The issue is whether or not Fitzgerald was entitled by his position to view classified documents that Scooter Libby wished to use to prove that he was too busy to remember who said what, and when. The Libby defense team contends that he was not, as a US attorney, entitled to do so, by law. They then use the fact that he did view these documents, anyway, as an argument that Fitzgerald was acting unconstitutionally, as a superior officer of the executive branch, but without Senate confirmation.
The appeals panel of three judges who are hearing the emergency appeal on Libby’s immediate incarceration have reportedly rejected an amicus brief written by several law professors. Meanwhile, trial judge Reggie Walton has filed a 30 page brief detailing his reasoning on the major appeals issues.
A reader at TPM noticed that all reports of fighting in Iraq now refer to those we are fighting as “al Qaeda,” regardless of what affiliation they might have. Glenn Greenwald expands on this dishonest ploy:
But what is even more notable is that the establishment press has followed right along, just as enthusiastically. I don’t think the New York Times has published a story about Iraq in the last two weeks without stating that we are killing “Al Qaeda fighters,” capturing “Al Qaeda leaders,” and every new operation is against “Al Qaeda.”
The Times — typically in the form of the gullible and always-government-trusting “reporting” of Michael Gordon, though not only — makes this claim over and over, as prominently as possible, often without the slightest questioning, qualification, or doubt. If your only news about Iraq came from The New York Times, you would think that the war in Iraq is now indistinguishable from the initial stage of the war in Afghanistan — that we are there fighting against the people who hijacked those planes and flew them into our buildings: “Al Qaeda.”
What is so amazing about this new rhetorical development — not only from our military, but also from our “journalists” — is that, for years, it was too shameless and false even for the Bush administration to use. Even at the height of their propaganda offensives about the war, the furthest Bush officials were willing to go was to use the generic term “terrorists” for everyone we are fighting in Iraq, as in: “we cannot surrender to the terrorists by withdrawing” and “we must stay on the offensive against terrorists.”
But after his 2004 re-election was secure, even the President acknowledged that “Al Qaeda” was the smallest component of the “enemies” we are fighting in Iraq…
Petraeus is not by any means a straight shooter. He’s just part of the gang of crooks who think they own this country, and who see facts as inconvenient.