Post-Gazette Editorial – 7/20/06

This page was last updated on July 27, 2006.

Civil justice / Plame’s suit could reveal what the prosecutor didn’t; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; July 20, 2006.

If you’ve been reading the numerous PG editorials on this topic, you are aware the PG was never really interested in the facts of the case. Indeed, some of the editorials outright lied about the facts in the case.

From day one, the PG assumed – hoped is probably more accurate – a crime had been committed and further hoped a White House official – primarily Karl Rove – was the guilty party. Now that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has apparently concluded the 2-½ year investigation and Mr. Rove hasn’t been charged with any crime, the PG is apoplectic.

I covered most of the facts in this case in my critique of the PG editorial “Dump Rove.” I’ll try not to repeat myself too much in this critique.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The civil lawsuit filed by former CIA agent Valerie Plame and her husband against Vice President Dick Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and other officials could have a useful outcome for the American people. The suit stems from actions by government officials who blew her cover in revenge for her husband’s revealing the weak underpinnings of the administration’s case for the Iraq war.”

[RWC] We now know all of the alleged “leakers” are known by Mr. Fitzgerald and have been for a couple of years. Given that Mr. Fitzgerald charged “Scooter” Libby with perjury, why should we believe Mr. Fitzgerald would not charge one of the “leakers” if they had done something illegal?

Regarding the “government officials who blew [Mrs. Wilson’s] cover in revenge” comment, to date there’s been no evidence of this. None of the reporters questioned in this case have even implied “revenge” was involved. Indeed, the New York Post reports former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage was Bob Novak’s source, and Mr. Armitage opposed the Iraq War. Further, Mr. Novak stated his primary source was not a “political gunslinger.”

As noted in my previous critique, the “blew her cover” comment is bogus. Mrs. Wilson’s cover had been assumed blown nearly a decade earlier, she had not worked under cover for years, and she was currently working as an analyst. At one reporter is on the record as saying Mrs. Wilson’s CIA employment was an open secret. Though she later claimed to have misspoken, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell stated, “It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger.”

The “undercover agent” position was dealt another blow by Bob Novak’s recent interview. When Mr. Novak contacted the CIA before publishing his column in 2003, the CIA public information officer (Bill Harlow) never claimed Mrs. Wilson’s employment was classified or that disclosing her identity would endanger anyone. According to Novak, Mr. Harlow said Mrs. Wilson “would likely never have another assignment abroad,” but “it might be embarrassing if her CIA connection was written about.”

Regarding the comment about Joe Wilson “revealing the weak underpinnings of the administration’s case for the Iraq war,” we’ve known for two years that much of what he wrote was a lie.

“The affair remains murky, in spite of the fact that it has been in the public eye since mid-2003. The prosecuting chore in the federal case against the government leakers passed from the hands of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was forced to recuse himself, to special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald gave the appearance of close attention to the case, but in the end threw softballs that the administration hit out of the park.”

[RWC] Former AG Ashcroft was not “forced to recuse himself.” Given Mr. Ashcroft worked closely with most senior White House officials, and senior WH officials were to be investigated, Mr. Ashcroft – and I assume the President – felt it made sense to remove any possibility of conflict of interest. That’s why Mr. Ashcroft assigned Mr. Fitzgerald to the case.

Note the slam of Mr. Fitzgerald. Just one year ago when the PG held out hope Karl Rove did something illegal, the PG called Mr. Fitzgerald a “tough prosecutor” and stated “however much slippin’ and slidin’ Karl Rove has in mind, Mr. Fitzgerald may have too much integrity to get rolled by the likes of him.” Today, though, the PG claims Mr. Fitzgerald only “gave the appearance of close attention to the case, but in the end threw softballs that the administration hit out of the park.”

“The role of neither Mr. Cheney nor Mr. Rove drew an indictment. The only person who has gone to jail so far is former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who served 85 days for refusing to reveal the names of her sources in the case. The only indictment has been that of Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby Jr., for obstruction of justice and perjury. President Bush praised Mr. Fitzgerald’s decision not to indict Mr. Rove, calling him ‘an integral part of my team.’”

[RWC] Regarding “[t]he role of neither Mr. Cheney nor Mr. Rove drew an indictment,” could that possibly be because they did nothing wrong? The PG clearly wants us to believe Messrs. Cheney and Rove did something illegal but somehow escaped indictment.

The continued whining about Ms. Miller’s jail time is tiring. The whole case was about someone disclosing something to a reporter. Remember, the only witnesses are the alleged leaker(s) and the reporters. If you can’t force reporters to tell you who told them the alleged secret, how are you to investigate the case? Of course, as we now know, the PG likely didn’t want a thorough investigation unless the results came out the way the PG wanted. As a reminder, we now know Ms. Miller’s source had given her permission at least twice to disclose his identity before she went to jail. I still don’t know why she chose jail over testifying, though she did eventually testify after receiving the source’s permission for the third time.

“It is important to note, in considering Mr. Fitzgerald’s performance, that he rendered the administration a very important service in agreeing that Mr. Libby’s trial not start until after the November elections.

“Ms. Plame’s suit will seek financial compensation in return for the administration’s trashing of her career as revenge for a New York Times opinion piece by her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson IV, which cast doubt on the administration’s claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from an African country, Niger. It remains almost incredible that in the 21st century the most senior Bush officials would find it acceptable to demolish the career of a man’s spouse for actions that he took.”

[RWC] Nobody “demolished” or “trashed” Mrs. Wilson’s career. If her career had been “demolished,” the culprits are the Wilsons themselves. As I’ve noted before, if you’re concerned about keeping your or your spouse’s CIA employment secret, why would you publish an op-ed piece that would shine a spotlight on you and whoever recommended you for the trip? Even if much of what Mr. Wilson wrote hadn’t been a lie, people still would have investigated

Now it’s not just Messrs. Cheney and Rove, it’s “most senior Bush officials.”

“The civil suit may cast light on aspects of the matter that Mr. Fitzgerald’s inquiries have so far left in the dark. That is useful for all Americans, men or women, who run the risk of the same government action being taken against them.”

[RWC] Blah, blah, blah! Sour grapes, anyone?