You are herecontent / Rove-Plame Scandal Leading to Deeper White House Horrors?

Rove-Plame Scandal Leading to Deeper White House Horrors?

by Bernie Weiner, The Crisis Papers

At long last, Plamegate -- the scandal surrounding the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson by two "senior administration officials" -- has exploded out of the D.C. beltway to become a major national news story.

It would appear that this scandal goes way beyond Karl Rove and who said what to whom when about Ms. Plame. It certainly is true, though, that turning over that slimy Rove-Plame rock was the way into the larger issues upon which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury apparently are focusing.

(Ain't it almost always so in Washington? The cover-up is always a greater problem for the perpetrators than the original crime, for inevitably even seamier scandals are unearthed one by one; see the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-Contra, et al. The moral lesson -- admit your mistake early, bear the immediate hit, and move on unencumbered -- rarely seems to "take" among politicians, of whatever party.)

What's being covered up in the Plame/Rove case seems to revolve around the Bush Administration's orchestrated, and perhaps illegal, propaganda campaign to justify its invasion of Iraq. Valerie Plame and her husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson -- who wrote the op-ed in the New York Times that got this whole thing going -- are just the tips of very large icebergs, and one of those icebergs has a name: the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which we'll examine below.


One of the ruling judges on the case of the two reporters who refused to divulge their Plame-outing source was about to go easy on them when he read Fitzgerald's new information -- eight pages of which were redacted from the public -- and said that the national-security seriousness of what he read changed his mind.

The court then ordered Time's Matthew Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller to testify or else; Cooper finally did, and Miller is in jail for contempt of court.

We don't know what is in those eight blacked-out pages -- and, if they really do involve national-security matters, we may never be permitted to know precisely. But apparently they provide the locus around which Fitzgerald is building a case that could result in perjury indictments, at the least, for a number of Administration officials and perhaps journalists as well.

(Another judge said that the prosecutor's classified filing -- those missing eight pages -- "decides the case." In other words, to quote Lawrence O'Donnell: "All the judges who have seen the prosecutors secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.")

Further, depending on what Bush and Cheney knew and when they knew it -- and what they did or covered-up in the possible light of such knowledge -- there may be plenty of ammunition for likely impeachment hearings. (Note: Bush hired a private attorney last summer for this CIA-leak case. )

And the two journalists in question, Cooper and Miller, have their own attorneys. It's defense-attorney heaven in the nation's capital these days.


Why Judith Miller is not testifying apparently goes to the heart of Fitzgerald's case. There are reasonable grounds for wondering whether Miller might have been aiding, inadvertently or consciously, Rove and the rest of the WHIG to help move the country toward war with Iraq. For example, she may have been told by Administration officials about Plame and her CIA job, and helped spread that word to other journalists, who then contacted Rove and I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. Cooper over the weekend revealed that it was Libby who was the second of the "two senior administration officials" who leaked Plame's identity.

The New York Times already has apologized for running several of Miller's pre-Iraq War stories that were based on faulty weapons-of-mass-destruction intelligence; much of that concocted intel was provided by Ahmed Chalabi, the sleazy Iraqi exile leader who hitched his wagon to the Pentagon neo-cons to get his forces back into Iraq in the wake of a U.S. invasion. Those Miller stories helped provide the imprimatur of New York Times prestige that other media outlets then picked up on, helping create a nationwide zeitgeist of imminent threat from Iraq.

Indeed, Dick Cheney squared the circle by using Miller's stories as "evidence" that even the hallowed New York Times had determined that Iraq had, or soon would have, nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

"The day The Times story ran," wrote Amy and David Goodman in their invaluable book "The Exception to the Rulers...," Cheney "made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to advance the administration's bogus claims. On NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney declared that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes to make enriched uranium. It didn't matter that the IAEA refuted the charge both before and after it was made. But Cheney didn't want viewers just to take his word for it. 'There's a story in The New York Times this morning,' he said smugly. 'And I want to attribute The Times.' This was the classic disinformation two-step: the White House leaks a lie to The Times, the newspaper publishes it as a startling expose, and then the White House conveniently masquerades behind the credibility of The Times.")


