Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Scooter Libby and Me

By Nick Bromell, The American Scholar. Posted January 16, 2007.


A longtime friend of Scooter Libby's shares the questions he wants to ask of his old touch football buddy, and as the trial begins, wonders whether to hope for Scooter's acquittal or conviction.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Nick Bromell

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. -- F. A. Hayek, Why I Am Not a Conservative

Ralph Waldo Emerson tells us that the history we're moving through finds its ultimate significance within us: "We are always coming up with the emphatic facts of history in our private experience, and verifying them here."

Certainly this has been true for me. As I've looked out upon the public history of the past six years, my eyes have beheld the same ribbon of events everyone else has seen.

But the meaning of this history has been strongly shaped and intensified by a purely accidental twist in my own private experience. I went away to boarding schools in the early 1960s, and at one of these my best friend was a boy named Scooter -- Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- who grew up to become Paul Wolfowitz's protégé, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and one of the Bush administration's strongest advocates for the war in Iraq.

Life is doubtless peculiar for anyone who has a childhood or college friend go on to become stupendously successful and powerful. How can you not judge yourself by the standard of his monumental achievement? How can you not feel small and unworthy in comparison?

In my case, these feelings have been further complicated by my being deeply opposed to the Bush administration, which I regard as dishonest and dangerous. But there's still another fact of my private life that colors the way I see the world: The reason I went to boarding school is that my father and mother were living out of the United States, posted to American embassies in Arab capitals like Baghdad, Amman, Kuwait, and Cairo.

This means that for me, Scooter and his neoconservative colleagues have not only set the nation on a disastrous course, they have also destroyed my father's lifelong effort to make U.S. policy in the Middle East more responsive to the realities on the ground.

And there's one last consideration, which has to do with what my father actually did in those embassies -- something that gives the outing of Valerie Plame a personal, not just a public significance.

So, for six years I've been obsessed with Scooter. Every time I read a newspaper, I see Scooter and me hunched over a game of Stratego (which he usually won), or I see him faking right before hooking left so I can hit him with a pass in the end zone.

Walking my dog through the woods around our house, I chant the mantra of questions I literally ache to ask him: How could you work for an administration that denies global warming and supports tax breaks for large SUVs? How could you work for an administration that cuts funding for birth control to the poorest people in our country and the world? How could you so brazenly exaggerate the threat of Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and how could you so foolishly imagine that American troops would be welcomed in Baghdad with cheers and flowers?

I still fling these questions into the silent woods. They are personal questions, private questions, and no one but me ever hears them. Yet at the same time they are public questions, asked by millions of Americans, and they vent the anger and the anguish that have marked the public history of a deeply divided nation.

Eight years ago I was appalled by the viciousness of Republican attacks on Bill Clinton. Now, I am ashamed that I thrill to equally vicious attacks on George Bush. But what can I do? If fundamentalist Christians are outraged by the prospect of gay marriage becoming legal, how can I be less outraged by their denying the humanity of my gay friends?

In my hotter moments -- I have fewer and fewer cool moments these days -- I ask Scooter whether his political identification with homophobia is distinguishable from a political identification with racism or anti- Semitism. And convinced that it is not, I sit down at my desk to do it: to write the letter telling Scooter that I can no longer be his friend, not even in the rather distant way we have been friends for all these years.

Today, my old friend is under indictment for obstructing justice by lying about his knowledge of the Valerie Plame affair. His trial begins today. He will face the distinct possibility of public disgrace and a career-terminating jail sentence. So what should I hope for, I ask myself: my old friend's acquittal or his conviction?

The window of my study faces north. If our house stood on higher ground, I could see 15 miles up the winding Connecticut River to the squat bulk of Mount Pocumtuck. Forty years later, Scooter surely remembers our old school song as well as I do:

Eaglebrook, upon your mountain

Still across the valley gaze,

Where we worked and played together,

In our boyhood's merry days.

We met in a dorm of cubicles -- cubies -- on our first night at Eaglebrook, in September 1961. Scooter was in the cubie next to mine, and because the walls stopped a foot short of the ceiling, we could easily talk to each other after lights out. We probably whispered, Where are you from, what does your father do, what sports do you like?


