I. Lewis Libby Jr. is forgetful.
Or so he would have you believe. But to believe that one of the brains behind the president forgot where he'd heard about a classified CIA agent because he was so busy would be admitting the people in the White House don't know what they're doing.
A five-count indictment against Libby charges perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to federal agents investigating a CIA officer's outing by the White House. Libby, described as "Dick Cheney's Cheney" in his role as the vice president's chief of staff, has resigned and maintains his innocence. And the investigation continues with further indictments of Bush administration members, notably Karl Rove, looming as a possibility.
Libby's troubles occurred because of discrepancies between his testimony and that of the reporters he talked to about Valerie Plame, the CIA agent whose cover was blown. His "I don't remember" answer to where he first learned of Plame's identity is not believable. Libby testified reporters gave him her name first, conveniently forgetting his boss, Dick Cheney, spoke to him about her in June 2003. In other words, Libby forgot his boss's role in the mess. Libby claims to have forgotten the discussions he had with Cheney that preceded those he had with reporters.
That's the key to the whole sordid affair. Libby took one for the team. He's the fall guy protecting Dick Cheney. In protecting the lies and distorted intelligence that took us to war against Iraq, Cheney and company set about punishing those who dared question the White House's actions. Plame's name was leaked to punish her husband's outspoken denunciations of White House statements pertaining to alleged Iraqi efforts at obtaining uranium for nuclear weapons.
The leak was done to hide the White House's role in pushing bogus intelligence in the run up to the war. The White house has disingenuously blamed the CIA for the faulty intelligence. But the Bush Administration cherry-picked intelligence to fit their agenda and buried that which did not. That's the crime that needs investigating.
Incomplete assignment
Excluding professors from evaluation hurts new gen ed program's effectiveness
UB's planned systematic assessment of general education requirements is a good idea. Every three years, beginning this year, a faculty committee will review "learning outcomes" for gen ed classes, allowing for continual evaluation that enables needed change to be implemented if necessary.
This will help the thousands of students with undeclared majors who gauge prospective majors by the gen ed classes they take, while insuring that all students taking gen ed classes receive the best experience possible in the process.
However, an aspect of the plan that needs re-examining is the decision to exclude evaluations of professors. Though the materials and methods utilized by professors will be looked at, a comprehensive evaluation of the teachers' performances will not.
How can UB assess whether a course is meeting expectations without looking at the teacher's role? A professor is a major factor in classroom expectations being met and should play a prominent role in the new assessments. Maybe incorporating the teacher evaluations students fill out when classes end would help.
Many students argue that teachers actually play the biggest role in the outcome of taking a class. A plan meant to study learning that does not take the teaching into account is clearly missing a key component.
