Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rove's leak exposed the depravity of the administration's deliberate use of a false WMD threat and its willingness to go after anyone willing to tell the truth about it.

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.

The Real Rove Scandal

By Robert Scheer, AlterNet. Posted July 12, 2005.


Rove's leak exposed the depravity of the administration's deliberate use of a false WMD threat and its willingness to go after anyone willing to tell the truth about it.
Advertisement

If you can't shoot the messenger, take aim at his wife.

That clearly was the intent of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in leaking to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. To try to conceal the fact that the president had lied to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Rove attempted to destroy the credibility of two national security veterans and send an intimidating message to any other government officials preparing to publicly tell the truth.

Rove's lawyer now says that Rove didn't break the law against naming covert agents because he didn't know Plame's name and therefore couldn't have revealed it. Perhaps he can use such a technicality in court, but in the meantime he should resign immediately -- or be fired by the president -- for leaking classified information, trying to smear Wilson and possibly endangering Plame's life.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "I trust they will follow through on this pledge."

The background on this story is crucial. Ambassador Wilson had been honored as a patriot by President George H.W. Bush for standing up to Saddam Hussein in a face-to-face confrontation in Baghdad on the eve of the Persian Gulf War. But in 2003, Wilson committed an unpardonable crime in the eyes of the second Bush White House. He exposed its lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

In 16 now-infamous words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, the president -- desperate to gain support for an invasion he was dead set on initiating -- tried to scare Americans into believing Iraq was close to making nuclear weapons. "The British government," he told the nation, "has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But the key documents that the claim was based on had already been proved to be fakes, and other intelligence reports along these lines were extremely speculative.

In fact, it was a CIA-organized mission by Wilson to the African country of Niger (where he had served as ambassador) that determined the reports were false. Wilson was therefore shocked to hear the uranium claims in the president's speech. When he exposed the chicanery in a New York Times commentary, Wilson became a prime target for a White House smear job.

According to e-mails that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper sent to his editor (which were revealed by Newsweek over the weekend), Rove told Cooper that Wilson's devastating expose should be discounted because the Niger fact-finding trip had been authorized by Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA.

This was three days before Robert Novak, citing two White House sources, outed Plame as a CIA agent in his column and put forward the same notion: that Wilson's information was suspect because the CIA had hired him on the advice of his wife.

In the end, though, what Rove's leak and Novak's column really exposed was the depravity of the administration's deliberate use of a false WMD threat and its willingness to go after anyone willing to tell the truth about it.

It's ironic that the expertise of this couple should be turned against them by a White House that has demonstrated nothing but incompetence in dealing with the WMD issue. But clearly truth and competence are virtues easily shed by the Bush administration in the pursuit of political advantage, even when this partisan game jeopardizes national security.

This is the most important issue raised by the Plame scandal. It has been unfortunately obscured by the secondary debate in the case: whether reporters should ever reveal their sources. Yet what the emerging Rove scandal demonstrates is the ease with which a wily top White House official can subvert the Bill of Rights' protection of the free press to serve the tawdriest of political ends.

Digg!

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq.

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:
We can only hope ...
Posted by: BlueStateBitch on Jul 12, 2005 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can only hope that this is the issue that will finally galvanize the press into exposing the truth about this administration: that underneath their patriotic smokescreen they are just a traitorous bunch of thugs who will sacrifice us all in their mad lust for power.

The scary thing is that most of the people I talk to, intelligent people with college degrees and so on, still don't know who Karl Rove is. Can't they see who's operating the strings attached to Bush's hands and feet?

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

» RE: We can only hope ... Posted by: Johanna Moren
» RE: We can only hope ... Posted by: Riverside
» RE: We can only hope ... Posted by: Wacre
» RE: We can only hope ... Posted by: Steve
» RE: We can only hope ... Posted by: magistre
» RE: We can only hope ... Posted by: Steve
Thuggy Historical Revision
Posted by: TheySayImUnamerican on Jul 13, 2005 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Katy Couric (sp?) was interviewing Newt Gingrich this morning about the Karl Rove bit, and asked about whether W would stand by his statement some time ago about firing whoever leaked this stuff. And those Repubs are sneaky bastards. Newt's response: The president certainly will stand by his statement that he will fire anyone who is shown to have "acted illegally."

A verrry subtle shift - and unfortunately one that most Americans won't notice - that will of course allow them to try and keep Rove around while dodging the fact that W isn't keeping his word.

I can see it now: "Sure, he leaked it, but he didn't get convicted of any criminal wrongdoing, so it must not be that bad. Screw you guys. He stays." Yep. They're pretty slick.

Hopefully the press won't let 'em off the hook this time. The original quotes are all on the record. (On that note, it was a lot of fun watching McClellan's deer-in-the-headlights look when they turned on him in yesterday's press conference!)

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

» RE: Thuggy Historical Revision Posted by: magistre
I hope I am wrong...
Posted by: Just Some Dude on Jul 14, 2005 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....but I think the press and this country will lose interest in this whole thing, just like we did with DeLay.

It's sad but it's true, we have a short attention span.

I for one won't forget this, as I haven't forgotten about DeLay, Bush's lies to get us into Iraq...etc etc...

I just use this for ammo against all the crispies I have to deal with every day who think this adminsitration has "values" and think this administration is patriotic and good christians. Yea, right.

