What is David Brooks talking about?

July 3, 2007

I noticed this morning that Andrew Sullivan said, “David Brooks’ column today can only be described as an embarrassment.” How bad could it be, I thought.

Then I read it. Now I think Sullivan was understating the case.

It’s hard to tell exactly what Brooks’ point is, other than to express satisfaction at yesterday’s commutation of Scooter Libby, but he starts on a very wrong note: accusing Joe Wilson of dishonesty.

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. He claimed his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts, though his own report said nothing of the kind.

Brooks is parroting a canard frequently used by the uninformed: the scandal doesn’t matter because it originated with Wilson lying. The claim is demonstrably false, but it’s been at the top of the far-right talking points for several years. I expect a little more from someone in Brooks’ position, but he seems genuinely confused about the facts as they occurred.

Perhaps he should take a moment to read Josh Marshall’s take.

I have to say that the claim that Wilson’s charges have been discredited, disproved or even meaningfully challenged is simply false. What he said on day one is all true. It’s really as simple as that.

There’s a tendency, even among too many people of good faith and good politics, to shy away from asserting and admitting this simple fact because Wilson has either gone on too many TV shows or preened too much in some photo shoot. But that is disreputable and shameful. The entire record of this story has been under a systematic, unfettered and, sadly, largely unresisted attack from the right for four years. Key facts have been buried under an avalanche of misinformation. The then-chairman of the Senate intelligence committee made his committee an appendage of the White House and himself the president’s bawd and issued a report built on intentional falsehood and misdirection.

No one is perfect. The key dividing line is who’s telling the truth and who’s lying. Wilson is on the former side, his critics the latter. Everything else is triviality.

But wait, Brooks isn’t done.

After launching his column on an easily-debunked myth, Brooks adds this gem:

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.

Did Rove call reporters about Valerie Plame? Yes. Was she a covert operative at the CIA at the time? Yes. Was Rove supposed to keep that a secret? Yes. Did he leak it anyway to advance his political agenda and deceive the nation about a war? Yes. Did he then mislead federal investigators? Yes. Was he nearly brought up on criminal charges? Yes.

Does Brooks know what he’s talking about? No.

Brooks concluded:

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. President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense.

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.

This “makes sense”? A pardon might “make sense,” but commuting a sentence that hadn’t started yet, but continuing to accept the conviction is anything but sensible.

July 3, 2007 at 3:06 pm

My thoughts go out to those brain cells of yours that surely died while reading that column.

I know that this post will confirm everyone’s worst fears that I am some kind of right wing nut, but….

Doesn’t anyone see that Bill Clinton also lied under oath? If Democrats can’t say that it was WRONG for Clinton to lie under oath, even if he lied about oral sex, that Democrats lose a lot of credibility when they say that Libby was wrong and should be punished for what he did?

Why give amunition to the enemy?

What was Bill Clinton’s lie under oath? Specifically. Somebody remind me.

Clinton was acquitted, and thus was legally innocent. Libby was found guilty.

That makes a difference where the rule of law matters.

It’s odd, but I suspect that the unspoken Armitage link-up is that they don’t consider Armitage to be one of them because he wasn’t a team player. So that means that he’s on our team. And if he’s on our team, then we’ve just undermined our own case because we’re attacking a guy for doing what one of our team members did first. And the obviousness of this is just so obvious that they don’t even bother explaining it, and find that simply citing Armitage’s name is enough for people to connect the dots. And for them, it is. And they never explain it because it’s so entirely absurd that they could never do it.

The admin and its defenders are operating under the following rule:

Because Armitage leaked Palme’s identity FIRST, then anyone else who leaked Plame’s identity is not a leaker, because the information was already leaked.

This is a patently false argument and needs to be debunked.

Secondly…to Neil Wilson…a correction in your post:

If Republican’ts say it was WRONG for Clinton to lie under oath, even if he lied about oral sex, then Republican’ts lose a lot of credibility when they say that Libby was right and should be pardoned for what he did?

