We may soon know who outed Valerie Plame, and a lot of signs point to Karl Rove. If this turns out to be the case, it will be explosive to say the least. Whichever high administration officials turn out to be the culprits, it's appalling that the Bush White House first betrayed a loyal CIA career official in order to punish her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, for having told the truth and embarrassing the administration, and then conspired in a cover-up.
The back story: Readers will recall that columnist Robert Novak published Plame's identity, citing two high administration officials as his sources. Plame's husband, Wilson, had undertaken a secret mission at the request of the CIA to investigate what proved to be a fake story about the government of Niger providing nuclear material to Saddam Hussein. The Niger story figured prominently in President Bush's justification for war and his disparagement of UN weapons inspectors, even though it had already been disproven by Wilson's mission. Wilson, now retired, was so appalled at the administration's misuse of a discredited story that he subsequently went public with his information.
The administration's leak to Novak, outing Plame, was part of a clumsy campaign to discredit and punish Wilson. The administration line was that Plame supposedly suggested Wilson for the Niger assignment, though that allegation has never been confirmed.
It is a felony for a public official to expose the identity of a CIA agent. After Novak's column was published, Democrats in Congress demanded and got the administration to name a special counsel to investigate the leak. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. His deputy named Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, widely regarded as a non-partisan prosecutor of high integrity.
Right now, attention is focussed on the jailing of New York Times reporter Judy Miller. I have been very skeptical of this prosecution. Why has it taken so long, since the offending leak to Robert Novak came a full two years ago? Why did it drag on until after Bush was safely reelected? Why were two other reporters, rather than Novak, threatened with jail?
My own surmise was that it was doubtful that the White House, given the stakes, would have permitted a truly independent prosecutor to follow his own conscience and follow leads no matter where they went. Someone was covering up, and going after the press rather than the real culprits.
Recent events suggest that I was wrong. Fitzgerald, remarkably enough, seems to be playing it straight (and even more impressively, unlike special prosecutor Ken Starr, there are no leaks from Fitzgerald's own office). The people covering up are George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and company. If Bush had wanted to get to the bottom of this, as he pretended, he simply could have directed the leakers to fess up.
But what about Novak?. Couldn't he have just resolved the whole matter by telling the prosecutor and grand jury who leaked Plame's identity to him? The circumstantial evidence is that Novak cooperated with the prosecutor, appeared before the grand jury, and divulged the names of his sources. Otherwise, he would be in jail with Judy Miller.
So why didn't the matter just end there?
One likely possibility is that the suspect leaker or leakers have already testified before the grand jury, and shaded the truth. If so, they could be prosecuted for perjury. In order to indict them, either for violating the law prohibiting officials from disclosing a CIA agent's identity, or for perjury or obstruction of justice, the prosecutors would need corroborating witnesses. The standard for conviction under the CIA statute is high, and the administration spin is that Plame was not really under cover so she was not covered by the CIA statute. It would be a bit easier to win a conviction for perjury or obstruction, given corroboration.
There are only two categories of such witnesses: other officials who knew about the leaks (how about President Bush?); and other reporters. Supposedly, the same administration officials pitched the Plame leak to several other reporters, but only Novak was slimy enough to allow himself to be used. Hence Fitzgerald's fishing expedition in the press corps to find other recipients of the leak.
A journalist has to be very ambivalent about Fitzgerald's methods. On the one hand, if he is indeed playing hardball and playing it straight, we will soon learn which high officials pursued this disgraceful strategy, we will learn about the cover-up, and heads will roll, including perhaps Karl Rove's. (It's also possible, however, that he won't have enough evidence to indict; the culprits will never be brought to justice, and only Judy Miller will serve time.)
On the other hand, there is a high principle of journalistic integrity involved. There ought to be alternatives to demanding that journalists betray sources. Bush should demand that his minions tell the truth. And if Fitzgerald leaned harder on the White House, we could learn who was responsible, the Bush administration would get the disgrace it deserves, and Judy Miller would not be in jail.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect.
