The View from Right Field

Scooter Libby – and Special Prosecutors

One comment on the Scooter Libby situation, though it is more of a comment on the special prosecutor in Mr. Libby’s case and the concept of special prosecutors than on Mr. Libby. (For more comments on this, see Dorothy Rabinowitz’s article in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal here and Tom Maguire’s "Just One Minute" blog here.)

The problem with special prosecutors is that they are effectively unaccountable to anybody but themselves. Special prosecutors can all too easily result in what Lord Acton warned us about: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

For a country that prides itself on having a government of laws, not of men, special prosecutors are anomaly. One cannot but wonder whether the situations they are appointed to deal with are really bigger problems than the unfettered power of the special prosecutors themselves. Why is it inherent that a Scooter Libby allegedly lying to a grand jury is a bigger problem than a special prosecutor on a mission to do what he thinks is right, with no effective limits on him other than his own self-control?

Given some of the special prosecutors during President Clinton’s term, I would think Democrats would agree with this, though it appears that in the Libby case they have let politics trump principle. (Self-justifying note: I was opposed to the original special prosecutor statute that was passed after Watergate and think the country probably would have been better off without the special prosecutors investigating the Clintons.)

However, if we must have special prosecutors, we need to at least have an established procedure for appointing them, instead of doing it on an ad hoc basis, as was done with Patrick Fitzgerald. With a regular procedure for appointing special prosecutors, there is at least a chance we can establish some kind of institutional controls and limits on them. While it is not easy to do so (and may not be practically possible), it is even harder to effectively set limits if each special prosecutor gets his own rules, thrown together in a rush because of a need to act without time to think.

It appears there were no effective limits on Patrick Fitzgerald. Because of recusals in the Justice Department and the politics of the situation, Mr. Fitzgerald was given almost unfettered freedom to do whatever he wanted. Mr. Fitzgerald’s crusade to convict Scooter Libby, perhaps because of a view Mr. Fitzgerald has about anything that could be viewed as perjury, continued even though there was no underlying crime and even though Mr. Fitzgerald knew from the very beginning who told Robert Novak that Joseph Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA (which was the question he was originally appointed to investigate). It is perhaps a prime example of what can go wrong when a special prosecutor has no limits.

A final thought: One wonders how those Democrats cheering on Mr. Fitzgerald would have felt about him if he had taken his crusade against perjury to an investigation of some of the more interesting things Bill Clinton said under oath.

2008 Election

With the terrible things occurring at Walter Reed Army Hospital and the Scooter Libby verdict yesterday, both following on the notable lack of success so far in Iraq, it would appear the 2008 Presidential race is half over. Actually, what I mean is that the Republican half of the 2008 Presidential race is over. The Republican half is over because the Republican candidate, whoever he or she may be, has no chance of winning. It is just a matter of which Democrat will win – and what the Republicans can do to minimize their losses in the House and Senate. And the Senate will be tough because 21 Republicans are up for reelection in 2008, as opposed to just twelve Democrats.

The problem with the Libby verdict and the mess at Walter Reed is that they cut at the heart of whatever strength Bush has left. The Libby verdict will be portrayed as proof that Bush misled us into the Iraq war with lies about weapons of mass destruction. That is not true, either about the trial (which was not about WMD in Iraq) or Bush lying about Saddam Hussein having MWD (in the sense of saying Saddam had MWD when Bush knew he did not), but it will be portrayed as such, and the lack of success in Iraq will make the claim seem plausible.

But as bad as the Libby verdict is, the situation at Walter Reed is worse. The last strength Bush had was that he really cared about the troops. Most Democrats do, too, but too many Democrats see support for the troops as a public relations ploy to be manipulated to get us out of Iraq (see here and here). But now, even that is gone. The Bush Administration will be seen, maybe appropriately, as failing the wounded troops, those who need our help and support the most.

It is hard to believe how bad George Bush has done. It is even harder to believe that the voters will let another Republican have a chance in 2008.

And that is too bad because it is going to give the Democrats a real chance, starting in 2009, to do what they want to do – which will not be good for the country. It is also too bad because there will be some good Republicans who are going to lose in 2008 for reasons totally outside of their control.

Finally, perhaps most importantly, it is too bad for the people of Iraq. It has taken Bush far too long to come up with the proper strategy in Iraq. Now that he has finally found it (in General Petraeus and the surge; see here), all of his other mistakes are going to reduce the chance this new strategy will have the time and support it needs in and from the United States to work. This may ultimately be Bush’s biggest failure; i.e., failing the people of Iraq and our troops who fought there by not getting it right until it was too late.

Iraq, Uranium and Valerie Plame: Why Can’t the Media At Least Get the Facts Right?

The media seems to have a problem getting the facts and Iraq and Valerie Plame correct. For example, let me mention a few of the mistakes in Stephen Hedges’ article in the Chicago Tribune of Saturday, September 9, 2006, "Report rejects prewar link of Iraq, Al Qaeda," about the Senate report on the Bush Administration’s use of intelligence before the Iraq invasion.

First, Mr. Hedges says that, even though President Bush mentioned an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger in his 2003 State of the Union address, the Senate report concludes there was no Iraqi-Niger uranium connection. While I do not know exactly what the Senate report says, what President Bush said was this: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." And this was true. That is what the British told us. A British investigation in 2004 chaired by Lord Butler found this was true, as did a US Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that same year. (See, inter alia, William Safire, "Sixteen Truthful Words," The New York Times, July 19, 2004, and "Saddam, Uranium and Africa," The Wall Street Journal, July 15, 2004.)