I think it was a deposition under oath and he was ask “Is Monica Lewinsky your girl friend?” answer “no”

then later under questioning from Star he came up with the memorable line

It depends on what the meaning of is is.

that’s my recollection.

Neil, lying under oath about a consensual sex act is bad. Lying under oath to impede the investigation into the exposure of classified information and a CIA nonproliferation asset, much, much worse. Got it?

Brooks has his infamous unreality generator cranked up to 11 today. His portrayal of Wilson is frankly insane, and even if it weren’t, he fails to explain just how Wilson’s ‘peacock’ behavior would justify the exposure of classified info, and the ruination of Plame’s career, much less Scooter’s lying about same, which is what he was sentenced for.

No, for Brooksie it’s all part of some “farce”, some pointless folderol, that has been a real nuisance by continually demanding we clutter up our pretty little minds with it. How unpleasant to have to constantly ignore the whining of those who are just out to get Bush, with their silly “facts” and “trial testimony” and “verdicts.”

Ripping apart Brooks’ columns is like shooting fish in a barrel, I admit, but this one really was asking to be shot. Multiple times.

I think it was a deposition under oath and he was ask “Is Monica Lewinsky your girl friend?” answer “no”

That’s it? “No, she’s not my girlfriend?!!!!” THAT”S REDICULOUS!!!

Anybody else got another answer to what Bill Clinton’s supposed “lie under oath” was?

I love the implicit argument of conservatives that because Libby wasn’t the first to leak and because no one’s been charged with the leak, then it’s perfectly OK for Libby to have obstructed justice, lied to the FBI, lied to the grand jury, and generally acted like a traitorous asshole.

The Republicans: Soft on the Right Kind of Criminals.

There were THREE leakers, Rove, Armitage, and Libby. This is in Fitzgerald’s trial memorandum which can be found in various linkages in the Volokh Conspiracy.

Armitage confessed that he leaked it and said that he didn’t know Plame was covert and didn’t intend to leak it, and this was right before Fitzgerald was special prosecutor. So, Fitzgerald know the identity of one leaker, and proceeded to investigate the source of all the multiple leaks which led to Rove and Libby. Armitage’s voluntary confession saved him from any liability — since under the Intelligence Act, you have to leak the covert information with intent. Contrast this with Libby’s brazen deception with Fitzgerald, FBI agents and other attorneys.

As a result, I think the district court and the appeals court found appropriately that Libby was subject to perjury and obstruction of justice. There is also the fact that Libby’s lies conveniently threw the sand in the wheels of justice as to whether Cheney intentionally leaked the information about Plame’s covert status which would theoretically bring the VP under the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Act (but then again, Cheney and Bush could always claim that Cheney retroactively declassified that information under presidential authority when he chose to leak that information so it wouldn’t be covered under the IIPA).

I think the real truth is that both Bush and Cheney chose to declassify information for political ends. That is what they’re trying to cover up and that is sufficient alone for impeachment purposes, but of course, does the national media or Congress have any brain cells to exercise on this? No.

I don’t know the story about Rove, but he managed to skate away, apparently, by telling the grand jury something. Again, contrast Rove’s “apparent” cooperation with Libby’s lies.

Just a friendly reminder that Bill Clinton was impeached by a Republican Congress, but was not convicted (a “failed” impeachment, if you will). But lo’ and behold, a Republican was “elected” President, the boy-chimp who would be King.

Riddle me this: if the ReThugs can get away with a capricious impeachment over the truthiness of oral sex and still “elect” a president, why cannot the Dems impeach with the mountain of evidence and capital crimes against “Dick” & Bush and the rest of the Bush Laden Crime Family?

Dems are spineless? Dems are dumb? 67-vote standby-excuse? Political calculation?

Pardon me, but that’s all horse-shit.