What we are witnessing right now is a grand-scale game of political/legal "hot potato." Nobody wants to be holding the various hot pots around the Plame case when the grand jury finally settles on its various indictments, which could come in the next several months.

Rove these days, through an anonymous source (probably his attorney), is trying to deflect blame and attention to others, especially journalists, by throwing out one bizarre scenario after another to escape legal culpability. (Not surprisingly, even though Bush and Press Secretary Scott McClellan say the Administration will refuse to comment because there's an "official investigation" going on, Rove, through his surrogate, feels free to continue his attempts to comment on and shape the case.)

But, from what Fitzgerald has suggested, he and the grand jury long ago determined who the leakers were. That's not what is at issue now. The investigation is all tied in with the national-security matters talked about on those blacked-out eight pages.

And, a reasonable guess is that those pages deal in some fashion with the actions -- legal or illegal, overt or covert, actual or covered-up -- of the members of an inner council of Administration heavies called the White House Iraq Group.

Just one example of the WHIG's function and influence: "The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago [in 2002], including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud' into the debate, coincided with the formation of ... WHIG, a task force assigned to 'educate the public' about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it." (This quote comes from a groundbreaking 2003 article by investigative reporters Barton Gelman and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post.)


How did we get to Cheney and Rice scaring the population with talk of " mushroom clouds" and wild tales of Iraqi WMD that might be made available to al-Qaida terrorists?

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. It was 2002. The Administration already had decided to bomb and invade Iraq, but was having trouble figuring out how to manipulate the propaganda so as to fool Congress, the American people, and the international community into giving them permission to do so.

It was not smooth sailing. Not only were the Democrats and leakers within the CIA beating up on Bush's plans for war, but prestigious conservative Republican leaders, such as Gen. Brent Scowcroft, James Baker III, Dick Army, and Trent Lott also were warning against an invasion of Iraq. Something had to be done.

The disinformation campaign was launched by the WHIG and others inside and outside the White House. (We ordinary citizens learned about Bush's pre-9/11 obsession about attacking Iraq both from memoirs by former Cabinet members, such as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and National Security Council official Richard Clarke, and most recently verified by the Downing Street Memos leaked from inside the Blair Cabinet.)


Bush & Co. realized they couldn't come right out and tell everyone what their true motives were -- to depose the Saddam Hussein regime in order to control the world's second largest oil reserve, to set up permanent military bases there, and to use the presence of those bases and the "shock & awe" example of overthrowing a dictator as a warning to other autocratic regimes in the Greater Middle East to bow to U.S. wishes. Those wishes involved oil, Israel, nuclear reactors, terrorism, and the like. So, a convenient reason -- one simple enough for the masses to comprehend -- had to be found that would justify war.

As the Downing Street Memos and other internal British and U.S. documents make clear, it was well-known that Iraq by the mid-1990s was a paper tiger: Its economy, as a result of the embargo, was in tatters; Saddam had control only of the central part of the country (Britain and the U.S. controlled the skies over the so-called "no-fly" zones in the South and the North); its standing army was easily defeatable; and, most important, its major weapons systems and research facilities had been effectively destroyed during the first Gulf War or in the years immediately after. In short, there were no WMD worth mentioning, even though the lying, exaggerating Iraqi exiles kept insisting that the U.S. military would find huge stockpiles of such when they got to Iraq.

But, as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz later said, the Administration settled on WMD ("for bureaucratic reasons"), apparently realizing that it would be the most effective, frightening, and thus acceptable justification. And so the WMD scare campaign began, with nightmarish tales of biological and chemical agents (which senators were told could be delivered by a drone Iraqi air force over East Coast cities), huge missile armadas, and, most tellingly, nuclear weapons. Of course, none of this was true.

Cheney and Rice and Bush and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the whole lot, spent months peddling their scare stories to the public and to members of Congress, and even sent poor Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council with a sorry, embarrassing hodge-podge of non-existent "evidence" -- and, damn, it worked.

