Plume of Smoke
By Denise Best | Related entries in General Politics, In The NewsIn all the fervor to catch, create, or at the very least imply Bush administration transgressions, let’s not lose sight of the role of the special prosecutor.
Rampant leaks notwithstanding, no one but Patrick Fitzgerald knows all of the criminal evidence the special prosecutor is considering against senior White House officials. Our hope is that he also understands that the job of a prosecutor is not to settle what at bottom is a political and policy fight over the war in Iraq.
It’s easy to have the issues become cloudy and skewed with all the media frenzy and scent of Republican administration blood in the air.
Let’s stipulate that the law is the law, and if Bush Administration officials lied to a grand jury in the clear and obvious way that Bill Clinton did, they should be prosecuted. If Mr. Fitzgerald has evidence of a malicious attempt to expose a CIA undercover agent, as defined by the relevant statute, the same applies. But the fact that the prosecutor has waited as long as he has–until the last days of his grand jury–suggests that he considers this a less than obvious case. A close call deserves to be a no call.
Why the wait until the closing minutes of what has turned out to be quite an interesting game?
All the more so because this entire probe began and has continued as a kind of proxy for the larger political war about the Iraq War. In July 2003, Joseph Wilson used his insider status as a former CIA consultant to accuse the Bush Administration of lying about Iraq WMD as an excuse to go to war. A political furor erupted, and Mr. Wilson became an antiwar celebrity who joined the Kerry for President campaign.
Amid an election campaign and a war, Bush Administration officials understandably fought back. One way they did so was to tell reporters that Mr. Wilson’s wife, CIA analyst Valerie Plame, had been instrumental in getting him the CIA consulting job. This was true–though Mr. Wilson denied it at the time–as a bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee documented in 2004.
As it does many times each year following a press report with classified information, the CIA routinely referred this “leak” about Ms. Plame’s status to the Justice Department for investigation. Only after someone (probably at the CIA) leaked news of this referral to the media in September 2003 was there another political uproar and calls for a “special prosecutor.” Three months later, the panicky Bush Administration relented, and Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed.
At this juncture, it helps tremendously to go back to the beginning, retrace how we arrived at where we’re at today, and do a reality check for the sake of all those concerned.
Fitzgerald is reportedly going back to the 1917 Espionage Act, an obscure and rarely enforced law, in order to find something, anything, prosecutable.
Not saying where there’s smoke there isn’t fire, but how far should one go and how do we know that the smoke isn’t being misdirected by the fire investigators?
For a balanced evaluation of the situation, read the rest of the article.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 25th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics, In The News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 25th, 2005 at 9:39 am
Why the wait until the closing minutes of what has turned out to be quite an interesting game?
Why are your keys always in the last place you look?
October 25th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Opinion Journal is a “balanced evaluation”? You’re kidding me.
October 25th, 2005 at 10:50 am
The article presents more of an analysis from both sides of the aisles than the majority of what’s been reported to date.
There’s an acknowledgment that bad decisions certainly have been made, but an exploration of the context of the investigation.
Kris, I’m curious, what sources do you think provide “balanced evaluations,” as a rule?
October 25th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Why are your keys always in the last place you look?
Because they’ve been in your pocket the entire time.
October 25th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Because once you’ve found them, it’d be stupid to keep searching for them.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Because once you’ve found them, it’d be stupid to keep searching for them.
Ding ding ding!
October 25th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
why is this effort by Fitzgerald being trivialized? This is no more a trivial matter than whether a sitting President lied about screwing some chick in the Oval Office. Look, Going after someone for political means is part of the game, and just because the republicans are masters at the game and try to hide everything they do wrong under plausible deniability, does not mean that their actions are deemed acceptable. If this goes up to anyone, no matter how high, that person should be held accountable, No matter how minor the crime is deemed by the Right.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Let us see if there were outright lies and the saborning of pergery here. The judge in Clintons case found him to be in contempt of court, fined him, suspending his law license and gave him the opportunity to redress these penalties in court. Clinton knew it would go from bad to worse and slunked away guiltily.
Did anyone in the White House tell outright lies or did they not remember? Hillary did not remember over 200 time and no one said boo.
We will soon see if Partick Fitzgerald is an honest man or a partisan hack. I suspect the latter.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
RA,
Please, this is exactly what I mean. Stop making this into no big deal. It is a bad deal. Put this administration on trial and see if the lie, and see if they slink “away guiltily.” You assume they are completely innocent and if anything else is said, then it’s all political bull. Could be they are guilty, and if they are, it is a much worse crime than boinking some girl and lying about it. I’m not saying convict them without a trial, but quit implying that their innocent without any possibility their guilty. I know it’s innocent till proven guilty, but you would have no allegations of guilt either.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:30 am
The insinuation that this investigation is only going up to the deadline because this is a close call is ridiculous. Judith Miller only testified for the first time less than a month ago, and testified again a couple of weeks ago. Karl Rove requested to testify again a couple of weeks ago. These are key witnesses. Fitzgerald is going to the deadline because he is only just now able to get this important evidence during this investigatory stage of the proceedings.
October 26th, 2005 at 10:56 am
I agree with Socks. This investigation is going up to the deadline just as many other grand jury investigations do. It is very important that any grand jury investigation, even the ones they convene to indict “common criminals” for crimes such as larceny, tampering, possession, etc., is conducted professionally and thoroughly. As an attorney, I can tell you that these things require certain steps and processes. There are a lot of rules to be followed, witnesses to put on, and documents to compile and enter into evidence. Many times deadlines are set because the people who set them believe that to be the amount of time necessary to complete the process.
Without knowing ANYTHING that has been going on in that grand jury room and without knowing ANY of the facts, I think it’s foolish for to be slinging partisan insults.
Having said that, I’m now going to be hypocritical and sling some myself. Denise, it seems to me that looking at the context of this investigation – the fact that it all started because Plame’s husband criticized the intelligence upon which the decision was made to go to war – makes things look WORSE for the Bush Administration, not better. The article you reference seems to suggest that what they did was OK because it was getting Wilson back for basically accusing them of misleading the country into war – which they did by the way. Also, the 1917 Act, which is “obscure” and “rarely enforced,” is probably that way because not many people commit those acts very often. Just because a law is old and hasn’t required use very much does not mean it isn’t still the law.
Bottom line – If those guys broke laws, they should absolutely be held reponsible. And to compare this to Clinton? Give me a break. So, you would rather have top members of the current administration rat out members of the CIA to get revenge because the CIA member’s spouse called attention to their BS than have a President get a BJ from an intern?? At least 50% of all men and women cheat, and it’s not a crime. (yes, perjury is a crime, but let’s consider the CONTEXT of that one, shall we?)
October 26th, 2005 at 8:54 pm
Meredith,
The Plame case has been all about partisan insults and that’s certainly been clouding the real issues at the heart of the investigation.
Questioning Wilson’s qualifications for receiving his CIA consulting assignment, and the agenda that was being championed relating to it, is a point that has been lost during the stretch of time that has past since the investigation first began.
Agreed, if laws were broken, then there is an accountability for delivering justice. Problem is between the media and politics involved, and the degree to which they have influenced the proceedings, a very real concern is that the investigation’s goals and direction become clouded and misdirected.
Let’s not lose sight of what should be the goal – administering justice versus what’s appearing clearer and clearer – the sharpening of political axes.