|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : North
America
Exposure of Roves lies throws Bush White House into
crisis
By Patrick Martin
13 July 2005
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The Bush White House has been plunged into political crisis
by the confirmation of widespread suspicions that chief Bush political
strategist Karl Rove was one of the officials who revealed the
identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. The exposure of Plame
was part of a dirty tricks campaign to discredit Plames
husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who became a prominent
critic of US policy in Iraq.
Newsweek magazine provided the most recent and damning
evidence of Roves role, which had been repeatedly denied
by White House spokesmen and by Rove himself over the past two
years. On Sunday night, the magazines web site carried the
text of e-mails written by Time magazine reporter Matt
Cooper recounting a confidential conversation with Rove in which
Rove identified Wilsons wife, without using her name, as
a CIA agent.
The e-mails were among the documents turned over by Time
magazine last week to the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald,
who is investigating the exposure of Plame. The magazines
decision to turn over the documents undercut Coopers own
refusal until then to accede to Fitzgeralds demand that
he reveal the confidential source he used for an article on the
Wilson-Plame affair. Cooper ultimately agreed on July 7 to testify,
after Roves attorney called him and released him from his
pledge. A second reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times,
stood by her refusal to testify and was sent to jail the same
day.
The phone conversation between Cooper and Rove took place on
July 11, 2003, three days before the first press report, by columnist
Robert Novak, identifying Plame as an undercover CIA operative
specializing in weapons of mass destruction. The spin
which Rove sought to give this revelation to Cooper was identical
to that of Novaks column: that Wilsons wife had engineered
his trip to Niger in 2002, where he investigated claims that Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire large quantities
of uranium from the North African country.
The claim of an intensive effort by Iraq to obtain nuclear
materials was central to the Bush administration lie that it was
invading Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing a nuclear
bomb. Bush cited the Africa uranium story in his 2003
State of the Union Address.
Five months later, after the US conquest of Iraq, Wilson wrote
an op-ed column in the New York Times revealing that he
had investigated the uranium claims in 2002 at the request of
the CIA and found they were bogus. The White House was compelled
to issue a retraction of the Niger story, but within days it began
leaking information to the media in an effort to discredit Wilson.
The implication of both Novaks column and Roves
comments to Cooper was that Wilson had not gone to Niger on a
mission for top CIA officials, but on a quasi-private junket,
for which his wife was responsible. There were multiple lies in
this accountValerie Plame was a CIA analyst with no authority
to orchestrate such a mission, and an expenses-only visit to Niger,
one of the poorest countries in the world, was hardly a perk.
Moreover, Wilsons findings were reported up the chain of
command at the CIA to Director George Tenet, ultimately reaching
the White House.
The importance of the Newsweek report is that it confirms
the thuggish and anti-democratic response of the Bush administration
to political criticism. Rather than attempting to rebut the criticism
by Wilsona retired State Department official with two decades
of experience in the Middle East and Africathe White House
sought to smear him as corrupt, and endanger the livelihood and
possibly the physical safety of his wife.
The Rove exposure has further revealed systematic lying by
Bush, Rove, White House spokesman Scott McClellan and other White
House aides. McClellan was the target of a heated barrage of questions
Monday at a press briefing in the White House, where reporter
after reporter cited the press spokesmans own words over
the last two years flatly denying that Rove had played any role
in exposing Valerie Plame, and reminded the Bush operative of
Bushs pledge to fire any official who had been involved.
McClellan declared that he would take no questions on the Plame
case because the leak is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation
by special prosecutor Fitzgerald. He nonetheless received 35 questions
on the subject in the course of a 40-minute press conference,
and recited his one-sentence no comment nearly two
dozen times. He was asked, at one point, whether he had retained
his own personal defense counsel in the case.
Rove, Bush, Cheney and other top White House officials have
all provided testimony on the leak to the grand jury impaneled
by Fitzgerald. Rove and other top administration officials, including
Bush, could be open to charges of perjury or obstruction of justice
for this testimony.
