Magazine article Editor & Publisher

WEDNESDAY'S LETTERS: Press and Iran, Reactions to Libby's Conviction

Magazine article Editor & Publisher

WEDNESDAY'S LETTERS: Press and Iran, Reactions to Libby's Conviction

Article excerpt

In today's letters, readers react to the Lewis Libby conviction, and a reader applauds Greg Mitchell's column on whow the press is hyping the threat of Iran.

***

Reaction to the Libby Conviction

Indeed [Tim Russert] may take no joy. Either from poor memory or in self interest, he may well believe that his testimony may not have been accurate. Joe GraetchSanta Barbara, Calif.

So, juror Denis Collins told reporters that the jury felt Libby was only a "fall guy" and asked themselves, "where is Rove and the other guys?" Well, they didn't lie to a grand jury or an investigator, that's why they weren't on trial. As far as being a "fall guy," that was strickly U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's call as to who went to trial. You can bet that if Fitzgerald thought he had a case against anyone else he would have taken it to court. No one in President Bush's administration asked Libby to lie for them or else there would have been grounds for a conspiracy charge. There was no reason to lie and no crime for which to take the "fall". Yet, that's all a part of the confusion compounded by the prosecution and vast majority of the press calling this the Plame "leak" case throughout the trial. In fact, it was the Libby perjury and obstruction of justice case.

Michael BirminghamManassas, Va.

***

The Press and Iran

Keep harping. Little of what I read suggests that the mainstream media has "learned" anything. For that matter, I see little evidence that those who were ostensibly elected because of their stand regarding the illegal invasion and occuption of Iraq and going to do anything constructive to get us out of Iraq. Today I read an article that mentioned a "permanent presence" of the US in Iraq. Has the mainstream press discussed this? NO. Have there been a number of indications, such as mention of permanent bases, etc., that the Bush Administration definitely desires a permanent US presence in Iraq? YES. How else will the private oil companies be suffciently well protected so they can extract oil, make their huge profits, etc.? Isn't that what the US military is for? If it's not, then perhaps there should be some discussion. Right now, as again, the MSM has not discussed in any significant way, we have a Congress that can't even be bothered to read bills that deprive Congress of power/make Bush more of a dictator then he already is, deprives US citizens and legal residents of what few rights we have. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.