[Previous entry: "An Open Letter to Bill Weissinger"] [Next entry: "Mr. Meyer's Response Needed A Response."]

08/08/2005: "On The Karl Rove-Plame-Wilson-Bush Lied, People Died matter"

May I impose upon your patience for a further comment on this running controversy about the Karl Rove-Plame-Wilson-Bush Lied, People Died matter?

The Weissinger column ( Stranger in a Strange Land) and Meyer's response ( Meyer's Guest Editorial ) seemed to me to set out the matter quite clearly. Weissinger in a well-written argument nevertheless assumed certain things that are not (or at least not yet) in evidence: namely, that there was no attempt by Iraq to buy yellow cake from Niiger, that President Bush knew this, and yet President Bush deliberately used false information in order to push our country into war. We do not know that there was no such attempt by Iraq; British intelligence believed that there was, and still believes that there was. President Bush said simply that British intelligence believed that there was such an attempt. Ambassador Wilson, after his brief visit to Niger, reported orally that he could find no evidence of such an attempt. President Bush apparently chose to believe British intelligence. There the matter stood, or should have stood. Then the Plame "outing." Mr. Wilson (whose service in Teheran in 1979 was admirable) went very public in media accusations and in his book, charging that his wife had been victimized by Karl Rove and her life put in danger because of White House dissatisfaction with Wilson's mission to Niger, a mission for which he had apparently been recommended by his wife, Valerie Plame, who worked for the CIA. In other words, Wilson argued that an act of simple Washington revenge broke a law which criminalized revealing the names of US intelligence personnel operating "under cover." A great deal of ink and breath has been wasted in trying to determine whether Valerie Plame was in fact an "undercover agent." It appears simply that she had been, was not now, and had not been so for six years But all these matters are under investigation in a grand jury probe--we do not at this moment know for certain that Mrs. Wilson was currently an undercover agent or had been recently enough to be covered by the law; we do not know whether Karl Rove or some other White House staffer leaked her name, or whether her name came from an entirely different source. What witnesses choose to say outside the grand jury room is not sworn evidence--there is considerable contradiction in these reports. Mr. Fitzgerald after a stringent investigation will undoubtedly clear these matters up.

In all the above, nothing really decisive as to fact. All is in the interpretation. Those who believe that "Bush Lied, People Died" will apparently continue to believe whether the evidence supports this or not. Mr. Meyer carefully answers Mr. Weissinger's argument point-by-point in a letter which is deliberately couched in irony, is humorous in tone, and, pace. Mr. Harrington, (Harrington Letter) does not in fact "call names" at all; the "creep" referred to is not Mr. Weissinger per se, but the presumed filcher of Mr. Weissinger's identity in Meyer's rhetorical device.. Mr. Meyer is saying simply "Bill, you can do better than this." Mr. Harrington, in his objection to Mr. Meyer's "name-calling," must be referring to the description of Mr. Wilson as a "party animal"--perhaps a little over the top, but since Mr. Wilson's own report narrated a nearly endless round of parties in Niger, not entirely unjustified.

What is remarkable in both Mr. Weissinger's and Mr. Harrington's arguments is the ASSUMPTION of fact and guilt. It is rather like Howard Dean's demand that Tom Delay go back to Texas and "serve his term," skipping further indictment, trial, and conviction. Mr. Harrington dismisses Mr. Meyer's arguments as "GOP talking-points." Do not the arguments of Mr. Weissinger and Mr. Harrington parallel more or less exactly the "talking points" of the Democratic National Committee and Moveon.org ? One should not be surprised. And yet, I have sufficient respect for both their letters that I am quite willing to believe that the positions set forth are those arrived at independently by intelligent people, and are not simply mindless parroting of party talking points. Could not Mr. Harrington extend the same courtesy to Mr. Meyer?

And I am bemused by Mr. Harrington's fear that the San Juans have been invaded by GOP talking points. I am aware that the San Juan are famously a "nuclear-free zone," but isn't it a bit much to expect that they should also be a zone free of political opinion with which one disagrees?

As a conservative, I was, during the Clinton years, frequently embarrassed by the stridency and fervor of some of my fellow conservatives in their determination to "get" President Clinton. I believed that this was not only harmful to our country but also to conservative causes. Not without reason a commentator labeled this passion the CDS, or "Clinton Derangement Syndrome." In more recent years, left-and-liberal Americans have succumbed to another version of this psychosis, which might be called BDS. I hope that my fellow islanders are not among the victims.

Donald C. Baker
Friday Harbor

(Mr. Baker is a retired professor
of English & linguistics
from the University of Colorado)