A Leak, a War, and it's Consequences

It's become clear that the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name has not only unveiled the means by which those in the Bush administration tried to punish and discredit Joseph Wilson, but has also recast the spotlight on the means by which the administration sold the war to the public. More specifically, the focus on I. Lewis Libby and his role in the Plame leak has shifted the focus back again to Cheney's role in helping to bring about the invasion. Newsweek explores the connection in an article in this week's edition:

"When Bush was elected in 2000, Cheney—who had been impressed with Libby's political savvy and mastery of detail—tapped him as his No. 2. Libby was perhaps the group's most relentless digger. An intense former litigator, he acted as a conduit for Cheney's obsessions. Soon after 9/11, Libby began routinely calling intelligence officials, high and low, to pump them for any scraps of information on Iraq. He would read obscure, unvetted intelligence reports and grill analysts about them, but always in a courtly manner. The intel officials were often more than a little surprised. It was unusual for the vice president's office to step so far outside of channels and make personal appeals to mere analysts. "He was deep into the raw intel," says one government official who didn't want to be named for fear of retribution. (Cheney's office declined to comment on specific questions for this story, beyond saying that the vice president and his staff are cooperating with Fitzgerald's probe.)"

Libby then, was the conduit for Cheney's intense effort to directly link not only the 9/11 attacks, but the threat of nuclear attack, with Saddam Hussein. And it is Libby, along with Karl Rove, who has become a central figure in the investigation into who leaked Plame's name to the press.

This focus on Libby, and Cheney, has yet again lead to questions over the essential justification for the invasion. Given that nearly everything the administration told us about Iraq has proven to be wrong, why exactly did we go to war? Frank Rich at the NY Times gives us what he thinks is the answer in this column in the Sunday edition(available to subscribers only). For Rich, it is a convenient nexus of the strategic desires of the neo-conservatives , and the political needs of President Bush, recognized and engineered by Karl Rove.

"For Mr. Rove and Mr. Bush to get what they wanted most, slam-dunk midterm election victories, and for Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney to get what they wanted most, a war in Iraq for reasons predating 9/11, their real whys for going to war had to be replaced by fictional, more salable ones. We wouldn't be invading Iraq to further Rovian domestic politics or neocon ideology; we'd be doing so instead because there was a direct connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda and because Saddam was on the verge of attacking America with nuclear weapons. The facts and intelligence had to be fixed to create these whys; any contradictory evidence had to be dismissed or suppressed."

In other words, the neo-cons need war in Iraq to "transform" the Middle East. Bush needed war in Iraq to secure a second term. And they couldn't get it without resorting to the deceptions that we are all too familiar with today, deceptions that were so crucial to the war effort that some in the administration would go so far as to out an undercover CIA agent in an effort to intimidate and silence a vocal critic.

Is it really possible that someone could help to bring about a war simply because it could benefit his boss politically? Of course it is. Men in power have know for thousands of years that war will solidify their leadership, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. I doubt Rove woke up one morning and said "We need a good war, and our soldiers be damned." But I'm sure he recognized an opportunity when he saw it, as the neocons made their case for war. Rove certainly wouldn't oppose them. Far from it...rather, he would utilize them, and make the political moves necessary to see that the war came about.

It's true that, were the election next month instead of a year ago, Bush would almost certainly go down in defeat. The American people's patience for the war is running dry, after the exposure of the hollowness of one claim after another for the war, as the suicide bombings continue unabated, as the insurgency appears to grow stronger by the month, and as the litany of the mistakes made after the invasion grows ever longer. But is there any doubt that the initial success contributed mightily to Bush's image as the protector of America? Not in my mind.

Had the Bush administration planned competently for after the war, we wouldn't be as worried about the deceptions that took us to war. In fact I still remember the conversations going on shortly after the war, when in fact it did appear to be an incredible success, when the debate among those on the left was to what degree the deceptions should go unchallenged given how well the invasion went. But those deceptions which took us to war, and the arrogance behind them, are the direct cause of the failure to adequately plan for after the war. And that failure to plan has contributed largely to the post-war chaos Iraq is currently mired in.

What we do about Iraq now, is a separate issue from what it took to get us in Iraq in the first place. That does not mean the latter is a dead issue. Understanding the deceit that took us to war, is the only hope we have of preventing it from happening again, under this or any other president. And if there is any justice in the world, the men most responsible for this war will suffer for their arrogance, their lies, and their willingness to earn political capital with the blood of others.