Thanks to those lies and the stenography of the mainstream media when it came to the Administration's peddling of them, both the Congress and the public bought into Bushthink with regard to the war. That was especially so when the campaign added the laughable suggestion that somehow Saddam Hussein was tied to the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S. (yet another example of the Big Lie Technique used by Rove and his forces). The war was on.


But someone, or some entity, within the Administration had to coordinate these concerted propaganda campaigns. That was the bailiwick and job-assignment of the WHIG, chaired by Bush's Chief of Staff Andrew Card, the regular members of which were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with " Scooter" Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff. In other words, WHIG included the key decision makers (Rove, Rice, Card, Cheney-via Libby), and the key propaganda specialists (Hughes, Matalin, et al.).

They waited a month to launch their first public-relations bombardment. Why September? Andy Card let slip the reason in an interview with the New York Times: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

They soon determined that the public was most frightened of a possible nuclear attack by al-Qaida, and so, the day after publication of Card's marketing quote, the Bush Administration heavies began dropping their Iraq-as-nuclear-menace grenades into the public airwaves. They attempted to back up their claims by quoting from reports by international nuclear energy agencies supposedly saying that Iraq was about to become a nuclear power -- but no such reports existed.

But the lack of believable evidence about WMD didn't stop them, and the fright campaign continued. Some of that history may well have been in Fitzgerald's classified showing before the court.


In sum, the White House Iraq Group was tasked to come up with propaganda campaigns that would work on the Congress and American people -- no matter how great the fib; indeed, the bigger the lie, the easier it seemed to be to sell it. And their mission included coordinating those campaigns through the various stages, and denouncing and destroying the reputations of those who dared to confront their lies and deceptions.

The WHIG played the public like masters, thanks in no doubt to their stooges and ideological supporters in the mainstream media, who joined in the fool-the-public campaign in major, influential ways. Those who chose not to play the deception game, such as Ambassador Wilson, they decided, would be made to pay the price for their perfidy -- and would serve as a warning to any others inside the Administration who might want to blow some truth-whistles. Interestingly, the trash-Joe-Wilson campaign continues until this day.

To their chagrin, Wilson appears to be a man of great character and courage, and refuses to back down. And why should he? He's been speaking the truth about the Bush Administration's lack of evidence of Iraqi WMD for more than two years, while the Administration's lies have been exposed time and time again on the ground in Iraq and by official agencies and reports.

Again, it's not totally clear how far Special Counsel/U.S Attorney Fitzgerald is willing to go to clear out this nest of Administration vipers. He could choose to stick close to the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson case itself, or he could keep heading in the direction of indicting a good many Administration officials -- perhaps with Bush and Cheney as unindicted co-conspirators -- for their part in lying about classified national-security matters to the Congress and American people. A wild card: If Judith Miller were to trade immunity for prosecution and decide to testify about Rove/Libby/Cheney, anything could happen.


If and when the above scenarios start to unfold, it's not outside the realm of possibility that Rove would get desperate enough to try to question the motives and character of the Special Counsel himself, as BuzzFlash puts it, "to try to sink the investigation through an ad hominem attack. This is Rove's pathological gutter tactic. He doesn't know how NOT to use it when backed into a corner." Or Rove/Bush conceivably could do a Nixon and order Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire Fitzgerald.

Anything is possible as the Bush Administration paints itself further into the scandal corner, and, desperate to avoid criminal proceedings and/or impeachement, lashes out at its perceived enemies.

Stay tuned. The fun is just beginning.


Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught government and international relations at various universities, worked as a writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and currently co-edits The Crisis Papers ( .

Originally published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 7/19/05.

Copyright 2005 by Bernard Weiner.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

America is getting closer to the truth!

Stay strong and keep fighting as men are DYING because of this LIE!

"Or Rove/Bush conceivably could do a Nixon and order Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire Fitzgerald."

Is that really a possibility? And what would the reprocussions of such an act be?