For all of those sophomoric apologists like syndicated Brooks or neil on this thread, stop the fucking nonargument “Clinton did it too!” What is done is done. The events manifested the way they did, and that’s it. Now let’s talk about the here and now – Mr. Bush and his WH crew have wrecked havoc upon our nation whether the mentioned above are savvy enough or not to notice. For Brooks, his foible is his vested interest in the Republican party. Anything coming from his mouth or pen has been filtered through such a partisan lens. As for Neil, I don’t know his story, but Neil, are you expecting such above the law treatment when or if you are involved in a judiciary process? Do you condone what President Bush did? If so what is your understanding of the rule of law as opposed to rule by the guy you like? Come on people, this administration has damaged our bodypolitik for generations to come. -Kevo

Is it so hard for people reading this post to say

“BILL CLINTON WAS WRONG TO LIE UNDER OATH, PERIOD.”

Re: Haik Bedrosian: I always thought that Clinton was under oath. He said he “didn’t have sexual relations with that woman” when the truth was he had.

Neil, first, what the hell does that have to do with this? You think we’re somehow being inconsistent here because we think Clinton was railroaded?

Secondly…to Neil Wilson…a correction in your post:

People who are defending Libby are crazy. He lied to a grand jury, was convicted, and should go to jail.

For all of those sophomoric apologists like syndicated Brooks or neil on this thread, stop the fucking nonargument “Clinton did it too!” What is done is done.
I don’t understand how you reach the conclusion that Brooks and I agree on anything concerning Libby.

OK, I lied. I do understand how you reached your conclusion that I am using the same argument that Brooks used. You have a preconcieved notion of what is right and you won’t bother to let facts get in the way.

Calm down a little and think about things before sticking your foot in your mouth. You will never be able to stick your foot in your mouth anywhere near as well as Tony Snow so why bother to try.

I second what kevo said. The whole Clinton did it too argument does nothing more than throw the whole argument off track.

Of course it was wrong for Clinton to lie. Of course it was wrong for Clinton to have extramarital sex. Most Democrats said that at the time. The issue was whether these were impeachable offenses … and whether the Whitewater investigation should extend to the private sex life of the President.

Clinton was unethical in his private behavior. Libby behaved illegally in matters related to national security — indeed about a key justification for war. Can an issue get any more significant? Could there be a greater disparity in import between the Clinton and Libby affairs?

Yet note this: Republicans cannot even bring themselves to admit that Rove/Libby/Armitage were wrong to reveal the identify of a covert agent.

I don’t carry any preconceived notions. I believe and carry water for the rule of law, and if my butt gets into the sling of wrong doing, I won’t be as meally-mouthed as the right is on this matter of Scooter Libby. I won’t expect privileged treatment, but then again, I’m just a common American who bothers to believe in equality before the law. Neil, I expect no favors, and when such a blantant abuse of power as the one expended by Mr. Bush occurs, I do feel the inherent notion of right versus wrong when our nation of laws is subverted to obstruct justice. Remember Neil, as per the judicial process, there is still a cloud hanging over the OVP. To commute Scooter’s sentence says to me that Scooter needed to be taken care of so he wouldn’t change his testimony (or all of a sudden begin remembering the holes in his memory) once he began to stare at the 8’x8′ cell he was about to occupy.

No Neil, my preconceived notion is to get to the facts and hold anyone accountable for the treasonous act of outing a CIA asset during the time of war, and then trying to get us to believe that Valerie Plame was “fair game.” Repulsive is the term that describes this WH chicanery. Let justice run its course and let the chips fall as they may is my only preconceived notion, and with the commutation of Libby’s sentence, this WH has just obstructed such a pursuit of justice. -Kevo

This horse may be dead and gone, but I have my $0.02 to add about the “Clinton Lied Too” argument.

Technically, Clinton was never convicted of lying. Acquittal in the impeachment process was not a verdict on whether he lied or not, the acquittal was for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Ken Starr probably would have prosecuted Clinton after he left office for perjury before a grand jury, and probably would have won. But Clinton came to an agreement before he left office which precluded any such trial.

