Not political, but moral

I may be the last blogger with an American passport who has not yet written about the Rove/Plame saga. Put it down to my being new to blogging. I didn't know the club rules. Allow me to correct this situation. First, however, just in case you don't find the ins and outs of Washington DC worthy of daily obsession, let me catch you up on the skinny. The need to do this may sound absurd to some of you, but folks in France, China, Australia and elsewhere read this blog, and, believe it or not, they might not watch CNN. 1. A couple of years ago, in the run-up to the Iraq war, the name of an undercover CIA officer, Valerie Plame, was leaked to the press, blowing her cover, functionally ending her career and, theoretically, compromising national security. 2. The US Department of Justice began an investigation of the leak, because of the possiblity it was a criminal act. The investigation into the source pretty quickly pointed in the direction of the White House. 3. The White House made public statements about the "outing" to the effect that it was a serious breach, and that it was being taken, uh, seriously. The President even said he would fire anyone involved. 4. Recently, after two years of investigation, and as the Grand Jury seems on the verge of indicting someone, it has become clear that two of the White House's most senior staffers *are* involved: Karl Rove, the President's Political Director, and "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney. More may be implicated. In addition to these events, there are some notable side-shows to the story. And some of them are good'uns. For example, one New York Times journalist has gone to jail for protecting her sources. A second journo, from Time magazine, came thiiiiiiiiiis close. Much is also being made of the very specific wording of the laws that may or may not have been broken by the leakers, and what exactly classifies as "under cover". Attention is also being lavished on the CIA agent's husband. A few weeks before the leak, he published an op-ed piece in the NY Times that publically embarrassed the White House. In it, he credibly disputed President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to procure uranium in Africa for nuclear weapons. The "outing" of his wife as a CIA operative is generally accepted to have been political pay-back. (You can read the original op-ed piece HERE.) There are myriad details about these side-shows. Make no mistake, however. The stories about the journos and the husband -- stories on which thousands of column inches and hours of airtime have been spent -- are mere sub-plots, regardless of how intriguing. What's not in dispute is that the identity of a covert CIA Officer was leaked directly to the press and senior members of the White House did the leaking. Only microscopically less certain is that the reason for the leak was political retribution. Follow me for a moment back to my philosophy classes at university. This lesson about the two foundations of moral legitimacy stuck with me. First, you must adhere to a moral code that others respect, even if they do not take it as their own. For example, people may or may not, themselves, follow the Ten Commandments, but they can respect it as your code of conduct. Second, you must be consistent in your adherence to it. If you covet your neighbor's wife every now and again, your moral credibility takes a hit. That's why we blast philandering televangelists. We may or may not respect their code; what we take them down for is not following it. We call it hypocrisy. I take a turn away from a lot of the folks with whom I sympathize, politically, in refusing to think the Bush administration is evil. It's easy to be vehemently anti-Bush. I often am. It's less easy to cut through the spin, and see where they're trying to go, and understand why. They're incredibly skillful politicians with whom I usually disagree, but peel away all the rhetoric and I think they want something quite defensible: they want America to be great. Quite frankly, I want that, too. I have a different definition of greatness than they do, and different ideas about how to go about pursuing it. So, them and me, we have different moral codes. That leaves me to look through what they do and search for some internal consistency I can respect. There are ways of framing almost any issue so that reasonable people might respectfully disagree. Usually, behind the cynical communication tricks and crafty talking points, I find some internal consistency in administration positions, even if I think it's thin. Sometimes not. So far, out of all the lamentable things the Bush administration has done that I think should get them thrown out on their collective ear, three make my hit parade of absolute indefensibility. The first was to make war on false pretenses, sending American troops to their deaths, and killing thousands of Iraqis. The second was to imprison people at Guantanamo Bay, indefinitely, without charge or trial, and in violation not only of the Geneva Convention but of all the notions of justice on which the United States has defined itself for more than 200 years. The third will sound small by comparison, and in many ways it is. It is this CIA leak scandal. It has not caused thousands of sons and daughters never to return to their families. It has not imprisoned or tortured anyone. So, why is it such a big deal? The first