I assume that then, if the facts happen to point toward a great deal of conspiracy, that Alberto Gonzalez would have gotten tangled in the wrong ball of twine.

I'm just wondering where that action would lead.

I know that the administration is obviously trying to squeeze out from the hole they've been buried in.

If the logic trail leads to the fact that it was Cheney who ordered the HIT on Wilson as retaliation for his coming public with the truth, and if THIS is the actual focus of Fitzgerald's investigation, the RNC is digging Cheney's grave for him.

The RNC's disinformation co-conspirators are all over the airwaves reciting their talking of which is that Joe Wilson was politically motivated to come forward with the facts about the Yellow Cake lie.

How Joe Wilson voted in the last election is his business. The man did his job.

By emphasizing the alledged POLITICAL nature of Wilson's actions, it shines a very bright light on Cheney's REACTION. If the allegation was that Wilson (as a private citizen acting within his rights) made a political statement in the writing of his op-ed letter (their claim, not mine), one can only surmise that any reaction by the other party would be politically motivated.

One problem...

Any American citizen has the right to speak his/her mind about politics - but when the Vice President orders the State Department to do a "Work-Up" for the sole purpose of enabling a smear campaign to destroy a political's JAIL TIME!

What was the purpose of the work-up, DICK?

Note that the State Department had ALREADY CONCLUDED that the Niger/Yellow Cake claim was bogus PRIOR to Wilson being sent there. Cheney ordered that Wilson be sent there in the first place in order to develop evidence in opposition to that in Powell's Office. When Wilson came back with a conclusion reinforcing that of Powell's, Cheney went balistic, and broke the law.

Leave Bush out of this one (always assume they gave him plausible deniability and Cheney was the Hit Man). Go after Cheney and ALL of the co-conspirators who set this plan in motion, and then, covered it up. It may be that the only one not involved was Bush. Taking out Cheney and all of the Neo-Con co-conspirators on this particular issue would be enough to bring down the whole administration.

We don't know what Valerie Wilson's position was with respect to Iraq's possession of WMD, but since it was her job to know, and since Iraq had none, it is pretty safe to surmise that her position stood in stark contrast to the "facts" that the administration wished to portray in their rush to war. Cheney saw the chance to kill two political opponents at the same time, and took it.

Cheney Done It.

What you've got here is interesting.
I like the point about Bush being the only one not involved. Let's try to guess why they wouldn't involve him. He has too many ethics? He couldn't follow? He was riding his bike?

From the Washington Post - July 21, 2005

-A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

-It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

You can twist these words and spin as much as you want but we are getting closer to the truth. You know the truth. You are hiding behind a wall of lies and we are tearing it down! It would behoove you to come clean now if you desire to save face. If this drags out any longer then you can rest assured that we the people will scream for long prison terms befitting the crimes your people have committed in our collective name! America, our great country, deserves no less.

Fire Karl Rove!

This is getting good. I feel like the truth is on the verge of coming out, whether Bush and Co. like it or not.

make no mistake, we still have an up-hill battle, especially with a republican congress, but I must say that I,too,am beginning to take hope that the truth will come out!

I like articles like this because the reporter takes information and reminds the public about events that the administration wants us to forget.
As far as I'm concerned, if the evidence comes together proving that the war was marketed and illegal, the white house should be up on treason charges.
As for Fitzgerald, a good prosecutor, at least I'm told, takes all the evidence when building a a case and clearly defines it's importance to the law. He makes sure he has a case. That's all. So simple and so torturously difficult. If the evidence is there, if the case is there Rove is going to have a hard time getting the public to ignore it. I think the public is beginning to get a little tired of his smears. They are embarrassing.
Fitzgerald appears to be a professional. Unlike this administration who wing it and make stuff up as it goes along. Great way to run a country.

yepper, you hit the jackpot! that's the only reason that Rove hasn't
taken the fall as the sacrificial goat, if they thought that would buy
them any immunity, he'd been bled and skinned already by Fitzgerald.
Truth is, there are so many pieces of aggregious, constitution circumventing skullduggery in the offing, it's not too much of a stretch
that once Fitz peeled back the layers of the rotting onion, he found
even more stinky crap awaiting just beneath the last outrageous crime
scene. at some poing the grand jury has to start whipping indictments
like a card playing man tossing them into a hat at the end of the bed.
By christmas, our entire sorry assed executive branch should be sitting
in special hearings answering to the american people about these very
aggregious breaches of law and our rule of government. And MSM will not have been the reason for any of it, they were unwitting shills for
the discredit and destroy game run on Wilson and his wife. The charge
is TREASON, folks, and at a so called 'time of war' per the commander
in crime's own declaration, TREASON during TIME OF WAR = HANGING / DEATH PENALTY. Let's just hope they get striped pajama's for the rest of their miserable, snaky lives!

Fascinating piece. However, there is possibly one major flaw in the analysis in that the American people were 'fooled' into going to war. My hunch is that the American people, or at least a fairly subsatntial proportion of it were, were just as eager to go to war as the administration, although for different reasons. My suspicion is that a lot of Americans saw - and probably stil see - the invasion of Iraq in the context of revenging 9/11. A message had to be sent to the Arab world that it could not attack the US (and then dance in the streets afterwards) with impunity; that the US would respond in multiples of force to any terrorist attack in a fashion very similar to the Israeli policy of responding to terrorist attacks. And therein lies the problem - danger really - for critics of the war. Again my suspicion is that to many Americans criticism of the war per se on almost any grounds is a tantamount to criticizing of the notion of retaliating for 9/11. Sadly, it probably went even a step further such that any criticism of the president - the architect of the retaliation - is also tantamount to critcisim of the right to retaliate, if not downright treason!

Most of the people I have met who support the war and Bush don't even know anyone serving in the military, and those magnetic "support the troops" that are plastered on vehicles are starting to bother me too. Supporting the troops means telling them the truth,sending them to fight only when necessary, spending money to take care of them and their families.I'll take my chances on being called treasonous and speak up against this illegal war.Anyone who feels justified in sending troops against innocent people to sooth a bloodlust for revenge needs therapy.I don't support this war but I do support our troops, I let my only son go to Iraq,he and all his buddies know and understand my reasons for speaking up and agree with me.

Let your son know that I pray for all the soldiers and the people of Iraq often. I know it's not much but it's what I can do.
I agree about the magnets. I hate those. It's just an easy way to show patriotism. It's harder to write your congressmen and the media and tell them what you really think. It's harder to demand over and over that the truth be told. The soldier who stood up to Rumsfeld and asked him about equipment is a real hero. Your son is a hero too because his country has asked him to do a job and he took on the task. I'm sure your example will be with him as he does his job in Iraq.

Thank You ,I am proud of my son(Robert) and all his buddies, I just wish we had known before he left what we know now. Don't say your prayers aren't much, every bit helps. Your thoughts and the conviction with which you write will help convince others to join us. Keep it up.

Boy did the administration use the retailiation factor. They also used fear and ignorance of the American people. I know someone who told me that people he works with still back Bush regardless of what they hear or read about him because something like the London bombings happen and they look to their leader, President Bush. They are so fearful that they will back someone who has, it appears, sent us into an illegal war that has helped ferment further violence and instability. Part of the problem here is the lack of education of anything outside the U.S. We do not understand the Middle East. We do not understand the Muslim culture. This administration used that lack of understanding to their advantage too. Iraq were not involved with 9/11 in any way shape or form and yet the administration lied to the public over and over because it played into what the public would accept.
The point about people looking to their President in times of need and fear is very important because it defines a need we have in this country. We have an administration that uses that need and the fear 9/11 caused. What we need is a leader who guides us through the darkness as the leaders did in WWII. We don't have that.

Excellent article and comments. It appears the Bush Administration in total was conspiring together to make this illegal war happen, cause the deaths of so many people all over the world, and cover their trail with more lies...RICO?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Find the perfect Purple Bridesmaid Dresses for your bridesmaids from




Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.