But whether Clinton was “convicted” of lying misses the point. The point, I think, is this:

At the time of the impeachment, the Republicans were howling “Rule of Law! Perjury! Rule of Law! Perjury! Rule of Law” until they were blue in the face. The tactic of the Wingnuts and the Starr folks was to trap the president into a demonstrable lie, any lie, anything possible they could use to charge him with perjury and thereby run him out of office.

To succeed, they had to build up “perjury”, not matter about what, no matter the significance of the lie, into a capital offense. I remember the House Judiciary Committee devoted an entire hearing to the subject of the evil consequences of lying, even about sex. So it didn’t matter that the lie was about consensual sex between adults (no matter how reprehensible that may be from a personal standpoint), what matter was the lie itself.

Now, the wingtip is on the other foot. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying to Federal officials. If he were a democrat in 1998, special counsels would have been appointed, hearing called, an thunderous denunciation from the WSJ editorial pages would call for his scalp. Instead, the Republican apologists point to “No underlying crime here,” “he was railroaded by a vicious prosecutor,” “his lie was was just a technicality.”

If perjury was a crime in 1998, it’s a crime seven years later. Otherwise, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

I thought that it was clear in the 1990s that Clinton had perjured himself. I was fine with impeachment, and thought that he should have resigned.

Even without getting into the argument about whether there is a qualitative difference between lying about sex and lying about leaks concerning a CIA agent, I’m just plain tired of the Republicans justifying their conduct (from lying under oath to commuting sentences) by pointing out that “Clinton did it, too.” I think that’s setting the bar too low, and it’s why I’m a former Republican.

The past 15 years of Clinton and Bush presidencies have shown clearly that there is no real difference between the two main parties. I wish that there were some chance of the voters electing politicians who were honest and followed a coherent philosophy, but the widespread ignorance and apathy of the voting public makes that highly unlikely.

David Brooks: “…President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense…”

OK, that is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever read Brooksie write, and he has written some painfully stupid shit over the years.

The man who doesn’t read, who asks no questions at important meetings, who keeps himself cocooned in a bubble, the man who beats himself on the chest yelling “I am the president”, that’s the guy who’s from a planet where things make sense.

Unbelievable.

BTW, I wish Mark Shields could be replaced by Paul Krugman just once on the Friday News Hour. Brooks would be dead meat if he ever had to face a real progressive that wasn’t a professional punch puller.

Technically, Clinton was never convicted of lying. Acquittal in the impeachment process was not a verdict on whether he lied or not, the acquittal was for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Actually, it was not a technicality. The house passed two articles of impeachment. One for perjury (lying about sexual relations) and one for obstruction (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm). He was acquitted (or found not guilty) of both by the Senate.

So the difference is, regardless of whether one believes Clinton did or did not lie and whether Libby did or did not lie, Clinton was found not guilty and Libby was found guilty. There is no double standard for Clinton supporters, because Libby was found guilty and that is why he should be punished.

tillman fan,

The past 15 years of Clinton and Bush presidencies have shown clearly that there is no real difference between the two main parties.

try selling that to Pat Tillman’s family, and the families of all the other service men and women maimed and killed in the middle east. There’s a real difference in the parties.

neil wilson,

Clinton lied and that was wrong. Liddy lied, was convicted for lying and the hypocrites on the right feel that they are above the law. Get it?

More Mr Bobo, via Froomkin:

David Brooks starts off his New York Times opinion column (subscription required) by mocking Joe Wilson for having an unimaginative name then writes that Bush’s decision “was exactly right. . . .

“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.

“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.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/07/03/BL2007070301366_5.html

What a tool. Nobody but Libby’s family will remember it in a few weeks time?

You wish.

Brooks should be asked who’s the most absurd character in the entire drama.
Of course, modesty may prevent him from answering.

