Frank Rich has a perceptive column in today's New York Times. My take after the break
Rich on Rove vs. Plame
Dear Editor:
Frank Rich is exactly right. He's really only left one question unanswered. Why did the President and Vice President insist on putting out false information about the yellow cake uranium that Iraq had plenty of in its own stock and, therefor, had no reason to buy from an African country?
There were actually many reasons. "Yellow cake uranium" is a particularly allusive phrase. Not only does it harken back to the "yellow peril," but the combination of "cake" and "uranium" is a subtle reminder that radiation from uranium is particularly bad when inhaled or ingested. Then, of course, there are lots of people for whom anything coming out of darkest Afrika is certain to be bad news. That the country's name, Niger, is lacking in just one 'g' to make it a word one is not supposed to use, didn't hurt either. Innocuous though it sounds, on a subconscious level this phrase was sure to frighten. Which was, of course, the primary motivation.
But, there was another reason for using false information. While the Republican opperatives discovered some time ago that it is almost impossible for the targets of slander, regardless of whether or not they are public officials, to defend themselves against false charges, because it is practically impossible to prove a negative, when it comes to classified information (official secrets to the Brits), it would be a crime to reveal accurate information. Disinformation or false information, on the other hand, is perfectly legal. So, the story about the yellow cake and the clerk at the CIA were both OK because they weren't true.
The bigger issue here and the one that has members of the Senate up in arms is that, even though they have access to the same accurate information as the administration, they are prevented from countering the President's lies with the truth, because in doing so they would be revealing top secret information.
Which is probably why Senator Kerry made a speech on the Senate floor calling on the President to deny any US interest in establishing permanent bases in Iraq. What he didn't say, even though his statements on the floor of the Senate are immune from prosecution, was that the American military is actively building those bases even as we speak. If Bush were to take up the Senator's suggestion and make such a statement, it would be a lie. But, again, it would be OK, because it wouldn't be revealing top secret information.
While the Vice President no doubt has much experience in the fine art of national deception, it's not unlikely that the President, having learned it at his father's knee has become expert ever since he abandoned his National Guard commitment to do something else in the Central American skies. Wouldn't it be ironic if Rove blowing Plame's cover led to all kinds of secrets being exposed?