|
7.17.05 Grooming the goat by Jon Worley So Karl Rove, the Prez's main political advisor, and Lewis Libby, the Vice-Prez's chief of staff, were among those (apparently, there were more) administration officials who "outed" CIA agent Valerie Plame. Now that this news is public, of course, plenty of Republican types are now saying that Plame was already "known" as a CIA agent, and thus identifying her as such wasn't wrong, never mind illegal. In other words: legal, smeagol. I love it how the supposed law and order party will crucify opponents who even hint at using a technicality but are more than willing to exploit every loophole themselves. But in this case, the law concerning the public burning of agents is so weird that even if Karl Rove had taken out twenty billboards along the Beltway saying "Valerie Plame Wilson is a spook," chances are he still wouldn't face any charges. Nonetheless, the Prez has to fire someone. He promised he would, and he didn't leave himself any real wiggle room. I don't think some lame "Well, since no crime was committed, my previous statement on the matter has now been rendered moot" will do. And it does appear that a goat is being readied for the slaughter. On "Face the Nation" this morning, House Whip Roy Blunt (who has been known to speak for the White House on occasion) said that presidential spokesmen "need to be very thoughtful about what they say and be sure that their credibility is sustained." Yes, it would appear that Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, will be the only person fired (or forced to resign, which is about the same thing) over this whole affair. Rove and Libby (and the as-yet unnamed others) did the dirty work and then lied about it afterwards--to McClellan and many others--but it's the spokesman who has to go. To be fair, McClellan did commit the cardinal sin of proclaiming administration innocence on many occasions. He then compounded his error by saying he had spoken to Rove, Libby and others personally and been assured that they had nothing to do with the Plame affair. A spokesman should never, ever believe the word of anyone who is under any form of suspicion. Any student of the Clinton years knows that a spokesperson is best served by maintaining a "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil" stance. This is not only important for retaining personal credibility, but also for giving your bosses wiggle room. By saying on the record that Rove and Libby denied involvement, he set them up to look like liars. I personally don't care if Rove, Libby or McClellan are fired. Rove can serve as a personal advisor to the Prez whether or not he has a government salary. Same goes for Libby and the Vice-Prez. And spokespeople are a dime a dozen. It's criminally easy to find some flack to stand up in front of the press and tell lies with a straight face. But the handling of this affair speaks volumes for the morality of this administration. If McClellan is the only casualty of the Plame affair, it tells us that the Prez has is no better than the corporate CEO who fires a whistleblower for telling an unpopular truth. In this case, McClellan repeated what turned out to be a lie, but he had no way of knowing that at the time. I think he probably ought to go, though not because of his putting Rove and Libby and others on the record. Rather, he should leave for the obvious reason that no self-respecting journalist will believe a word he says. Of course, at this point I don't know why any self-respecting journalist would believe anything any spokesperson for this White House might say. These folks don't believe in the truth unless the truth serves their purposes. That's the moral vacuum in the Bush Administration. It has been apparent since well before 9/11, and the lies and half-truths spoken during the run-up to the Iraq War only added to an existing problem. This administration doesn't want to do what's best for the American people. It wants to make the American people believe that anything the White House does is, in fact, best for them. This is not the same thing at all. Yes, all presidents engage in this sort of behavior from time to time (LBJ was legendary in his disregard for fact or compromise), but there hasn't been an administration with such cavalier regard for the real needs of the people since Harding. Even the Reagan administration occasionally got down off its ideological horse when confronted with the truth. I don't believe the Prez would recognize the truth if God itself burned the truth into the Washington Monument. Does that sound partisan? Cynical, maybe, but not partisan. The old cliche is that politics is the art of compromise. Some folks say that with admiration, others with contempt. But the simple fact is that our government cannot function properly if the people in charge are more concerned with their own interests than the interests of the American people. And the folks in the White House seem more intent on remaking America in their own image than in making the government work for the vast majority of Americans. We're talking about perversion on a grand scale. Reducing the give and take of governing to a zero-sum game makes all of us losers. And I'm not willing to accept that. Some might wonder why I'm expending all this angst over the potential fate of some flunky spokesman. I'm not. Until recently, I've been able to generally ignore the grotesque that is the Bush Administration--"this, too, shall pass" and all that--but not anymore. I think it's high time these folks were unmasked as the most immoral, most craven bunch of crooks to inhabit the White House in nearly a century. I don't know if that will really do any good or not; these days, even my confidence in the general public has been seriously shaken. But I want these bastards bad. Take 'em out back and shoot 'em. No. That would let them off the hook, make them martyrs for some godforsaken neoconservative wet dream. We need to expose the truth, and let the jerks be burned by their own deeds. I don't think that all crooks, especially rich ones, get their comeuppance. But a man can dream.
|