Just wondering.

OK–my guess is that Libby is going to spend his jail time writing a book, which will not “explain” anything about anything other than the fact that his friends Dick and the Chimp abandoned him in his time of need.

Or maybe another lurid novel about bears in cages.

He will get a multi-million dollar advance for it, and it will wind up on the remainder tables within 8 months.

You can bet the Republicans choreographed the HJC hearings along with Goodling the Quisling’s attorney’s. Republicans leave nothing to chance despite the meme the pundits like to push that they are merely incompetent. They know exactly what they are doing and why.

Coordinated and choreographed. They all lie and destroy the evidence and leave a path of confusion. That has been the method of their maddness from day 1.

JGabriel @ 87

What, nobody likes ‘patronage machine’?

I though it was good point, and an accurate characterization of Bush administration corruption.

TiredFed @ 114

just not evil enough sounding to me. sorry. patronage is a way of life in the government. Schedule C appointments are pure patronage jobs. in some administrations, there is some thought put to competence, in others, not so much.

Jean2k @ 121

Just one person’s take…

Your points about the weak connotation associated with the term “politicization” are good ones. The word just does not adequately describe the level of wrong involved.

However, “patronage” and “patronage machine” don’t convey appropriate sinisterness, either. “Don’t patronize me” is used in movies and in real life to register offense at condescension and such. It sounds rather ordinary.

Again, just my take. I don’t have a better substitute for “politicization,” though I agree with your dissatisfaction for it.

Hmm. If people agree that ‘patronage machine’ no longer connotes corruption, or that it isn’t sinister enough, I don’t suppose I can argue with that. Of course — I will anyway. Patronage is typically used to describe the awarding of non-political jobs and contracts to political supporters. Patronage is corruption, by definition. Also, it assigns a definite course of actions to define what we mean by ‘politicization’ and ‘corruption’ in the Bush administration. It’s a more concrete description, less abstract; it’s a good example of using language politically, as opposed to the bland bullshit Orwell corruscated in ‘Politics and the English Language’.

That said, if patronage is now regarded by most people as an inevitable and proper consequence of rewarding a political party with power, then you’re right — characterizing Bush departmental politicization as a patronage machine won’t have the compelling narrative power to focus the meaning of corruption in the Bush administration.

But it’s still an accurate description and provides a *specific* alternative to overuse of the abstract ‘politicization’. At least we can get more variety in our rhetoric.

It seems that you just want to fight. Lighten up. Learn to say “Thank you.”

You throw out a topic, and invite people to respond. OK, fine. Then, when nobody responds quick enough for you, you throw a little fit, essentially telling us that this is the right info that we should be applauding.

Then, when a couple of people overlook your impatience, take the time to think about your topic, and compose a thoughtful reply, both of which largely AGREED with you, you STILL want to argue. You mischaracterize what both of us say, remake your argument in a wholely different way, and restate your conviction for the best choice of terms.

If you don’t want your ideas discussed, and you can’t handle others’ rejections of parts (small parts, at that) of your whole argument, then you shouldn’t ask.

I’m sure the guys in prison will love the nickname Scooter…

It won’t matter at Club Fed.

Unless Libby has flipped and provided substantial assistance, which I seriously doubt, I think Jeralyn’s calculations are correct. If he did, the government’s motion for a downward departure will have been filed under seal.

I doubt that Judge Walton will permit him to remain on bond while his appeal is pending, but he probably will permit him to self-surrender after the Bureau of Prisons decides which camp fed to send him to.

“…No one was charged with the leak itself, including the initial source of the disclosure, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Fitzgerald was aware early on that Armitage was the original source of the leak….”

“Original source” makes it sound like Armitage was the sole instigator or initiator of the leak, and of course totally sidesteps the chain of command of the entire anti-Wilson smear campaign. Nice going, AP. You’re still welcome on the plane.

. . .It is against this background that Mr. Libby’s conduct must be judged. As an experienced attorney, Mr. Libby knew well both the seriousness of this investigation and the range of options available to him as the investigation progressed. He, of course, could have told the truth, even if, as was the case for many other witnesses, doing so risked the possibility of criminal prosecution, or personal or political embarrassment. He also could have declined to speak to the FBI agents, invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before the grand jury, or challenged any lines of inquiry he believed improper. . .

but he chose to lie, and obstruct, instead.

one juicy bit:

“. . .the law is entitled to every man’s
evidence. Inherent in this principle is the
obligation of a witness to tell the truth,
particularly under oath. . .“

i’ll be adding more of the 21 pages,
some partially redacted, as the afternoon
wears on. . .

keep it spinnin’ in good karma!