Libby and the Libs

I would never condone lying to investigators nor lying under oath. But I also don't think Libby's indictment is a black and white issue. There are many questions I would like answered. Why did Valerie advocate for her husband to go to Niger? What were his qualifications? Was he the most qualified person to examine the yellow cake claims? Is this a typical assignment for Joe Wilson? Why did he go alone? Why wasn't there a written report when he returned? Why did he write an op-ed in the New York Times? Speaking for myself, I'm not sure I'd write an opinion piece in a major paper if I were trying to keep my wife's identity a secret. I think the last thing I would do is make myself a household name. But Joe made himself a household name. People often want to know more about the author in these cases.

Part of the problem as I see it is that conservatives have a media blackout. The "mainstream" liberal media has lost all objectivity, and has also lost any desire to present all of the facts in a story. It is increasingly impossible for Bush to have his voice heard, and when he does try to make his voice heard, the liberal media is quick to parade a bunch of liberal senators and pundits that refute what the president had to say. The liberal media believe GW is a liar, and they can only report from that angle. They are a part of the problem, and they really need to take a look at their contribution to the hysterical state of politics. If the Bush administration strongly felt that Joe Wilson's claims in the op-ed piece were not accurate, and if they truly felt that it was essentially a boondoggle arranged by his wife at best and at worst an attempt to actively undermine the president, what is their defense? "Trust us"? "There's a lot we can't tell you and we can't tell you why we can't tell you, but trust us that the op-ed piece is inaccurate." Yeah, that would be effective. Their defense is that it was a boondoggle arranged by Wilson's wife. Nepitism. But unfortunately their defense fringes on illegal, and citing her by name did cross the line. The Wilsons with the help of the CIA did a beautiful job of putting the Bush administration in a corner, a corner that was impossible to get out of.

Why aren't we asking more questions about this trip? Is it proper for a CIA operative to advocate for her husband to do a job? Shouldn't someone else in the CIA decide who is the most qualified to go and gather the information, and leave Valerie out of it? Wouldn't that have been the most ethical? Most of the time the media jumps all over "cronyism", but on this issue of "cronyism", they are noticably quiet.