Friday :: Oct 28, 2005

A Note for Steve Soto


by larre

Steve,

I understand why you say what you do, but like many other readers here, I'm not certain you're right that there won't be more indictments. On the other hand, I agree with your larger point - it is futile to expect Patrick Fitzgerald to delve into the Bush administration's prevarications and machinations leading to war. Indeed, the prosecutor said as much today in his press conference.

Fitzgerald is exactly what he appears: a hard-charging prosecutor who's a bit of a boy scout. He isn't going to go looking for larger cases to develop, Italian forgeries to expose, or political cabals to imprison. I think he sees his brief as simply this: to investigate whether any crimes were committed that led to the outing of Valerie Plame, prosecute the offender(s), and charge any perjuries or other obstructions that make that investigation tougher. Period.

This is not necessarily reason for gloom, however. Think about the Chicago Seven (nee: Chicago Eight) trial. Think about the Benjamin Spock trial. Consider the Cantonsville Nine. None of these court cases helped to expose the war crimes of the Nixon administration. Perversely, what these trials did, instead, is suck the political energy out of the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement felt encouraged, falsely, to sit around debating rules of evidence and court procedures rather than what it should have been doing: getting off its collective ass and working twice as hard to resist the war and defeat Nixon in 1972.

The big difference today, of course, is that there is not much of a visible anti-war movement. We have to find a way to change that. We can't -- and we shouldn't -- leave it up to a trial court prosecutor. Exposing and discrediting a really terrible president is not his job. It's ours.

larre :: 4:21 PM :: Comments (34) :: TrackBack (0) :: Digg It!