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: scooter libby

Nick Bromell teaches English at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. His essays have appeared in The Boston Review, The Georgia Review, Harper's, and The Sewanee Review.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
i too have a question for Libby
Posted by: nor cal surfer on Jan 16, 2007 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Do you think al-Qaeda is in the White House?"

i mean, the White House has done nothing to apprehend them, everything to strengthen them, and everything to enable them.

look at policy (Iraq)
look at ushering out Bin Laden family (after 9/11)
look at the money trail (to *all* middle east players)
look at the inability to find Anthrax offenders (yet they had pristine hijacker passports at the base of the Trade Towers within minutes)
smell the setup of 9/11 (NORAD up north, no jets scrambled, quickest cleanup of the largest crime scene in the history of the U.S., etc, etc.)
smell the al-Qaeda in the White House?

some of us do...

and perhaps PNAC by any other name *is* al-Qaeda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» thank you, and yes Posted by: nor cal surfer
Alibaba
Posted by: alibaba on Jan 16, 2007 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It used to be that "conservatism", at least in US politics, was identified with issues such as fiscal responsibility, and individual responsibility. At least among my moderately conservative friends (I wouldn't be able to abide the others). What's new is that the current cabal in the White House which Mr. Libby is a part, has aligned themselves with "christian fundamentalists" for political gain, and sold their souls in the process. Up till now the idea of conservatives "outing" a CIA agent seemed unlikely. I sympathize with the writer's angst about his friend, but along with trying to be open to other "truths", if Mr. Libby is a conservative then he must accept responsibility for what the writer terms "blunders". When blunders create the kind of devastation that his has I prefer to think of them as crimes. If there is any justice left, Mr. Libby would be well deserving of some time in jail, along with the other criminals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An important distinction: Desire for Truth Versus Power
Posted by: joking7 on Jan 16, 2007 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two categories of fundamentalists, by my way of thinking. There are those who are committed to a belief system as the only correct one because they confuse having "the only right answer" with the truth. On the other hand, there are the leaders of fundamentalist movements who care more about power than the truth, and therefore cynically manipulate people who faithfully will follow authoritarian figures who seem certain of their correctness.

The first group has a misunderstanding of the nature of Truth, by my way of thinking, but they are at least seeking it (if in the wrong place: dogmatic clinging to a belief system).

The second group is interested only in grabbing and holding power for personal and elite groupings of associates. These are not really fundamentalists at all, but power mongers who don't believe in truth in any sense which does not protect their position in the power/status structure.

We will need to distinguish between these two types if we have any hope of overcoming fundamentalism in this country and abroad. Dogmatic people are not such a danger if they are not lead by cynical power-hungry tyrants such as Bush, Cheyney, Delay, and others.

People of faith are already growing disenchanted with Bush precisely because they recognize that his interest is purely in power. However much such an individual might fool themselves or others, once you have chosen power over truth, and backed it up with action, all appearances of "conviction" are, at best, justifications of your actions.

I agree that human understanding of truth is evolving, and in the world of politics, people have to do their best to make decisions that they honestly believe are for the best. However, this administration has long ago abandoned both honesty and what is for the best in favor of a belief system that comes out of a desire to hold and maintain power(for themselves and for the country) through control, force, and domination. They have long ago given up any honest search for "Truth" in any sense. I suppose this is a kind of "fundamentalism,' but it deserves its own distinct category by virtue of its pure cynicism about any truth which does not serve it's greedy purposes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The dilemma of the liberal
Posted by: Davidco on Jan 17, 2007 12:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was expressed by Learned Hand most succintly: "You cannot raise the standard against oppression, or leap into the breach to relieve injustice, and still keep an open mind to every disconcerting fact, or an open ear to the cold voice of doubt."

Academics like Dr. Bromell have the luxury of Heraclitean politics. They orient contemplatively toward truth & beauty. For them, as for Robert Frost "The strength of a man is in the extremity of the opposites he can hold together by force."

The man of action, however, orients toward value. The good ones navigate by dead reckoning relying on intuition born of deep experience in daily conflict over what is best - or, at least, the better of two possible courses of action. Upon acting, they become believers as much as any fundamentalist.

One can easily lose one's way having to decide and act every day. As an undergraduate, Scooter took Wolfowitz on as his guide and responded to the lure of wealth and power. He long ago stopped seeking dispassionately for higher, more inclusive viewpoints. Cheney, that expedient hyena, merely scoured and scattered Libby's bones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You wake up with fleas
Posted by: bulbman on Jan 17, 2007 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Libby chose to lie down with dogs. Worse, he allowed himself to be their sacrifical lamb. Carpe diem. Hang him, unless he gives us Cheney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You wake up with fleas Posted by: georip
Bromell gives Cheney ammunition
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 17, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nick Bromell has been infected with a problem about truth that has sickened liberal academia in its battle with fundamentalism. When Lynn Cheney accuses English professors of holding that there is no such thing as truth, Bromell responds that there is no such thing as the truth. This is a distinction without a difference. Bromell's own admission that a truth is "changeable over time" is all Cheney needs to make her point, which is that many liberal English professors, including Bromell, conceive of truth to be relative to times and circumstances. If this is so, then they will be hard put to deny Cheney a truth of her own. Far better for liberals to accept truth as absolute, while also insisting that our beliefs about what is true are provisional and always subject to the tribunal of experience. It is the pursuit of truth that is important, not someone's dogmatic claim to have already found it. This is the way to respond to know-it-alls like Cheney and Libby: charge them with being ideologues whose beliefs are impervious to any disconfirming evidence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Huh? Why all the bandwidth for a walk down memory lane???
Posted by: Prophit on Jan 17, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not sure of the purpose for this rambling of childhood memories. I used to get on my grandmother for that stuff. LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hahahahaaha! Posted by: Prophit
More than one truth
Posted by: ischindl on Jan 17, 2007 10:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First I'd like to say I enjoyed the article.