In that eventuality, the Republican right will no doubt display
its unparalleled hypocrisy. They howled for the blood of Bill
Clinton when he lied in a deposition about his affair with Monica
Lewinsky and then sought to parse words with the grand jury convened
by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Lying and obstruction of
justice were the two charges on which the Republican-controlled
House of Representatives impeached Clinton. No one should expect
the same approach from the Republican Congress to Roves
lying and obstruction of justice, which concerns, not a private
sexual matter, but a serious abuse of powerthe attempt to
smear and intimidate a political critic.
This being said, the role of the Democratic Party in the Plame
affair is both cowardly and reactionary. Leading congressional
Democrats seized on the Newsweek report on Rove to present
themselves as defenders of the CIA and national security, while
charging that Rove, by revealing the identity of an undercover
CIA agent, had undermined the war on terror.
Not one leading Democrat pointed out that the exposure of Plame
was an effort to suppress opposition to the war in Iraq by intimidating
a well-publicized critic with considerable inside knowledge of
US-Iraq relations (Wilson was the last US diplomat in Iraq before
the 1991 Persian Gulf War).
Senator John Kerry, the defeated Democratic presidential nominee,
e-mailed supporters urging them to sign an online petition calling
on Bush to fire Rove. Senator Hillary Clinton appeared side-by-side
with Kerry at a press conference to endorse this demand.
The White House promised if anyone was involved in the
Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration,
said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. I trust they will
follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true,
this rises above politics and is about our national security.
Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey demanded that Bush suspend
Roves security clearance. Referring to a vicious McCarthyite
speech Rove delivered recently in New York City, Lautenberg added,
Karl Rove has accused liberals of not understanding the
consequences of 9/11, but hes the one who blew the cover
of a covert CIA agent.
Congresswomen Louise Slaughter declared, There can be
no gray area here. Regardless of how he phrased it, regardless
of how much detail he provided, he revealed the identity of an
undercover CIA agent. What Mr. Rove did is reprehensible. Putting
the life of an undercover CIA agent in jeopardy cannot be tolerated.
He clearly deserves his pink slip.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued a
statement declaring: Rove betrayed the identity of an undercover
officer fighting on the front lines in the war on terror.... It
is disturbing that this high-ranking Bush advisor is not only
still working in the White House, but now has a significant role
in setting our national security policy.
The entire Democratic Party establishment, from Clinton to
Dean, has decided to attack Rove and Bush from the right rather
than the leftto focus on the alleged damage done to the
CIA rather than the effort to suppress criticism of the Iraq war.
This dovetails with the political positioning the Democrats are
undertaking for the 2006 congressional elections, where they will
campaign as advocates of a more vigorous and effective intervention
in Iraq rather than calling for troop withdrawal.
Just as significant as this decision to forego any identification
with antiwar sentiment is the Democrats silence on the jailing
of Judith Miller, who defied the order by Federal District Judge
Thomas Hogan to answer questions from Fitzgerald about the Plame
case. Miller is being held in Alexandria, Virginia, at the same
facility as accused Al Qaeda terrorist Zaccarias Moussaoui.
The jailing of Miller, notwithstanding her own reactionary
role in promoting the Bush administrations lies about Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction, is a flagrant attack on freedom of
the press. But neither the Democratic Party nor the media itself
has sought to make it a major issue.
It is particularly noteworthy that in 40 minutes of questioning
of White House spokesman McClellan, not a single one of the journalists
took note of the fact that a colleague had just been jailed. No
reporter asked McClelland for the White House reaction to Millers
imprisonment.
Similarly, the editorial pages of the major daily newspapers
and the commentators on network television have been largely silent.
The subject was barely referred to on the Sunday television interview
programs, which generally rehash the major events of the week.
The New York Times itself, while it has backed Millers
stance editorially, made no reference to her imprisonment in its
reporting Monday and Tuesday on the Plame case.
See Also:
Why the WSWS opposes the jailing of Judith
Miller--a reply to readers
[11 July 2005]
Jailing of Times reporter: an
attack on press freedom and democratic rights
[7 July 2005]
White House aide Karl Rove
witch-hunts Iraq war opponents
[25 June 2005]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |