclusion is 'God does not exist.' (I know atheists who do exactly the same thing--by which I mean exactly the opposite thing--of course.)
One is reasonable insofar as one can be moved by reasons--by evidence. But the remaining 38% of the population that does not think Bush is a terrible president is probably the 38% that simply cannot be moved by evidence on this point. I mean, what exactly are they waiting for? Laser base on the moon? Cheney stroking a white cat during the State of the Union address? The Republican Party changing its name to 'The Legion of Doom?'
At any rate, this is all too predictable. Obviously no evidence that points to ineptitude or wrong-doing by the administration can be veridical. They are--apparently by definition--right in all things they do. And if Patrick Fitzgerald looks at the evidence and disagrees...well, then he--again, by definition--is a partisan hack. Or incompetent. Or over-zealous. Or _________ (fill in the blank)
posted by Winston Smith at
3:47 PM
21 Comments:
It's at times like this I like to trot out my soon-to-be-patented translation guide:
Orig: "____ is biased"
Trans: "___ disagrees with me."
Orig: "_____ is over-zealous"
Trans: "_____ wouldn't stop doing her job, despite the fact that if she continued to, it might expose my or my fellow party member's failures"
Orig: "You're taking those quotes out of context."
Trans: "I said something provably false or inflammatory."
Is it a crime to cover up a non-crime? I think that's at issue here.
Clinton's enemies emphasized that it wasn't the sex, it was the lying. Strictly speaking, true.
But without an underlying crime (and the buzz is that the charge of "endangering" national security won't stick), is it worth bringing the government down over it? I thought not.
Demerits for Kay Bailey Hutchinson for the "taxpayer dollars" defense, though. Surely the last refuge of scoundrels.
The point, of course, is that here there IS an underlying crime...and it's part of a pattern.
Whereas with Clinton there was no underlying crime...and to make matters worse, the fabrication of the story about the crime was a part of a pattern.
So now, the big pattern: Republicans apparently have a strong inclination toward criminal activities while in office (Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Iraq Fiasco/enemies list, etc.), and they have apparently adopted a NEW practice of fabricating crimes against Democrats.
It's a sad, sad time for your party, Tom. You need to suck it up and admit it. Really. The time for denial is past.
Uh-oh. The dreaded laundry list. There is no defense against the laundry list.
I don't follow the fabrication against Democrats part, unless you're referring to the Lewinsky affair. If so, the Republicans involved (even the Great Gingrich) were forced from public office in '98. (Something I thought was just.)
I reckon these rumored indictments will shed light on the Plame affair, if there is an underlying crime. Either way, I do not think the "outing" of Plame was a threat to the republic. I put it somewhere between Sandy Burger and his socks. But I do not think my opinion will be audible above the feeding frenzy, so I will save my breath.
Enjoy the feast. ;-)
um, if by "there's no defense against the laundry list" you mean *those are the fact, and, yes, recent Republican administrations have been dishonest*, then I guess we agree. That particular list of crimes is, indeed, impressive.
Re: fabricated scandals: Troopergate, Whitewater, drug-running, etc., etc... Even Lewinsky was a pathetic reach, a last desperate lunge to humiliate a man the radical right had hated from the beginning, facts be damned.
But this isn't even controversial anymore, so why discuss it?
I choose (3), we can't tell whether Fitzgerald is a responsible investigator. And it shouldn't matter, ultimately. Patrick Fitzgerald's fairness/bias will become irrelevant once the indictments (if any) are unsealed. At that point, the evidence on which the indictments are based, or at least the allegations for which evidence will be forthcoming at trial, will be known. The quality of the evidence and the conclusions that flow therefrom will be evaluated without regard to prosecutor Fitzgerald's virtues or vices. As the compiler of the evidence, Fitzgerald is just a messenger. Of course, he will also be advocating the conclusion that the indicted are guilty. But to attack his credentials, or cite them, in support of a conclusion of guilt or innocence is either an improper appeal to authority or an ad hominem attack.
The only thing I know about Fitzgerald is that this investigation has been leak-free. That in itself raises him in my estimation. The contrast to Starr in particular is amazing.
Filegate, Loral, taking campaign money from a hostile government (China), the Marc Rich pardon...
Just because these things were bipartisanly swept under the rug doesn't mean they didn't happen. (The first three are damn serious stuff.)
But you know how I hate this Hannity & Colmes stuff, WS. I shall register this objection to your thesis and ideally move on, like they say.
DLev,
You're right, of course re: the fact that it's the strength of the evidence that ultimately matters. I was just saying that, if we were going to assess PF as an inquirer, the best time to do it would be before we found out whether we were going to like his conclusions or not... On the other hand, of course, I, like you, don't know enough about him to draw any very certain judgments. I've heard he's got a good rep., but that's all I know.
