|
What The 'Shield' Covered Up
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
11/01/05 "Washington
Post" -- -- Has anyone noticed that the coverup
worked?
In his impressive presentation of the indictment of Lewis "Scooter"
Libby last week, Patrick Fitzgerald expressed the wish that
witnesses had testified when subpoenas were issued in August 2004,
and "we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October
2005."
Note the significance of the two dates: October 2004, before
President Bush was reelected, and October 2005, after the president
was reelected. Those dates make clear why Libby threw sand in the
eyes of prosecutors, in the special counsel's apt metaphor, and
helped drag out the investigation.
As long as Bush still faced the voters, the White House wanted
Americans to think that officials such as Libby, Karl Rove and Vice
President Cheney had nothing to do with the leak campaign to
discredit its arch-critic on Iraq, former ambassador Joseph Wilson.
And Libby, the good soldier, pursued a brilliant strategy to slow
the inquiry down. As long as he was claiming that journalists were
responsible for spreading around the name and past CIA employment of
Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, Libby knew that at least some news
organizations would resist having reporters testify. The
journalistic "shield" was converted into a shield for the Bush
administration's coverup.
Bush and his disciples would like everyone to assume that Libby was
some kind of lone operator who, for this one time in his life,
abandoned his usual caution. They pray that Libby will be the only
official facing legal charges and that political interest in the
case will dissipate.
You can tell the president worries that this won't work, because
yesterday he did what he usually does when he's in trouble: He
sought to divide the country and set up a bruising ideological
fight. He did so by nominating a staunchly conservative judge to the
Supreme Court.
Judge Samuel Alito is a red flag for liberals and red meat for
Bush's socially conservative base. Alito has a long paper trail as a
15-year veteran of a court of appeals and a strong right-wing
reputation. This guarantees a huge battle that will serve the
president even if Alito's nomination fails: Anything that "unites
the base" and distracts attention from the Fitzgerald investigation
is good news for Bush.
That is why Senate Democrats -- and one hopes they might be joined
by some brave Republicans -- should insist that before Alito's
nomination is voted on, Bush and Cheney have some work to do.
The Fitzgerald indictment makes perfectly clear that the White House
misled the public as to its involvement in sliming Wilson and
talking about Plame.
Bush needs to tell the public -- yes, the old phrase still applies
-- what he knew about the operation to discredit Wilson and when he
knew it. And he shouldn't hide behind those "legalisms" that
Republicans were so eager to condemn in the Clinton years.
The obligation to come clean applies, big-time, to Cheney, who
appears at several critical points in the saga detailed in the
Fitzgerald indictment. What exactly transpired in the meetings
between Libby and Cheney on the Wilson case? It is inconceivable
that an aide as careful and loyal as Libby was a rogue official. Did
Cheney set these events in motion? This is a question about good
government at least as much as it is a legal matter.
Fitzgerald has made clear that he wants to keep this case going if
doing so will bring us closer to the truth. Lawyers not involved in
the case suggest that the indictment was written in a way that could
encourage Libby, facing up to 30 years in prison, to cooperate in
that effort.
But there is a catch. If Libby, through nods and winks, knows that
at the end of Bush's term, the president will issue an unconditional
pardon, he will have no interest in helping Fitzgerald, and every
interest in shutting up. If Bush truly wants the public to know all
the facts in the leak case, as he has claimed in the past, he will
announce now that he will not pardon Libby. That would let
Fitzgerald finish his work unimpeded, and we would all have a
chance, at last, to learn how and why this sad affair came to pass.
postchat@aol.com
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