Second, in talking about Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into who revealed the name of Valerie Plame, Mr. Hedges says it is a felony to disclose the name of an undercover CIA operative. Actually, what the law provides is that it is a crime to "intentionally disclose any information identifying [a] covert agent …, knowing that … United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States". The law defines "covert agent" as an "employee of an intelligence agency … who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States".

In other words, it is not just a matter of being undercover. The United States has to be taking affirmative actions to conceal the agent’s relationship with the US and the agent has to have served overseas in the prior five years. That is a big difference from what Mr. Hedges said and, given that, among other things, Ms. Plame apparently had not served overseas since 1997 (according to Joe Wilson’s own book), makes it unclear whether Ms. Plame was a "covert agent" or whether there was a violation of the law. (Re Ms. Plane’s having not been overseas since 1997, see inter alia, Mark Memmott, "CIA ‘outing’ might fall short of crime," USA Today, July 14, 2005.)

Third, while Mr. Hedges mentions that Scooter Libby was indicted, he fails to mention that nobody has been charged with the crime Mr. Fitzgerald was originally authorized to investigate.

I know some of this is complicated, but that is no reason not to get it right.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame: Three Questions

1. With the publication of his op-ed article in The New York Times in July 2003, Joseph Wilson became a "partisan gunslinger." So what was wrong with the Bush Administration attacking him?

2. The director of the CIA told Bush it was a "slam dunk" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Valerie Plame worked in the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division. So, when Joseph Wilson said he told the CIA that Saddam Hussein was not trying to buy uranium from Niger, was he trying to tell the truth about the Bush Administration? Or was he just trying to shield his wife and her employer against charges of incompetence by shifting the blame for being wrong* about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction to the Bush Administration from the people in the CIA whose job it was to know whether Iraq had them or not?

3. Given that (i) Valerie Plame at least suggested her husband for the trip to Niger, (ii) Joseph Wilson tried to claim in his New York Times op-ed article that it was all Bush’s fault, (iii) Wilson’s wife worked in the CIA, and (iv) there were/are a large number of people in the CIA who opposed/oppose the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq, why wasn’t it relevant who Wilson’s wife was?

--------------

* Iraq actually did have weapons of mass destruction. See here. However, it does appear that they were not as numerous or current as everybody thought in 2002/2003.

CIA Versus Bush

While Tom McGuire at JustOneMinute has done a great job of covering the story, I want to make a comment on a most incredible letter that The New York Times published last Saturday. The letter was from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. It was addressed to President Bush and dated May 18, 2006.

The article in the Times focused, of course, on that part of the letter in which Representative Hoekstra complained the Bush Administration had not kept the House and Senate Intelligence Committees briefed on certain activities. Obviously, this is what the Times would highlight: Even Republicans are claiming the Bush Administration is not informing Congress and may be violating the law.

However, that was not the most interesting part of the letter. The most interesting, and the scariest, part of the letter is this:

"First, I am concerned that the nominations for Director and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency signal a retreat from needed reforms of the Agency. … [T]he choice for Deputy Director, Steve Kappes, is more troubling, both on a substantive and personal level. …

There has been much public and private speculation about the politicization of the Agency. … In fact, I have been long concerned that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plane events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets. I have come to the belief that, despite his service to the DO [Directorate of Operations], Mr. Kappes may have been part of this group."

Before continuing, please read those excerpts again. This is incredible. Rep. Hoekstra is saying that there is a sizeable group within the CIA that is working to intentionally undermine the President. A rogue group in the CIA is trying to make the President’s policies, trying to make our country’s policies, fail.

Also, note the reference to Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. It almost seems as if Rep. Hoekstra is saying the Wilson/Plame incident, if not a total set-up to get the President, was part of the effort to undermine the Bush Administration. In other words, Joe Wilson and his column in the Times was not a matter of an outraged citizen voicing his concerns. It was, instead, part of an organized effort within the CIA to undercut the President’s policies.

While not quite Seven Days in May, this is a very troubling situation. But the mainstream media has ignored it. The Times mentioned this part of the letter only in passing and did not elaborate on it. The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune did not even mention Rep. Hoekstra’s concerns, except to say he complained about the appointment of Steve Kappes. (I give credit to the Times for posting a copy of the letter on its website so people could read it themselves.)

Also, note what Rep. Hoekstra says about the choice of Mr. Kappes as new Deputy Director of the CIA. Rep. Hoekstra clearly fears that Mr. Kappes may have been part of the rogue group. If this is true, does Kappes’ appointment signal that President Bush is giving in and the rogue group has won? If this is so, it means an organized opposition in the CIA, with the help, whether witting or not, of the mainstream media and others, has been able to successfully undermine some of the most important policies of an elected President of the United States.

Obviously, we do not know what happened (and what still may be happening) here, but Rep. Hoekstra has raised some very important questions. Unfortunately, with the mainstream media seemingly only interested in things that can "get" President Bush, it is depressingly possible, in fact, probable, we may never really know whether an organized opposition within the CIA has been working against the President of the United States and his policies – and has won.

Wilson and Plame Considering Lawsuit

The New York Times reported today that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame's lawyer said, in response to the news Karl Rove would not be indicted by the special prosecutor, that the Wilsons were considering a civil lawsuit against him. "The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."

The Wilsons may want to be careful. The only thing Alger Hiss ever went to jail for was perjury, the evidence with respect to which came out during an unsuccessful civil suit Hiss brought against Whittaker Chambers for slander.

[Revised: June 14, 2006, 1:35 p.m.]