2008 Woodie Awards
Leaks, lies, legitimacy, and the presidency
Kyle Drennen '07
Issue date: 9/15/06 Section: Commentary
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In June 2003, political commentator Robert Novak mentioned the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame in his syndicated column. The article was meant to address the claims of Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, about faulty intelligence information cited by the Bush Administration as a justification for going to war in Iraq. However, rather than simply furthering debate over the Iraq war, Novak's column sparked a firestorm in Washington and a witch-hunt for the person who leaked Plame's identity. Finally, three years later, the mystery has been solved.
As soon as the investigation began, many critics of the Bush Administration, in the Democratic Party and in some government agencies, immediately accused the White House of the leak. These critics claimed that President Bush and his top aides would do anything to silence the opposition. Soon, much of the media went along with this narrative, regardless of any solid evidence. The focus shifted from trying to discover who was responsible to speculating when top administration officials such as Karl Rove would be indicted.
Within the past few weeks, the person responsible for giving Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak has been revealed. Yet, do not expect Karl Rove or any other Bush Administration officials to be hauled off in handcuffs, because the person actually responsible for the leak, Richard Armitage, was appointed to his government position by the Clinton Administration. Armitage was appointed undersecretary of state by President Clinton and remained in the State Department into the early years of the Bush Administration. Armitage, a critic of the Bush Administration, claims that the leak was innocent and unintentional and that he was sworn to silence by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been leading the leak investigation.
Now that the truth has come out and the person responsible has been found, various media outlets should be apologizing to Karl Rove and calling for punishment of Armitage. However, the pages of The New York Times and the anchors on evening newscasts are strangely silent. How can one of the biggest stories of the past three years suddenly vanish at its climax? The answer is simple; it does not fit into the world view of Administration critics, both in the Democratic Party and the media.
As soon as the investigation began, many critics of the Bush Administration, in the Democratic Party and in some government agencies, immediately accused the White House of the leak. These critics claimed that President Bush and his top aides would do anything to silence the opposition. Soon, much of the media went along with this narrative, regardless of any solid evidence. The focus shifted from trying to discover who was responsible to speculating when top administration officials such as Karl Rove would be indicted.
Within the past few weeks, the person responsible for giving Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak has been revealed. Yet, do not expect Karl Rove or any other Bush Administration officials to be hauled off in handcuffs, because the person actually responsible for the leak, Richard Armitage, was appointed to his government position by the Clinton Administration. Armitage was appointed undersecretary of state by President Clinton and remained in the State Department into the early years of the Bush Administration. Armitage, a critic of the Bush Administration, claims that the leak was innocent and unintentional and that he was sworn to silence by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been leading the leak investigation.
Now that the truth has come out and the person responsible has been found, various media outlets should be apologizing to Karl Rove and calling for punishment of Armitage. However, the pages of The New York Times and the anchors on evening newscasts are strangely silent. How can one of the biggest stories of the past three years suddenly vanish at its climax? The answer is simple; it does not fit into the world view of Administration critics, both in the Democratic Party and the media.