As the heat and humidity begin to descend upon Washington D.C. in these initial dog days of summer, the political climate in the Beltway has also begun to swelter. Whether it’s the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice, the president’s Social Security plan, or the situation in Iraq, the political arena is chock full of intrigue, mystery, and divisiveness. Though these issues promise to invigorate and mobilize activists from across the spectrum, the issue with the most potential to galvanize the nation is Karl Rove’s involvement in the CIA leak case.
This issue has the capability of delivering a crucial and critical blow to President Bush’s administration and may have finally shredded the veil of secrecy that this administration highly values and prides itself on.
Karl Rove and George W. Bush have formed an inextricable relationship since Bush began his political career in Texas. The architect of Bush’s gubernatorial and presidential campaigns, Rove has become a political mastermind and master manipulator. While his handling of various political candidates has resulted in monumental success, his methods and tactics for victory have come under question and scrutiny prior to the CIA leak.
In 1970, Rove was found to have snuck into the office of Illinois Democratic Senator Alan Dixon and stole some of his letterhead. Rove then created a number of fliers promising “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing,” and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters. In 1980, Rove was fired from George H. W. Bush’s vice-presidential campaign after leaking information to journalist Robert Novak, a prime player in the CIA-leak scandal. In 2000, Rove was suspected of authorizing a South Carolina poll that asked, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” McCain, who appeared with his adopted Bangladeshi daughter in numerous photo-ops, had to fend off questions regarding his daughter’s relationship to him. The momentum McCain’s Straight Talk Express had aroused during the Republican primary was all bust lost in South Carolina.
And in 2005, Rove elicited anger and condemnation from Democrats when he remarked, “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.” Appalled, many congressional Democrats called on Rove to resign for his apparent use of September 11 as a political device. Though able to fend off these past cries of outrage and criticism, Rove’s tactics may have finally caught up with him in the CIA leak case.
On July 6, 2003, career ambassador Joe Wilson published a column in the New York Times accusing the Bush administration of relying on and proving false information to the American public in its decision to go to war in Iraq. President Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union address, told Americans, “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Wilson refuted this in his column, saying that he had traveled to Niger in 2002 at the urging of the CIA to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein sought materials used in making weapons of mass destruction and had found nothing to corroborate this assumption.
Eight days after Wilson’s piece was published, conservative columnist Bob Novak published a piece questioning Wilson’s legitimacy as a weapons expert. In the piece, he wrote, “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.” This outing of Ms. Plame, an obvious act of retaliation for Mr. Wilson’s dissent, may have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which punishes government employees who disclose covert agent’s identities to the public. A federal investigation was started, seeking to uncover the identity of Mr. Novak’s source.
Two years later, the investigation continues without any charges being filed against government employees. However, two journalists, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Mathew Cooper of Time Magainze, faced jail time after refusing to divulge the identities of their sources they used in covering the Wilson affair. While Miller sits in jail, Cooper avoided prison after his “source” relieved him of his commitment to keep his source’s identity secret. This “source,” in later days, would appear to be Karl Rove.
Cooper allegedly first learned from Karl Rove that Wilson’s wife was a C.I.A. officer. Mr. Rove also may have told Cooper that Mr. Wilson’s wife had played a role in sending Mr. Wilson to Africa to investigate uranium sales to Iraq. While Rove never mentioned Ms. Plame’s name or say she was a covert officer, his candidness is a far cry from repeated White House statements over the past two years saying that administration officials had nothing to do with identifying Ms. Wilson.
It would behoove Mr. Rove to finally come clean and publicly discuss his involvement in the CIA leak. While President Bush continues to call for the head of anyone involved in this criminal conspiracy, Democrats should call upon Rove to speak openly about his involvement. Though some Democrats, like former presidential nominee John Kerry, have foolishly called on Rove to resign his post before he has been charged with a crime, they should continue to pressure Rove to speak and emerge from the stealth confines of the Bush administration. A blunder like this could propel Democrats to regain crucial seats in the 2006 midterm election and become a political force once again.
Josh Moskowitz ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
