Questions for Republicans

In researching Valerie Plame’s history with the CIA and the details surrounding Plamegate, I have read some very well-researched and thought-out articles arguing both sides.

Republican spin, from the White House on down has been one take after another: First was that the White House knew nothing about the leak, or the leaker, according to Bush in September, 2003, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of..." Second was that Plame really was of no consequence, that she was not in fact under cover, but instead “a desk-jockey” ergo; what does it matter that her identity was leaked to the public? Third was that the entire incident was actually centered on Joseph Wilson and his obvious attempt to smear and discredit a president and administration he openly spoke out against.

The next line of spin came after the grand jury inquisition was begun and people were called in to testify (Bush was called in, and he did submit to questioning, however, not under oath and with his lawyer at his side). Then, the spin was to move focus off of Cheney and Bush and onto Rove and Libby; it was really them who were responsible. Then the subtle shift was off of Rove and entirely onto Libby. Finally, when Libby was indicted, the spin was, incredibly, So what? It’s just an indictment; Libby has not been convicted of anything. Further, it was added that Plame was still inconsequential because she really was a nobody within the CIA.

Now that it has come out that Bush and Cheney were responsible for the leak, the defense is that they had the authority to do so.

If Republican pundits discuss the current situation of Plamegate at all, it is along the last point that they focus their attention. However, there are a couple of things I would like to know from those same pundits:

1) Regardless of the legality of having leaked Plame’s name deliberately, why didn’t Bush et al admit at the outset that they had done this? If in fact, they do have the legal right to do so, and if in fact that they did so not to punish Wilson and Plame, but to help clarify their case, why not come out the moment this story broke, defuse it and cop to it?


President Clinton was and is still, derided for his handling of the Monica Lewinsky affair. One of his greatest atrocities was that he “allowed” the Ken Starr investigation to drag on, doing his best to stonewall and hold-up the investigation, which, in the end, resulted in his being convicted of perjury. Now on this, I find myself along side those pundits. Regardless of the fact that Clinton now claims that he understood the Starr investigation for what it was; a concerted, politically partisan-driven attack on him and his presidency, and that he was fighting them off, tooth and nail, I have believed that Clinton fell right into the trap laid out by the Republicans by allowing them to politicize the issue and then turn it around on him. He should have been a man about it, and not allowed the Republicans to make a circus show out of the investigation by announcing publicly that he did have that affair, that he was sorry, but that this was not a political issue but one that was, in reality, a personal one between he and his wife.

2) Why do it at all?

What exactly is the point of outing Plame to the American press? Precisely how does that help their purported ultimate goal; the safety of the United States through a war on terror? Research I have done overwhelmingly agrees on two things: Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA who was actively running a covert investigation into the creation and trafficking of nuclear materials, technology and weapons. In fact, according to one source, it was Plame who was focusing most of her efforts and that of her investigation into Iran’s search for nuclear capability. Since she has been outed Iran has not only stepped-up its quest for nuclear capability, but they have made significant steps towards building nuclear weapons.

I find the Republican outrage over the leaking of information involving covert CIA and US military operations involving suspected terrorists or enemy combatants, along with the same outrage over the leaking of the Bush administration’s massive spy program, arguing that these are major blows to America’s war on terror and that the people responsible need to be rooted out and exposed as the traitors they are, just slightly disingenuous when compared to their silence regarding the deliberate outing of an undercover CIA agent and the covert operation whose actions were part of the war on terror.

I find the Republican defense of Bush and Cheney of their decision to not come forward immediately and reveal all that they knew regarding the incident, nearly three years ago, before a grand jury was convened, before everyone gave their testimony, before Libby was indicted and before this information became public utterly at odds with everything pundits such as Hannity and Limbaugh rail about everyday regarding the Republican party and Republicans in general as being morally and ethically better and more honest than Democrats. Republicans are part of the responsible party, the party of values, of the American way of life. In their argument for this position, they hold up as Exhibit A, Clinton and the Lewinsky affair. And yet, while, I believe, that lying about having an extra-marital affair with a consenting adult pales in comparison to what Bush and Cheney did, these two incidents are similar on one point only; both presidents knew of the problem because they were the source of the problem and both presidents did their best to thwart an investigation into the incident, including lying about the incident.

Clinton was eventually charged with perjury and he did apologize for the incident. It can be argued that he received nothing more than a slap on the wrist and that his apology was not sincere anyway. However, that is in the past, and unless Republicans want to see a repeat of the circus show and expenditure of more American tax dollars on another grand jury, they should not waste their moment in the light, as Clinton did before, and admit to the thing. They may not admit to its being right or wrong, morally or politically, but the least they can do to save their reputation is to fess up.

I doubt seriously that they will. They will instead fight to the bitter end, never admitting defeat or guilt unless it is literally dragged out of them. This, believe the Republicans, is their strength. Their great unity in the face of adversity, witness Bush’s refusal to do anything others want him to do, and it is this that binds them to the American public through the essence of the American spirit.

However, I believe that it will be this strategy which may result in their downfall in the 2006 election, and if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, I think we may see a split amongst Republicans, with some re-forming into one which more closely aligns itself with what are known to be the true Conservative ideology.