I am currently reading a book discussing the thriving nature of the evangelical community even though they largely exist in a separate sphere non-adherents know little about. One might say the same thing about the blogosphere, both right and left. And, politics generally. Many have no idea what is going on with the firing of around ten (the exact number somewhat unclear) federal attorneys for ideological reasons that the Bush Administration (per usual) tried to hide with misleading comments, unusual (and dubious) use of executive discretion, and a mixture of ineptitude. Others have an inkling, seeing something in the news, some are taken by the other side's talking points.*
The same mixture pops up when the subject of the Libby trial arises. It is useful to obtain some background, since again, the "what's the big deal" talking point b.s. arises. Simply put: Bush tossed in a dubious reason for war with Iraq in his 2003 State of the Union Address, requiring circular language about what the Brits had "learnt" because his own intel experts suggested him not use the factoid. This is the whole deal about yellowcake from Niger. Joe Wilson, an experienced foreign service hand (including in Africa) in administrations of both parties, goes over there to check things out in an sort of unofficial official capacity. He lets the people know the rumor is dubious.
No one wants to take him seriously ... especially since it would sort of poison the war that had already began ... so he finally wrote a NYT editorial. This pisses people off, especially in the Cheney camp. They start bad mouthing him. And, they let it be known that his wife is a CIA agent, including leaking her cover company. (This latter fact is rarely emphasized, but underlines why the CIA made an official complaint about the whole thing.) Or, his wife -- in a bit of irony -- had the WMD beat. Not only could the administration not find what was the major "impetus" for the war, they actually abused someone actually in the business of seriously attacking the problem. Lovely.
At some point, this started to stink. So, pressure was put to investigate, but darn if Ashcroft was to buddy buddy with certain principles. So, a special prosecutor (a career Republican sort) was selected. The investigation was delayed past the '04 elections because of a sideshow in which a Bush enabler -- Judith Miller -- and Matt Cooper made a big deal about protecting sources, in the process not informing the public of a major part of the story (the involvement of key players, including Karl Rove).** Anyway, Libby -- the V.P.'s main man -- was part of the investigation. The prosecutor, who went out of his way to be fair, unlike those sorts that investigated Clinton, found that he interfered -- lying to investigators and obstructing the investigation.
Such tactics has been deemed normal business in various respects by these people, but Patrick Fitzgerald sort of found it problematic. He didn't prosecute for leaking a CIA agent's name, though it is a crime, probably finding it a tricky business to prove. But, interfering with the very investigation, one the indictment underlined was quite important (as did the courts that rejected Miller/Cooper's hope for source privilege ... or rather, the judge involved who accepted some immunity, but not in a case such as this one), just crossed the line. Such is what he was convicted of. Not very trivial. In fact, it hits close to the heart of the administration and it's policies.
Rotten ones. The desire of some sorts to defend this sort of thing is pretty rotten too. Helps to ignore half or more of the story (e.g., feigning ignorance, thinking it's all about Joe being dissed for not being manly enough, etc.). Lovey business that. As Firedoglake, the place to go for full coverage, noted:
Well, the last few years have taught us that a NeoConservative is a man standing athwart the flow of history, saying, "Huh?"
Others have a different reason, but yes, too often I read true believers and they have this clueless feel as if they have no idea why the other side thinks the way they do. (Such is the case when privacy rights, etc., arise. It's not just that they disagree, they simply think the other side are misguided fools. This mental laziness annoys me.) Whatever the reason, the ability to explain away the problems of Bushies is getting harder and harder, isn't it? Just too many glaring reasons not to drink the kool aid.
Back to that book ... there's always faith. Faith can be tinged with reason. Not always though.
---
* Clinton, you see, fired all Bush41 attorneys upon coming into office, so what's the problem here? Bunch of liberal hypocrites. This is also said in reply to articles that underline that the nature of the firings is the issue. In fact, even Sam Seder of Air America did not have a full answer to this meme. Turns out that it is normal for such administrative positions to resign upon the end of presidential administrations. It is not somehow a "Clinton" thing. This isn't the end of the administration. Just the beginning of the differences.
** This whole thing taught us a thing or two about the media as well, including their incestuous relationship with the PTB. Not pretty things either.