two, in addition to the human suffering they've caused, have robbed the US of international legitimacy in the eyes of people the world over. The third has removed this administration's moral legitimacy as the steward of American government. As someone who, deep down, is still a patriotic American, I feel ashamed, angry and betrayed. No great fan of the CIA, I nevertheless recognize it is a bulwark of US national security. International intelligence is a necessity; that much of it must be gathered clandestinely is obvious. In warfare, for centuries, information has been more powerful than armies. Compromising the intelligence machinery of a nation is to compromise its ability to defend itself. If we did not think the CIA were indispensible, why would we have heaped so much dismay upon its failures surrounding 9/11? We *expect* it to be indispensible. So, we should be angered when we find that our secrets have been compromised by foreign spies. When our networks have been infiltrated. When our safety has been put at risk by information going where it shouldn't. How, then, should we feel, when we find that our secrets are being betrayed by a high official of our own government? How about betrayed? How about really fucking angry? Wouldn't we call a Chinese, North Korean or Iranian agent who passed the name of an undercover CIA agent to their governments a spy? Everyone has known for a long time that Karl Rove is a nasty piece of work. Combined with his brilliance, his willingness to play incredibly dirty is why he's so valuable. During W's first run at the Presidency, it was Rove who quiestioned John McCain's credibility as a war hero (good practice for later, it turned out), at the same time as he spread rumours that McCain's wife was mentally unstable. W's nickname for Rove is Turdblossom, 'cause he can make any pile of nasty political shit come up roses. I am not making this up. But being a nasty, underhanded political hatchet man is acceptable, even if reprehensible. You can make a very good living at it and get invited to the best cocktail parties. People will talk about how ruthless you are, and mean it as a kind of compliment. Here's what's not acceptable: doing something that, if done by our enemies, we would call treason and attach a death sentence. Let's put this in perspective. If we had a spy in Berlin during World War II, and someone revealed his name to the press, what do you think would have happened? To put a finer point on it, if Franklin D Roosevelt had found out one of his staffers was leaking names of intelligence agents to the press, how long do you think it would have taken to find out who it was? And how long thereafter to fire his ass? And how long after that to throw him in jail? So, here we are. Someone in the White House blew the cover of a CIA agent. It appears to have been done as petty political pay-back. It is clear that one of President Bush's closest, most powerful advisors, one of the most feared men in Washington, was one of the leakers who talked directly to reporters. This is an administration that has clothed itself in national security issues, passed the Patriot Act to make sure it would know all its citizens' secrets. This is an administration that has constantly reminded us that "we are at war". It has worn American-flag lapel pins, and has accused anyone who disagrees with it of being "against our troops" or "for the terrorists". Meanwhile, at the very top, this administration took one of "our troops" and hung her out to dry. Then lied about it. Then dragged its feet for two years. Then, when cornered, invested huge amounts of energy in a campaign to discredit every actor but itself, to split hairs of the law, and to backtrack on its own moral code. President Bush and his press secretary are now stonewalling the press, saying they will not comment on an on-going investigation. That's a change. Not long back, before Rove's and Libby's involvement became clear, they commented plenty on the on-going investigation to call such suggestions ridiculous. Not to mention that promise to fire anyone in the White House who was involved. I am angered by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby's actions. I have always been angered by the politics of smear, from any side. But this time, the immorality goes beyond destroying a political opponent. It is not just a betrayal of decency. It is a betrayal of America. That the Bush White House is trying to protect its moles only embraces betrayal as administration policy. President Bush: By dragging your heals for two years and by not firing Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, today, your moral legitimacy as America's leader is shot. You are apparently more loyal to your friends than you are to your principles, to the Office of the President, and, most importantly, to the American people and our proud history. You make me feel ashamed. I have never agreed with your moral code. Now, you're showing yourself not to hold yourself even to that. To the degree that you want to make America great, you are a mortal injury to your cause. You are betraying the principles that make America's greatness possible. * * * * * * * One last, more lighthearted note: No one has mentioned what a victory for women's rights the Plame case is. A female CIA officer, and no-one is talking about how notable it is that she's a woman. All right! We're finally getting it, people!