The right wing spinmeisters keep asserting that no crime was committed when Valerie Wilson’s name was leaked. They use a variety of arguments. They claim she wasn’t a covert agent. They claim her cover had already been blown to the Russians and Cubans. They claim everyone knew she was CIA…it was an open secret around the District.
We know this much is true: the CIA considered it a crime and the Justice Department agreed it warranted investigation. We know the judges that have seen the accumulated evidence think a very serious crime has been committed.
It may be difficult to prove that who initiated the leak, that it originated with someone who was relying on classified material, that they knew she was a covert operative. Even for Rove, it may be difficult to prove he knowingly confirmed classified information about a covert operative.
However, if it is proven, and the leak itself was a crime, Bush could be in big trouble.
If the investigation ever gets to a point where it is clear that Karl Rove lied under oath, and especially if it is determined that he obstructed justice, we would be confronted with a situation.
The situation would be: “Did Karl Rove mislead the President about his involvement in the leak?”
The President’s failure to discipline Rove would then be seen as powerful evidence that Rove did NOT mislead the President. At that point, it’s hard to see how Bush could avoid charges of obstruction of justice.
If Bush has known for nearly two years that his close aid was not only lying to the press, but lying to investigators, he is in a lot of trouble. Is anyone going to believe that Rove deceived Bush, and Bush didn’t care when he found out the truth?
Any lawyers want to help me out on my reasoning here?
What if there already exists an official CIA “damage assessment” report?
What if that report is in the hands of Patrick Fitzgerald? (Or would he get a copy, or is that only given to Senate Intel?)
Larry Johnson said he can’t believe there isn’t a report already. He said that, if that damage assessment report had shown no damage to CIA “assets” and case officers, that that would have been leaked. That it hasn’t been leaked that the CIA’s own report shows no damage tells Johnson that there was serious damage done by Rove et al’s leak.
of this. The more serious the damage, the more serious the political fallout.
Since Bush can’t be charged with a crime until he is out of office, any crime he may have committed will be punished in a political setting. So perceptions matter a lot. If members of Congress find the crime indefensible, then Bush could actually be removed from office.
However, my focus here is more narrow. Even if the damage assessment is minor, if Rove is indicted for knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative, Bush is almost certainly guilty of obstruction of justice. He hasn’t given sworn testimony, so perjury is presumably off the table.
Even if Rove is not indicted for the leak, but only for obstruction, is he going to testify that he misled the President? Bush’s failure to discipline Rove is near proof that Rove told Bush the truth and Bush went along with a cover-up.
I know Bush was “intereviewed”, but did he give a sworn statement? IANAL, but if he did and it is found that he gave false testimony, Bush is in a world of doo doo.
is that he was not under oath.
And make him swear on a bible to tell the truth and get his statement (without Dick there to hold his hand). And nail him when he lies.
Have you forgotten Jones v Clinton so quickly?
that was a civil suit.
This “damage” to officers and informants in the field is what is the most damning. Even if there were no direct effects on those people, the potential alone, is damage enough. This is where it goes way beyond the political retribution aspect. The safety and ability of officers to gather information in the field, information that could intercept secret WMD shipments to enemies of this country, information that could prevent terrorist attacks on our soil and save American lives, is why every republican Senator and Congressperson should be standing up and demanding formal investigations, and demanding the resignation or firing of Karl Rove. Any official who fails to do so is aiding and abetting treason.
…is an utter tragedy. Watch any non-US media, and you will see that 3 million people are starving to death in Niger from a drought followed by locusts. Their harvests were wiped out.
3 million people.
And nodoby talks about it in the USA. All we can do is argue over yellow cake powder.
Sorry to veer off topic, BooMan. I just think this is the worst humanitarian disaster, an order of magnitude worse than the tsunami. An hours’ worth of Iraq expenditures would save so many.
And yet silence, even in the blogosphere.
It’s obscene.
is a diary on this tragedy by UK Rich.
I saw that.
The tsunami talk was every day. I guess without video of people running away in terror, there’s little empathy factor.