Tom! Dude! You are not seriously comparing those two lists, I KNOW you aren't...
Filegate vs. Iran-Contra???????????
?????????????
People that have worked with PF and people that he has worked for have nothing but positive (in my view) things to say about him. He is aggressive, if there is any wrongdoing he will find, he is a man of the utmost integrity, incredible work ethic etc. etc.. Do a google search on "patrick fitzgerald school" It brings up things related to him that mostly discuss his background.
However, today I heard Hannity on the radio, using a quote from one of PF's friends David Kelley that PF could always find "creative ways to interpret the law". This in opinion is grasping at straws. They can't trash this guy so they try to find ways to use statements made about him seem derogatory. This quote was in the context of pursuing cases at the US attorney's office. When people in the office would run into a dead end and be ready to give up on bringing charges in a case, they would show it to PF and he would look at the case and say have you thought about charging this or that? It will only get worse in the next few days.
Loral vs. Iran-Contra, actually.
Whew...
I just don't think we have any common ground on which to discuss this one... I'm just baffled. You really just can't be serious.
Your not, right?
Serious, I mean.
Giving missile technology to an unfriendly nuclear power?
You must be kidding, right?
I'm honestly not attempting tu quoque here. I'm looking for historical analogues with parties reversed so we can shed the partisanship and look beneath the surface at the realities/principles involved. (Crossfire was cancelled, and good riddance. That's just no way to go through life.)
It's tough because Democrats have only held the White House for 12 of the last 37 years. There are also, um, singularities about the Clinton presidency which I'd really like to pass on re-litigating. I have Moved On. Really.
The closest I can come to Iran-Contra's violation of the Boland Amendment is FDR and the Neutrality Acts. Both were power struggles between the executive and legislature over control of foreign policy. Both executives crossed Congress because they felt it was a grave question of national security.
Trying for political philosophy over politics, I think. Trying to get out of Plato's cave. Small "c." ;-)
"The closest I can come to Iran-Contra's violation of the Boland Amendment is FDR and the Neutrality Acts. Both were power struggles between the executive and legislature over control of foreign policy. Both executives crossed Congress because they felt it was a grave question of national security."
I'm trying to get my mind around the implied equivalence of threat here. I mean, "grave question of national security" can't be just in the eye of the beholder, can it? I'll grant that both FDR and Reagan sought to, and did indeed, abuse executive power. But are you trying to say with a straight face that the real threat in both cases were even in the same universe?
At best, it comes down to a question of judgment. Sandinista rule in Nicaragua was going to do what to the US, exactly? THAT was worth generating a separation of powers and Congressional oversight crisis?
To follow up on Winston's 'no underlying crime' comment. And keep Tom in Plato's cave ;)
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/
Permalink doesn't seem to be working on the site. Thread is called 'NOC NOC'.
Sorry.
Might be helpful to distinguish between crimes and acts of stupidity. As far as I can tell, Marc Rich and Loral were legal, as objectionable as an unbiased observver might find them. Not so Iran-Contra.
Yeah, LC, yeah I am. Especially understanding the players as they understood themselves. They operated without the benefit of hindsight. Communism had just taken Afghanistan, despite the inert protests of the Carter Administration. At that time, it was still ascendent, not the dim memory that it is to you now.
10,000 Soviet nuclear weapons were pointed at our children. Those weapons are mostly pointed elsewhere now.
Yeah, I'm saying it.
Dubya and the Islamist menace, too. Yeah, I am saying that with a straight face. Prophylaxis never reveals its alternatives.
(You can argue legal with somebody else but me, Dookie. I ain't about Law & Order, OK? If you think law is the zenith of morality or the human experience, I just can't hear you. Think of me as autistic.)
Tom, I seriously don't see any point about talking about this anymore. I don't think you're really serious. The comparisons in question are laughable.
But I WILL note that the Carter admin. engaged in more than "inert protests" re: Afghanistan. It was the Carter admin's plan to arm the saner elements of the mujahadin, and that's what defeated the Soviets, and that was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union. If the Reagan admin. had had two neurons to rub together,they would have stuck with the plan. Instead they began arming the most radical of the mujahadin...and then, true to Republican form...they abandoned them as soon as the fighting was over, ultimately putting tools in the hands of al Qaeda.
Also incidentally, if we'd have listened to the Carter admin. about Afghanistan, human rights, and energy independence, 9/11 would never have happened.
But, as I said, I just don't see any point in going back to the blow-jobs-vs.-Watergate discussion.
Life is short, and some conversations just ain't worth wastin' it on...
I hear you, but I try to avoid the Lewinsky thing myself, don't I? I do think there's something there with the Neutrality Acts, but let us indeed MoveOn.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home