10-30-2005
I'm glad that we're reading blogs of "political persuasion" this week because I've really been confused about Patric Fitzgerald's apparent hesitation in widening the indictments against Liddy and, worse, at least temporarily leaving Rove untouched. Peter Daou's report on "Salon" does a great job on this topic, on which I'd like to comment.
Although Salon presents points of view from both sides of the political chasm (it's developing into far more than an "aisle"), Daou reveals his own bias with a snide but apt query about Yale's inflated marking system's allowing Bush to achieve a C+ average and how 39% of Americans could be hoodwinked into thinking this poster child for deception and narrow thinking is doing a good presidential job. Nonetheless, I was routed to two opposing articles which clarified the Libby business for me.
Marty Aussenberg's article "Fitz's Knuckleball" was the most helpful. Aussenberg himself is a lawyer formerly employed by the SEC, which gives him insight into federal court procedures. He believes that these are merely preliminary indictments, a "shot across the bow" of the ship of state. He points out that Fitzgerald set up factual predicates for violations of the
Espionage Act, which was unnecessary for the filing of withholding infomation and obstruction charges. He further indicates that Libby's indictment can be expanded to more serious cahrges later, and that all that has been done in Rove is postpone, not bury. Aussenberg thinks that Fitgerald's real reason for the method of filing the indictments, to include the espionage predicates, is to warn the White House that he has the "real goods" and will be back for more. To use the baseball analogy forming the humorous undertone of some of the article (I always love that part), Fitzgerald didn't swing for a "home run" because he's "corking up his bat" for his next time up.
As seems to be the case in the blogs we've read, the opposing article from the right is much weaker. Surber's stance seems not to present information, but merely to take a position trivializing the charges. He treats the lack of immediate indictment as vindication of Rove and Libby's innocence, without any speculation on possible further developments. The writing has no depth, and provides no fair comparison to Aussenberg. Perhaps this evalution is my own bias surfacing.
Another reason I'm glad to reach this week is that I think we're going to get a fully involved McE. It's clear that he's really involved in the so-called "Public Debate" so maybe we get some blood-and guts, a little fire in this weeks class.. Later
I'm glad that we're reading blogs of "political persuasion" this week because I've really been confused about Patric Fitzgerald's apparent hesitation in widening the indictments against Liddy and, worse, at least temporarily leaving Rove untouched. Peter Daou's report on "Salon" does a great job on this topic, on which I'd like to comment.
Although Salon presents points of view from both sides of the political chasm (it's developing into far more than an "aisle"), Daou reveals his own bias with a snide but apt query about Yale's inflated marking system's allowing Bush to achieve a C+ average and how 39% of Americans could be hoodwinked into thinking this poster child for deception and narrow thinking is doing a good presidential job. Nonetheless, I was routed to two opposing articles which clarified the Libby business for me.
Marty Aussenberg's article "Fitz's Knuckleball" was the most helpful. Aussenberg himself is a lawyer formerly employed by the SEC, which gives him insight into federal court procedures. He believes that these are merely preliminary indictments, a "shot across the bow" of the ship of state. He points out that Fitzgerald set up factual predicates for violations of the
Espionage Act, which was unnecessary for the filing of withholding infomation and obstruction charges. He further indicates that Libby's indictment can be expanded to more serious cahrges later, and that all that has been done in Rove is postpone, not bury. Aussenberg thinks that Fitgerald's real reason for the method of filing the indictments, to include the espionage predicates, is to warn the White House that he has the "real goods" and will be back for more. To use the baseball analogy forming the humorous undertone of some of the article (I always love that part), Fitzgerald didn't swing for a "home run" because he's "corking up his bat" for his next time up.
As seems to be the case in the blogs we've read, the opposing article from the right is much weaker. Surber's stance seems not to present information, but merely to take a position trivializing the charges. He treats the lack of immediate indictment as vindication of Rove and Libby's innocence, without any speculation on possible further developments. The writing has no depth, and provides no fair comparison to Aussenberg. Perhaps this evalution is my own bias surfacing.
Another reason I'm glad to reach this week is that I think we're going to get a fully involved McE. It's clear that he's really involved in the so-called "Public Debate" so maybe we get some blood-and guts, a little fire in this weeks class.. Later
posted by Papa Bill | 7:52 AM
2 Comments:
Do you think the weakness of the "right" stance mirrors the rhetoric of the right "attack first, find evidence later" or do you think that websites are purposely putting up weak "right" opinions to make them seem foolish?
Hi there Blogger, a real useful blog.Keep with the good work.
If you have a moment, please visit my make mony site.
I send you warm regards and wishes of continued success.
Post a Comment
<< Home