Fitzgerald: Rove won't be charged
Karl Rove will not be charged in the CIA leak case. [Washington Post] This doesn't really surprise me that much, given the complexity of the case, and the fact that Scooter Libby's indictments were not for the actual leak, but for subsequent offenses: perjury, making false statements, and obstruction of justice. Moreover, while this is definitely a legal victory for Rove, I don't know that the White House gains that much from the news. The White House's efforts to discredit Wilson - which were revealed in the course of the investigation, regardless of who else is indicted - were part of its unconscionable campaign to deceive the American people about Iraq.
More specifically, the attack against Wilson is just one of many examples of the Bush administration quashing dissent instead of learning from it. What if, instead of filing Joseph Wilson's report away, the Bush administration had listened to the former diplomat when he reported that Iraq had not purchased yellowcake from Niger? What if they had listened to Colin Powell when he warned them that the "Pottery Barn rule" would apply to Iraq ("If you break it, you own it")? [CBS News]
What if they had listened to former President George H. W. Bush? Here is an excerpt from 41's book "A World Transformed":
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." [Global Security]
"The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game" [FactCheck.org]
More specifically, the attack against Wilson is just one of many examples of the Bush administration quashing dissent instead of learning from it. What if, instead of filing Joseph Wilson's report away, the Bush administration had listened to the former diplomat when he reported that Iraq had not purchased yellowcake from Niger? What if they had listened to Colin Powell when he warned them that the "Pottery Barn rule" would apply to Iraq ("If you break it, you own it")? [CBS News]
What if they had listened to former President George H. W. Bush? Here is an excerpt from 41's book "A World Transformed":
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." [Global Security]
"The Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame Game" [FactCheck.org]
posted at 9:48:00 PM | permalink
<< Home