The Underlying Issue
Happy Friday.
Karl Rove identified a CIA analyst (if not by name, by marital association--a difference?) to a reporter in an effort to undermine criticism of the current administration’s bases for going to war in Iraq. Newseek, fresh off its own scandal regarding erroneous reporting about conditions at the prison camp in Gitmo, went in for the kill on this one. Finally.
Rove’s reported misconduct does not constitute a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which requires that: (1) the disclosure by a government official have been deliberate, (2) the person doing it to have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and (3) he or she to have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent’s identity. (50 U.S.C. § 421.) There is no evidence, to date, which indicates that Rove knew the CIA analyst was a covert agent or that the government was actively concealing her identity.
Regardless, whether Rove’s misconduct was “criminal” or not is beside the point. Rove committed a severe breach of national security. As the president’s deputy chief of staff he has top-level security clearance. Prior to making this disclosure, he should have confirmed that the analyst was not a covert agent. Anything less represents an egregious error of judgment worthy of termination; regardless of position. As promised by the president, Rove has got to go.
More significant, however, is the underlying issue: Did the current administration lie about its motivation for going to war in Iraq? The scandal erupted over the president’s claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Nigeria for the purpose of making WMD. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, the husband of the CIA analyst whom Rove desperately was trying to discredit, insisted this claim was false. He was right. Yet, to war we went.
The focus of the investigation, and the media, should be extended to ascertain whether the purpose of the disclosure was to conceal the fact that the current administration intentionally relied on false, discredited evidence to deceive the nation into supporting the war in Iraq.
Watergate was political. Monicagate was sexual. This scandal goes to fundamental issues concerning our nation’s security, the trust we place in our elected (and unelected) government officials, and the (accurate?) perception of the United States as the world’s policeman turned self-interested, manipulative, hegemonic bully.
Karl Rove identified a CIA analyst (if not by name, by marital association--a difference?) to a reporter in an effort to undermine criticism of the current administration’s bases for going to war in Iraq. Newseek, fresh off its own scandal regarding erroneous reporting about conditions at the prison camp in Gitmo, went in for the kill on this one. Finally.
Rove’s reported misconduct does not constitute a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which requires that: (1) the disclosure by a government official have been deliberate, (2) the person doing it to have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and (3) he or she to have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent’s identity. (50 U.S.C. § 421.) There is no evidence, to date, which indicates that Rove knew the CIA analyst was a covert agent or that the government was actively concealing her identity.
Regardless, whether Rove’s misconduct was “criminal” or not is beside the point. Rove committed a severe breach of national security. As the president’s deputy chief of staff he has top-level security clearance. Prior to making this disclosure, he should have confirmed that the analyst was not a covert agent. Anything less represents an egregious error of judgment worthy of termination; regardless of position. As promised by the president, Rove has got to go.
More significant, however, is the underlying issue: Did the current administration lie about its motivation for going to war in Iraq? The scandal erupted over the president’s claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Nigeria for the purpose of making WMD. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, the husband of the CIA analyst whom Rove desperately was trying to discredit, insisted this claim was false. He was right. Yet, to war we went.
The focus of the investigation, and the media, should be extended to ascertain whether the purpose of the disclosure was to conceal the fact that the current administration intentionally relied on false, discredited evidence to deceive the nation into supporting the war in Iraq.
Watergate was political. Monicagate was sexual. This scandal goes to fundamental issues concerning our nation’s security, the trust we place in our elected (and unelected) government officials, and the (accurate?) perception of the United States as the world’s policeman turned self-interested, manipulative, hegemonic bully.
posted by Happy Friday | 8:04 AM
5 Comments:
Welcome to the world of blog -- it's about time.
You might want to add a link to Paul Krugman's column in today's Times, which mirrors a lot of what you're saying.
Keep it up, Bauchner.
Here's that link: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html
Rove's gotta go, for sure. I wanna see that fat bastard hang for this one.
But . . . we all know, and have known for a while, the adminstration lied about the reasons to invade Iraq. Why is suddenly a big deal now?
Hi, Jed here, politics aside well done on the site. I might not have read any of the weekly e-mails but I'll log on every so often now to see what you and yours are up to. Good luck!!! Looks great too!
Whatever you feel about Rove (and until Fitzgerald's investigations are complete, it is irresponsible to come to a conclusion bout Rove's actions), you are badly wrong on Wilson.
We know for a fact that he lied when he claimed his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger, when emails prove that she was the one who first recommended him for the trip.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence UNANIMOUSLY found: "On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims," in other words, that he lied in his op-ed and book.
In fact the SSCI concluded that "for most analysts, the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal."
Also, regarding whether President Bush lied, recall that he specifically said the British believe that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa. In fact, the independent Butler Commission,while finding numerous other faults in the intelligence on WMD, concluded in July 2004 that "The British government had intelligence from several different sources" indicating that Iraqi officials sought to buy uranium from Niger in 1999, and that "the intelligence was credible."
So to claim Wilson was correct and that the President "lied" demonstrates ignorance of the facts at hand.
Post a Comment
<< Home