Response to Brandon Casey's Tribune Viewpoint

I was reading Joseph Kastner's Nov. 10 Viewpoint "Democrats' witch hunt comes up short" and something struck me: The facts that I was reading were completely false and unsubstantiated.

And what ‘facts’ prey tell are ‘false’ or ‘unsubstantiated’ as you so claim? This is never answered. In fact he makes no reference whatsoever to any statement I made in my Viewpoint article last week other then a half-sentence blurb I made concerning how expensive the ‘Scooter’ Libby indictment was, which he then proceeds to spend half his article discussing. Don’t you just love it when the Democrats change the subject of a discussion when they know they can’t win by delivering the facts? I know I do. Also, here’s a bit of advice, Brandon: if you are attempting to disprove a person’s statements then do not refer to them as ‘facts’ but rather statements or accusations.

The honorable Kenneth Starr in his investigation of Whitewater, handed the government a bill for $73.5 million dollars after working 49 months, and I ask Kastner, what did that investigation turn up?

There was actually quite a bit he turned up. I won’t go into discussion about this (I have much to do this evening and I don’t feel like getting off topic here) but rest assured that money laundering was the least of Clinton’s problems. This was the case that led to the revelation of far sinister Clinton scandals, specifically accusations of rape, murder, adultery, drug running, contempt of Congress, and so much more.

Did Starr find Clinton guilty on the charges that he initially started the investigation for...no. Starr handed Congress a report on the Lewinsky affair and the rest is history.

Again, this led to even worse revelations of the skeletons Clinton had locked away in his closet. See the link above.

And, yes, there was no evidence of guilt on Clinton’s part in the Whitewater scandal – other then the fact that his close friends and campaign contributors, James and Susan McDougal, his White House counsel, Webster Hubbel, and Arkansas Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, were convicted of federal charges and then pardoned by Clinton himself in the waning days of his presidency. But other then that, you’re right.

Did the Whitewater case deal with matters of national security? The short answer is no. Turning to Patty Fitzgerald's investigation, this case clearly deals with matters of national security, and I thought that you can't put a price tag on securing the nation, as evidenced by defense spending and the Iraq war.

I suppose breaking federal laws means nothing to the liberals these days, if it ever did. From what I gathered, you are saying that we should simply bypass investigating the President of the United States and officials connected with him on suspected charges of breaking federal laws unless they are matters of national security? Wow, talk about thin morals. Furthermore, I hardly believe Valerie Plame’s identity counts as ‘securing’ the nation, particularly when she was never an undercover agent.

Whether on or off duty, favorable or unfavorable, you cannot leak the name of an undercover CIA agent, which is classified information, to the press. If this was not an important issue it would not be federal law.

This is true, if she were indeed an undercover agent as you and the liberal media care to believe. However, this is not the case. Valerie Plame was not an ‘undercover’ agent. In fact she was never an agent of the CIA.

Here is a bit of information published on Robert Novak’s site which was linked by the Drudge Report in July 2005:

“According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'...”

But what's in a name, right?

I think the author of that Viewpoint is clearly mad that this investigation is picking up steam and may tar this administration far worse than infidelity hurt the previous one.

Hardly Brandon but nice try. True, the case is picking up steam but in quite the opposite direction then the Democrats want it to be going in. The entire basis of Fitzgerald’s case against ‘Scooter’ Libby is that he was the first person to leak the ‘identity’ of Valerie Plame. It turns out he wasn’t. He recalled that his source may have been Tim Russert but he wasn’t sure. It turns out that Bob Woodward was in fact the first person to leak Valerie Plame’s ‘identity’, a full three months BEFORE Robert Novak published her name in his article. This in essence means that charges against 'Scooter' Libby are likely to be dropped and a new investigation will begin on who Bob Woodward's source was. Do you think he'll end up in jail? Some how I doubt it.

The time for partisan politics needs to be over; we are college students, and as such, name calling should be beneath us. Alas, such activities from the Beltway to Milwaukee are the standard and not the exception. Don't you see that the more you sling mud, the more ridiculous you seem, because you are not talking about real issues.

And a typical lefty move. When in doubt claim the role of the mediator, not the accuser. And did anyone else notice a clear contradiction in what he just advised. If I am not discussing ‘real issues’ then why did you earlier claim that Plamegate was important because it dealt with matter of national security and deserved proper attention? Furthermore, who are you to say what can and can not be discussed in the name of politics? Oops, I forgot … I am dealing with a liberal after all. The liberals care to believe they know better then you do what is best for you so they limit what you can and can not read for your better benefit. Take for instance their opposition to The Warrior, Marquette University's first-and-only independent student newspaper. I don't think I have to remind how catastrophic Ryan Alexander thought this was to the liberal agenda on campus. Even the Tribune welcomed the Warrior with open arms, although I care to believe it was done to find a perfect spot in which to stab us in the back with.