These guys are vindictive, self serving rich white men that don't really give a crap about anything other than power and money.

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

Water seeks it own level
Posted by: TheJacksonFive on Jul 14, 2005 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The overwhelming evidence is that Wilson and "The WIfe" have sought publicity at every turn. If anyone is depraved it's the losers who insist there is an issue here, other than that.

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

» RE: Water seeks it own level Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: Water seeks it own level Posted by: ffej nitram
» RE: Water seeks it own level Posted by: hoosker
» RE: Water seeks it own level Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: Water seeks it own level Posted by: hoosker
» RE: Water seeks it own level Posted by: FlapJackSeven
Blatant Criminality
Posted by: cushniesr on Jul 14, 2005 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The criminality of Bush and his administration isn’t even kept under wraps anymore. It is as flagrant as that of any sneering mobster who ever had judges and congressmen in his pocket and didn’t care who knew it. And the Congress? Its members are either complicit, intimidated, or cowardly. It is not difficult to imagine an actual armed takeover of the Oval Office being necessary. The image of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, et al, being marched off by military police is easy and almost pleasing to imagine. I am not advocating such a thing, of course, so all you Secret Service people monitoring internet posts needn't get your panties in a bunch, but it is an indication of how low my view of events is. Allow me to predict, however, that Bush will leave office in shame and that history will show his administration to be among the most corrupt, if not THE most corrupt, of all American administrations.

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

» RE: Blatant Criminality Posted by: TheJacksonFive
» RE: Blatant Criminality Posted by: Here and now
» RE: Blatant Criminality Posted by: Steve
» why respond? Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: Blatant Criminality Posted by: decortic8r
» RE: Blatant Criminality Posted by: trutex
Dennis Dalrymple
Posted by: DennisDalrymple on Jul 14, 2005 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since CIA Director George Tenet received the Medal of Freedom for his "slam dunk" approval over the fictional WMD story and Condi Rice was kicked upstairs for ignoring the warning that al Queda was about to attack the US with planes, Jon Stewart wondered aloud last night if Karl Rove was going to be elevated to the Supreme Court for his work in discrediting Joe Wilson outing his wife Valarie Plame. Stranger things have happened

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

alternate universe
Posted by: slg on Jul 14, 2005 10:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone else feel like somehow several of us are not hearing and seeing the same things others are? It has come to my attention that what I think about the Bush administration (based on the same journalism that others rely on) is remarkably different than many if not a majority of others. I see things such as blowing the cover of a CIA operative as negatively reflecting on the administration.... How can that be a good thing... How can Karl Rove "deserve a medal" for outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent? I'm trying to understand what everyone else seems to be seeing and hearing in order to come to those conclusions.

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

kaiser soze
Posted by: kaiser soze on Jul 15, 2005 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The notion that Rowe didn't idenify Valarie Wilson by name won't fly in a hurricane. When a criminal is picked out of a police lineup, the victim doesn't use their name they just point to them. Karl Rove just pointed to Valarie Wilson when he said it was Joseph Wilson't wife. After all , how many wives does Wilson have?

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

justthefacts
Posted by: justthefacts on Jul 18, 2005 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to rain on Joe Wilson's parade, but the Butler Commission, the independent British commission set up to review the validity of British intelligence regarding Iraq, and whether it had been "sexed up" by the Blair government, emphatically stood by the British intelligence claim that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from Niger, and also made it clear that the forged documents, which had not been available to the British, played absolutely no part in that assessment. So when Bush made reference to the British intelligence claim regarding Iraq, uranium, and Niger, he was certainly literally correct at the time, but in retrospect in terms of the British government, substantively correct.

The shoe is now on the other foot. The people who continue to claim that Bush somehow "lied" about the British claim, are now themselves the liars. If the British have stood firmly behind their Iraq, uranium, Niger intelligence, how can one possibly maintain that Bush lied about it?

A quick search - Lord Butler Iraq uranium Niger

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

» RE: justthefacts Posted by: oldcrow
justthefacts
Posted by: justthefacts on Jul 18, 2005 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beyond the general reasons why a rush to judgment is unwarranted in this case, there is a specific reason. The criminal statute at issue requires that to be categorized as a covert agent, an agent must have undertaken an official mission overseas in that capacity within the previous five years. By all accounts, Valerie Plame in fact had not traveled overseas in an official capacity within the prior five years or even six years. In other words, if that is true, and by all accounts it is, she was not protected as a covert agent by the statute, and if she was not protected, it follows that no crime could be committed.
But here is the mystery. If it is fully evident that Valerie Plame is not entitled to the protection of the criminal statute, that she hadn't traveled overseas in a covert capacity within the prior five years as required by the criminal statute, why has this investigation been going on for two years? Could this be a case, a la Nixon, where an attempted coverup emerges as the crime? What are we missing? Stay tuned and let the chips fall where they may. Karl Rove is emerging once again as a snake, not remotely an unusual attribute among political advisors, but based on what we know to this point, it would appear he is not a criminal.

And wheels within wheels, in many friend of the court briefs to the Supreme Court in the Judith Miller/New York Times case, many argued precisely that - Valerie Plame was not entitled to the protection of the criminal statute, therefore disclosing her name was not a crime, and without an underlying crime, Judith Miller should be fully entitled to protect her sources, and should be released.

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