Comments on: The Plame Game Has Run Its Course

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:57:54 +0000

Perhaps they ought to change the name to Nothing ‘Bout the Truth.

By: Chris J. Breisch

Chris J. Breisch — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:00:23 +0000

peter,
The former. And the latter, frankly.

I agree with you that we need to stop creating reasons for good (I think you said ‘sane’, either word works for me) people to avoid government service.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:51:04 +0000

Chris: I’m not sure if your agreement is with the suggestion that government officials should be indemnified from civil suits — or if you also think that Richard Armitage sort of looks like Drew Carey — or both — but I’m glad that we are in agreement on whatever it is we agree to.

By: Strick

Strick — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:54:18 +0000

I’m confused. With the way things have evolved on this, wouldn’t the Judy Miller character be the villain of the piece? Didn’t she become the “Dark Princess” to Novak’s Dark “Prince”?

By: Chris J. Breisch

Chris J. Breisch — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:59:58 +0000

For once I agree with peter.

Whoah…did you feel that? The world stopped spinning for a moment. It’s better now.

By: peter

peter — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:16:29 +0000

I think Drew Carey plays Armitage.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:12:49 +0000

Ryan, I’m just joking…yes, she’s Judy Miller – but it’s funnier to pretend she’s Richard Armitage…because, you see, I’m easily amused…

By: peter

peter — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 00:05:20 +0000

I think the dismissal of the case is correct, but I don’t understand the judge’s reasoning. The issue at question is not “rebutting public criticism … by speaking with members of the press.” It is rebutting public criticism by exposing a covert agent and ending her career in her chosen profession. If refuting Wilson’s article (by claiming it was incorrect) was all that the administration did, there would never have been a Libby conviction or a Plame civil suit. By exposing Plame, the administration caused her tangible damage which is the basis of a civil action.

I think the decision is correct because even as “unsavory” as their actions were, I believe that government officials ought to be indemnified for an extremely wide latitude of actions. As egregious as these acts were, I don’t believe that they should be subject to civil suits. (If there is criminality: Katie bar the door. But not civil suits.) There are enough reasons why sane people avoid government service, and the fear of litigation (justified or not) shouldn’t be added to the list. Holding high public office is a magnet for political enemies to file spurious civil litigation (see: Jones, Paula). It’s time for Joe and Valerie to move on.

By: Ryan Bonneville

Ryan Bonneville — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:48:13 +0000

Uh, correction: isn’t Beckinsale a proxy for Judith Miller here?

By: too many steves

too many steves — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:05:05 +0000

Well, Ms. Beckinsale is pretty hot – should attract a decent audience.

You know, I still can’t reconcile why Libby lied. Armitage was known to be the leaker, Rove was known to have given up her name, I’m not clear on whether Libby knew those things in advance of his perjurious testimony or not – can someone enlighten? If Libby knew, then one plausible reason for his lying was to protect Cheney or Bush or the unnamed leaker Bush referred to last Thursday. If that is so, there is a reasonable, although admittedly speculative, case to be made that either the President or Vice President offered Libby a “good soldier” deal, otherwise known as suborning perjury.

Unproved, certainly, but worthy of investigation.