Edo — I hear what you’re saying, and I certainly agree that right now the position on the Iraq War seems to be the biggest substantive difference between the parties. In fact, it’s the whole “war on terror,” and specifically Iraq, that has most disgusted me with the way the Bush Administration has handled things.

Despite the current differences, however, I wonder if the parties truly have different interests, even on Iraq. In the 1990s Clinton got us involved in various escapades (Kosovo, for example) that I wasn’t sure we should be involved in (although they didn’t have the disastrous consequences that I fear in Iraq). Moreover, the Iraq War, as much as it was a Dick Cheney production, occurred with the backing of the Democrats in the Senate, and it was only when things started turning bad that most Democratic politicians changed their tune.

In any event, I’ll agree that it’s likely (based on his pre-invasion speeches) that Al Gore wouldn’t have invaded Iraq had he assumed the Presidency in 2001. That is a real difference that shouldn’t be forgotten, and your point therefore is well taken.

My point was less with respect to specific issues (on which there are real differences) and more concerning the observation that both parties’ members will say and do whatever is necessary to take and remain in power. In that sense they’re both the same — neither party is more principled than the other.

Kevo wrote

Now, maybe I don’t understand the Libby case. In my world, Libby was not the first person to out Plame. In my world, no one was even charged, let alone convicted our anything related to treason. In my world, Libby was convicted of perjury.

Now, of course, I believe but can not prove, that people like Libby, Rove and Cheney probably did commit treason in outing a CIA agent. However, those charges never were brought by the grand jury so no one was convicted of those crimes.

Kevo: I really don’t know what fantasy world you are living in but you aren’t living in the real world.

Re Tillman Fan @ #28

I can’t argue with you. Dems will not impeach, won’t get us out of Iraq and are getting ready to approve the Cheney Protectorate of Iran (looks like Kucinich & Paul are the last ones left standing in the way of the 800lb. gorilla).

It is the New World Order and our very own Big Corporate Government and Big Corporate Media have sold us down the river toward One World Government.

Introducing… your new World Governor & Plenipotentiary, Fred “DC Lobbyist” Thompson and VP Hillary Clinton.

This July 4th, exercise your freedom of speech. Practice Democracy. Preserve Democracy.

Although both Clinton and Libby obviously made false statements under oath, comparing their situations is extremely complicated, if not impossible.

Impeachment subjected Clinton to a political process, not a legal one. The threshold for conviction was a 2/3 majority of the Senate — a standard that was not even approached. The charge of perjury was defeated 45 for and 55 against; obstruction was defeated in a 50-50 split. Furthermore, while Clinton said he did not have sexual relations with Lewinsky in his January 1988 deposition, he admitted that he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky in a subsequent August appearance before a grand jury. Clinton maintained that statements made in the earlier deposition were “legally accurate.”

Libby, on the other hand, was subjected to a legal process and was found guilty by the much higher standard of the unanimous decision of a jury. To my knowledge, Libby never admitted to making false statements but instead claimed to have a bad memory.Libby was found guilty on 4 of 5 counts.

Despite claims of the right wing noise machine, legal charges of perjury or obstruction were never filed against Clinton. The only legal charge came after the impeachment process was over, when U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found Clinton in civil contempt for false statements in his January 1998 deposition. According to Wright, “the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false,” and referred the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Clinton’s false statements about not being alone with Lewinsky in his deposition aren’t in dispute. His false statements about having sexual relations came down to hair-splitting (pun intended) of the flawed definition of sexual relations submitted by Paula Jone’s attorneys. Reasonable persons would conclude, as the Judge did, that he intentionally meant to mislead.

The bottom line is that they both lied. Clinton was tried in a political forum and was not convicted, although his license to practice law was suspended for a period of 5 years based violation of professional standards. Libby was tried in a legal forum and was convicted, clear and simple. Legally, I think that’s the long and short of it.