The coverage is on BBC World every day. And so far the American media have mostly ignored it. Even the NewsHour.
It’s especially obscene given what we spend in killing people. It’s cheaper to save lives, but I guess nobody sees any political advantage in it.
of the Bush Doctrine:
Bush only sees that he gets no domestic political advantage from it. The international political advantage would be incalculable.
Wow. An actual food-based famine. How wonderful to give funds and know that the famine is not caused by active government genocide (e.g., Sudan) or by governments preventing food distribution to political opponents (ethiopia). But of course it would not be this bad had the government not been so aggressive about denying that it was happening.
Rant Alert /////
According to the Economist:
“Bad weather is rarely enough, on its own, to kill large numbers of people. Famine usually requires bad government, too…. “
And the failure of governments in famines has been well studied and documented by Amartya Kumar Sen. Compare this with Malawi where the export of food has been prohibited – those people entrusted with food aid have been re-directing it for sale to people with money rather than giving it to desperate people who cannot pay. (like in Ireland… exporting to England)
It is condescending to say “The international community has failed to protect the average Nigerian” because it holds the Nigerian government harmless, as if the generals and president were somehow babes in arms, incapable of fulfilling their most fundamental duties.
In short, I agree aid is needed. But so is a little hard-headed examination of the governments of Africa to which that aid is delivered. Niger is the best of these but still not above reproach. And the worst related problem – AIDS. AIDS widespread from the treatment of women and exploitive sexual practices: dry sex, multiple partners, economic exploitation, and a lack of autonomy for women. AIDS people will say, is part of the problem. But they won’t go a step further and say the treatment of women is part of the problem.
And of course, given the range of horrible governments we had to invade secular Iraq. Oh the irony!
http://www.savethechildren.org
http://www.thehungersite.com/
http://www.heifer.org
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2027079.stm
Though your sentiments are in the right place, I’d suggest a little more care with your comments.
First of all, any famine is “food-based.” That’s what famine is, lack of food. Once the crisis has been reached, there is little to do but try to get food where it is needed. Arguing about the reasons (for that moment) is worthless. Also, this is a famine that has been known to be coming for quite some time. Drought and pestilence certainly are problems, but they should not have led to catastrophe. Adequate preparation would have led to the avoidance of starvation.
In a crisis situation, other questions (such as treatment of women, AIDS, the corruption of governments) become irrelevant. We can’t argue about these things and let people die. In a time of crisis, we should concentrate on that alone.
Sure, I argue often that aid to Africa (in non-crisis situations) needs to be linked to Africans’ own decisions–not simply ours from afar–but that doesn’t matter when people are dying right now. And I would agree with you, and argue that we need to work with Africans on women’s issues, AIDS, and other things that particularly concern us from the west.
But I saw the results of the mid-80s drought up close and personal. Saw children whose growth was so stunted that they looked like five-year-olds at elevent. Saw Tuaregs forced to abandon their ancestral way of life and become cabbage farmers–just to survive. Saw the sand moving south, covering roads that had once been part of a verdant savannah. Saw the death and destruction that can envelop a nation.
We gave through Live Aid then, but forgot that more is needed once the crisis is over. And forgot to listen to the Africans who were telling us what was needed. And so allowed this new disaster to occur.
Also, please watch your terminology. You write of “Nigerians.” That’s the population of a different country, one just south–but different from Niger. Try “Nigerans” instead.
Speaking of Niger-I keep reading that there is an investigation into who forged those documents but it’s never been clear just who is actually doing this investigation. Does anyone know? I really think this is part of the heart of the whole covert mess that lied us into war. I know that the Italian agent(forgot his name) claims the plan to forge documents came from US..
Excellent question. Where is Congress in all this? Why aren’t we hearing about calls for congressional investigations into who forged the documents, as well as who exposed a covert CIA agent?
There were ongoing court cases in Watergate, but that didn’t stop congressional investigations. This is their constitutional responsibility. They authorized the war, they authorize the funds for it. They authorize the funds for the CIA.