Why We Should Care About Valerie Plame

I know that I can get a bit excited about things, especially politics, but I'm actually surprised at the lack of interest my friends have shown in regards to the Valerie Plame "affair".

Just so we are on the same page - in the months after the Bush Administration indicated they believied Saddam Hussein was a threat, they began building their case for war. Part of their evidence was a report that came from Italian intelligence regarding Iraqi attempts to purchase nuclear bomb-making material (yellowcake) from the country of Niger.

It's not sure who recommended him, but the administration sent Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigage the claims. Mr. Wilson has very impressive, non-partisan credentials; a former ambassador to Gabon and San Tome and Principe under former President Bush, as well as the director of African Policy for the National Security Council under former President Clinton.

Mr. Wilson, in subsequent testimony, indicated that it was very early into his trip that he realized that there was no validity to these claims. However, the adminstration rejected his report to them, and instead used this evidence in their rationale, most importantly during Mr. Bush's State of the Union address in January of 2003. These claims of the purchase, along with many others surrounding attempts to buy materials to make nuclear bombs, were all eventually rejected as false.

Mr. Wilson, feeling a bit betrayed, made his feelings known on the matter in June of 2003 through press articles; less than a month later his wife's name ended up in Robert Novak's column.

She is an employee of the CIA; an undercover employee of the CIA.

So what's happened?

It APPEARS as though (if you can believe what's being leaked) that both Karl Rove and Lewis Libby spoke with reporters about Ms. Plame. Why would they do this? Well, I'm only speculating here :) but it looks as though Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove were so upset that Mr. Wilson had published his findings that they were bent on ruining his reputation. What better way than to put his wife's life in potential danger and, while they did it, break the law? Yes, it is illegal to "out" an undercover member of the CIA if you in possession of their status.

Do I think they knew her status? Of course they did, for two reasons 1) Libby, at least, found out about Ms. Wilson from his boss, VP Cheney, who found out from the former director of the CIA, George Tenet - so don't you think Mr. Tenet told Mr. Cheney that she was undercover?; and 2) Why else would they be telling her name in public BUT to be vindictive? There's no other reason. (And frankly, whoever the ad wizards who came up with this one really blew it).

So what does this all mean? This entire "affair" goes to the heart of the justification of the war with Iraq (which no one seems to care about anymore.. don't get me going about that!). Senior Adminstation officials were willing to do ANYTHING to move their agenda along - including lying about evidence they said they had, and, when the person who was supposed to provide that evidence didn't because it didn't exist and said so, broke the law and exposed his wife (not to mention the perjury that followed).

This is a big deal. This is a terribly big deal. We should all be very upset about this. Yes, I know that it's always just easier to say "yes, our public officials lie". But why is that an acceptible response to this? Why is it acceptible especially when over 2000 Americans have died because of the lie? This isn't lies to stay in office (which are bad); these aren't lies about a love affair (which are bad); these aren't lies to cover for some constituency you support (which are bad): PEOPLE ARE DYING BECAUSE OF THESE LIES.