[Mb-civic] What the 'Shield' Covered Up - E. J. Dionne - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

What the 'Shield' Covered Up

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 1, 2005; Page A25

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/31/AR2005103101386.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051101/e3fae240/attachment.htm