Where things get messy are in the non-legal, fairness issues surrounding the lies each told. Ken Starr had been after Clinton for years in an ever-expanding attempt to get him on something — anything — and the public knew it. To many, the fact that questions concerning Lewinsky came up out of the blue while Clinton was making a deposition in another case entirely (the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit) smacked of entrapment. Moreover, lying about a sexual affair between consenting adults — however despicable and utterly stupid — was seen by many as a less than impeachable, non-criminal offense. The fact that it was lied about under oath was mitigated by this and the sense that Starr entrapped Clinton. During the impeachment hearings, revelations of infidelity by Speaker Gingrich, his designated replacement, Bob Livingston, and House Manager Henry Hyde — all vocal and prominent critics of Clinton’s behavior, further diminished the seriousness of the charges against him in the public’s perception.

The potential victim of Clinton’s lie (other than the rule of law that says you’re supposed to tell the truth under oath) could only have been Paula Jones, and it remains unclear whether her suit was actually impeded. Jones’ suit had been dismissed in 1994 but was back on appeal when Clinton testified. Clinton eventually paid Jones (or more accurately, her lawyers) 850,000 to settle the case and was ordered by the judge to pick up an additional 125,000 or so in fees stemming from the charge of contempt. Through the impeachment and civil processes, the details of Clinton/Lewinsky eventually came to be known in excrutiating detail.

Libby’s lies, in Fitzgerald’s assessment, substantially impeded his investigation of the roles Cheney, Rove and others actually played in the outing of a covert CIA agent as political retribution and perhaps an attempt to stifle free speech through intimidation. Although Armitage appears to have been the first to tell a reporter about Plame, we still do not know what else occurred in the WH, thanks in part to Libby’s obstruction. Thanks to the commuted sentence by Bush, we may never know.

Whew, I thought it was just me having a bad day. Reading that piece of utter nonsense was enough to make my head explode. I had to stop about half way before I completely lost it.

Neil,

for the love of god, I hope this finds it’s way through your thick skull down to your underused gray matter.

The reason Fitzgerald could not proceed with his prosecution of this crime against national security is because the key player, Libby, with the blessing of the President and the Vice-president, lied about his involvement and stonewalled the Grand Jury about what he knew. He obstructed justice.

You understand that? Good.

So that is why no charges were ever brought. Not because no crime was committed but because Scooter Libby’s silence and misdirection kept the prosecution from moving forward. OK?

This is what mobsters do, Neil. They obstruct justice to protect their cronies. George Bush has now furthered the obstruction by arranging matters so that Libby won’t be compelled to give testimony to reduce his sentence. He will also be allowed to plead the fifth in any civil proceedings.

As a citizen, you should be outraged. Instead you equivocate:

“but Clinton mew mew mew mew blow job mew mew mew”

Shame on you.

the second frikking post and we hear the old “clinton did it” line once again. just stop it. it doesn’t work. it is irrelevant to the discussion. any discussion.

How can David Brooks get away with inhabiting a parallel universe? Does he really not know that that’s where he lives?

Scooter Libby = Paris Hilton. Only he’s a convicted felon, and she’s actually gone to jail.

Lying under oath is wrong. It was wrong when Clinton did it, but the subject of Libby’s lie makes it far worse, obviously. It doesn’t work to say Clinton didn’t do anything wrong, but I can’t see how a rational person finds his lies equivalent to Libby’s.

One thing that has bothered me among the idiotic claims of the Washington media elite has been David Broder’s repeated insistence that Libby was forced to lie. How the hell does that work? When you’re in front of the grand jury, you tell the truth. If you lie to the FBI and the grand jury in order to save your bosses significant political embarrassment before an election, well, I guess you have to live with the results.

For the record, the last independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation, Robert Ray, wrote that he believed Clinton could be convicted of perjury, but he elected not to prosecute him on that charge. IIRC, Ray reasoned that Clinton had already faced impeachment, lost his license and racked up millions in legal bills, which was punishment enough, considering the crime.

Comments are closed.