I've been using the following example for the last 25 years to illustrate that there is more than one truth:

Facts: a fox catches a rabbit.

Rabbits account of events: "A catastrophe has occured I will be eaten."

Fox's account of events: "Wonderful, dinner is served."

Both accounts are correct. If you listen to people argue, quite frequently you will note that the error the protaganists make is to think that since they are right, any contradictory view must be wrong. Many sides of an argument may be contradictory and correct.

Another common mistake is to think that bad acts are always performed by bad people and good acts by good people. History is full of examples to the contrary. If you look carefully, you will find examples to the contrary among your friends, acquaintances and even family. Cruelty is often a symptom of great pain, even in good people.

Cheers,

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More than one truth Posted by: Gma1
Complexity
Posted by: CJC on Jan 17, 2007 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bromell's essay is beautiful.
I feel like I must live in a parallel universe when I read comments saying that such reminiscence is trivial and sentimental and beside the point or that Lynne Cheney's right about fuzzy headed and wishy washy academia. To be sure there's a a dismaying type of left wing discourse that says if we'd all just hold hands and think nice thoughts that peace would break out.
But to my mind Bromell is thoughtful and interesting about what a "liberal" way of thinking is. It's also called humanism, although I don't think he used that word. His essay is poignant about the disconnect between a personal appreciation of friend and utter incomprehension and dismay at his public political life. Sometimes the disconnect is the other way around, where a person with an admirable and accomplished public life is known privately to be a nasty, irresponsible friend, parent, spouse, whatever.
As for Libby's public trial it will be interesting to observe whether he's a willing or unwilling sacrifice to the neo-con cause and whether, one way or another, he will be the agent of dragging Cheney and his cohorts under, as they richly deserve. Bush is beginning to go glug glug. Will the others be far behind? Can it happen before we start a nuclear war over Iran?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Complexity Posted by: Davidco
» RE: Complexity Posted by: CJC
» RE: Complexity Posted by: w_m_bear
The author seems tormented by conflict
Posted by: agathena on Jan 17, 2007 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and he does not resolve the conflict after many words. I recommend that he drop Scooter Libby as a friend. How can he be a friend when he opposes all Libby's values; when he opposes Libby's criminal Imperialism? These people Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley are mass murderers as far as I am concerned. Relegate Libby to the fringes as a former acquaintance. IT IS TIME to put aside the boyhood nostalgia for the Libby of 'the old days.' That Libby does not exist anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a poem for scooter
Posted by: wleming on Jan 17, 2007 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
oh scooter dear scooter
don't call him eichmann
cause everybody at school
gosh really liked em

he lied for cheyney
lied for the fed
made lots of money
advancing the dead

bush got preppies busted
but scooter did his best to
save him from justice

schilling for power
paid to lie
scooters got a pardon coming
scooter, north and poindexter
bye bye

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No pardon, there are consequences
Posted by: georip on Jan 18, 2007 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Truth is learned through trial and error and we all make mistakes so we all deserve to be pardoned right?....If we're observant we can also learn from other's mistakes....for instance, that crime doesn't pay, or that might does not make right...Cindy Sheean makes a good point when she argues that Jerry Ford did nothing to heal this country by pardoning Nixon for his crimes because if this country had been healed of its Imperialistic inclinations Bush never would have felt that he could lead the nation into such a phony war...In truth, a majority of Americans imagined there would be a benefit in this pre-emptive war and failed to confront the Truth of their own complicity...fortunately that seems to be changing... There must be no pardons this time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IF THE JURORS AQUIT
Posted by: w_m_bear on Jan 18, 2007 9:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's still full of shit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why?
Posted by: kosh on Jan 20, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is it necessary to match the fundementalist's passionate intensity?

Cannot passionate intensity be matched by other emotional states effectively?

Wasn't the invasion of Iraq an act of passionate intensity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prediction
Posted by: mizipi on Jan 21, 2007 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter what is asked of Scooter, his reply will be "I do not remember." Just like Reagan and other republicans. Neocons expect a higher sense of responsibility and integrity from liberals than from other neocons. Just read their pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not buying it
Posted by: chomsky on Jan 28, 2007 7:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A liberal, as I use the term, is someone who never gives up trying to see the other person's point of view.

That's almost certainly a bald-faced lie. I am a racial nationalist. I have argued with hundreds, if not thousands of liberals. I can count on one hand the number who made any effort whatsoever to see my point of view, much less never gave up trying. I doubt very much Bromell would add to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not buying it Posted by: ScooterLiddy