Doonesbury strikes again.
"On MSNBC they're covering the [Libby] trial like it's the Normandy Invasion, starring Elvis Presley, as told by Joseph Goebbels."
While I may listen to npr for my news, I depend on Garry Trudeau to keep me up to date on what is really going on in the world.
The above quote was featured in the "Say What?" section of the Daily Dose page on the Doonesbury web site a day or so ago. I believe that it was attributed to Ann Coulter.
Quotations from Ms. Coulter appear in the Mudline under the Doonesbury strip on a fairly regular basis, and I haven't figured out yet if those appearances are exactly complimentary. For the most part, it leads me to think that she is a loud woman who insists on being heard (rather than listened to). I'm not sure who her audience is supposed to be, but she certainly talks quite a bit.
In this particular case (oh goody! a pun!), however, she has hit the nail right on the head, although I'm not sure who Jeff Goebbels is. Every day there are extensive reports on the Libby trial, and every day there is very little new information. I get the feeling that it would be much like a daytime soap opera in that I could tune out for a week or two only to discover when I tuned back in that I hadn't really missed much.
Before I came across Ms. Coulter's assessment, I had been thinking that it seemed that the press wants to elevate this trial to the level of the Iran-Contra hearings. Since I was fairly young during the Reagan years, all I really remember about the Iran-Contra hearings is that they were boring and that they bumped my afternoon cartoons off the air.
At least the Lewinsky scandal had subplots of intrigue and betrayal to it.
In Libby trial is all about whether or not one guy lied about one piece of information. A piece of information which has been slathered across all sorts of newspapers, magazines and news programs. The bigger issue of *why* the CIA operative was outed in the first place--thus jeopardising her career and possibly her life--isn't even up for discussion, and that strikes me as a far more serious issue than whether or not one of the people supposedly involved in leaking the information is lying about doing it. The issue of the White House contradicting evidence--which an ambassador was specifically sent to collect--that did not support its agenda is also not up for discussion. Again, a more serious issue.
What kind of justice will really be served by this relentless public humiliation of Mr. Libby?
While I may listen to npr for my news, I depend on Garry Trudeau to keep me up to date on what is really going on in the world.
The above quote was featured in the "Say What?" section of the Daily Dose page on the Doonesbury web site a day or so ago. I believe that it was attributed to Ann Coulter.
Quotations from Ms. Coulter appear in the Mudline under the Doonesbury strip on a fairly regular basis, and I haven't figured out yet if those appearances are exactly complimentary. For the most part, it leads me to think that she is a loud woman who insists on being heard (rather than listened to). I'm not sure who her audience is supposed to be, but she certainly talks quite a bit.
In this particular case (oh goody! a pun!), however, she has hit the nail right on the head, although I'm not sure who Jeff Goebbels is. Every day there are extensive reports on the Libby trial, and every day there is very little new information. I get the feeling that it would be much like a daytime soap opera in that I could tune out for a week or two only to discover when I tuned back in that I hadn't really missed much.
Before I came across Ms. Coulter's assessment, I had been thinking that it seemed that the press wants to elevate this trial to the level of the Iran-Contra hearings. Since I was fairly young during the Reagan years, all I really remember about the Iran-Contra hearings is that they were boring and that they bumped my afternoon cartoons off the air.
At least the Lewinsky scandal had subplots of intrigue and betrayal to it.
In Libby trial is all about whether or not one guy lied about one piece of information. A piece of information which has been slathered across all sorts of newspapers, magazines and news programs. The bigger issue of *why* the CIA operative was outed in the first place--thus jeopardising her career and possibly her life--isn't even up for discussion, and that strikes me as a far more serious issue than whether or not one of the people supposedly involved in leaking the information is lying about doing it. The issue of the White House contradicting evidence--which an ambassador was specifically sent to collect--that did not support its agenda is also not up for discussion. Again, a more serious issue.
What kind of justice will really be served by this relentless public humiliation of Mr. Libby?
posted by minervasowl | 10:06 PM
1 Comments:
While the talk seems to be mostly about Libby, for me the trial (despite evidence NOT presented) tends to confirm my belief that the highest levels of the White House gave daily, focused attention to Wilson's article. After all, Wilson presented credible evidence that the White House was inventing the reasons for invading Iraq. I infer from the defense resting without calling Chaney or Libby that the prosecutor has lots of ammunition to cross-examine or rebut their testimony should they be called. Apparently I am not entirely alone. See the January 17, 2007, segment of Democracy Now, As CIA Leak Trial Begins, Inside the Case Against Ex-Cheney Chief of Staff Lewis “Scooter” Libby
.
I do not remeber if Trudeau covered the matter around the time that the story broke. But, in my "favorites," the link to
Daily Dose of Doonesbury is labeled as "news."
Post a Comment
<< Home