Kristof: Cheney Should Resign!
Michael Myers
Yikes!
~~~~~~~~~~~
Time for the Vice President to Explain Himself
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
I owe Patrick Fitzgerald an apology.
Over the last year, I've referred to him nastily a couple of times as
"Inspector Javert," after the merciless and inflexible character in
Victor Hugo's "Les Misérables." In my last column, I fretted aloud
that he might pursue overzealous or technical indictments.
But Mr. Fitzgerald didn't do that. The indictments of Lewis Libby are
not for memory lapses or debatable offenses, but for repeatedly
telling a fairy tale under oath.
Moreover, Mr. Fitzgerald was wise not to push onto mushier ground. It
appears he was tempted to indict Karl Rove, but he's right to refrain
unless the evidence against Mr. Rove is similarly strong. If it's a
borderline call, as it seems, Mr. Rove should walk.
So where do we go from here?
First, Democrats should wipe the smiles off their faces. This is a
humiliation for the entire country, and their glee is unseemly.
Moreover, the situation is not that neocons are all crooks, but that
one vice-presidential aide must be presumed innocent of trying to
cover up conduct that may not have been illegal in the first place.
Second, President Bush needs to clean house. Just as special
prosecutors should steer clear of questionable indictments, presidents
should avoid questionable characters.
Mr. Rove escaped indictment, but he has been tarred. He apparently
passed information about Valerie Wilson to reporters and then
conveniently forgot about one of those conversations. He also may have
misled the president, and the White House ended up giving false
information to the public. It's fine for Mr. Rove to work as a
Republican political adviser, but not as White House deputy chief of
staff.
Even more important, Vice President Dick Cheney owes the nation an
explanation. According to the indictment, he learned from the C.I.A.
that Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the agency and told Mr. Libby that
on about June 12, 2003. Why?
There may be innocent explanations. I gather from the indictment and
other sources that Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were upset in May and June
2003 by a column of mine from May 6, 2003, in which I linked Mr.
Cheney to Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger. If Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby
thought that my column was unfair, or that Mr. Wilson was exaggerating
his role, they had every right to ask for a correction or set the
record straight.
But they never raised the issue with me - nor, when Mr. Wilson went
public, did they make their case publicly. Certainly the solution was
not to leak classified information about Mr. Wilson's wife.
Mr. Libby is now accused in effect of lying to protect Mr. Cheney.
According to the indictment, Mr. Libby insisted under oath that he had
heard about Mrs. Wilson from reporters, when he had actually heard
about her from his boss. You can't help wondering if this alleged
perjury was purely his own idea and whether Mr. Cheney was aware of
it.
Since Mr. Libby is joined at the hip to Mr. Cheney, it's reasonable to
ask: What did Mr. Cheney know and when did he know it? Did the vice
president have any grasp of the criminal behavior allegedly happening
in his office? We shouldn't assume the worst, but Mr. Cheney needs to
give us a full account.
Instead, Mr. Cheney said in a written statement: "Because this is a
pending legal proceeding, in fairness to all those involved, it would
be inappropriate for me to comment on the charges or on any facts
relating to the proceeding."
Balderdash. If Mr. Cheney can't address the questions about his
conduct, if he can't be forthcoming about the activities in his office
that gave rise to the investigation, then he should resign. And if he
won't resign, Mr. Bush should demand his resignation.
It's not that there's a lick of evidence that Mr. Cheney is a
criminal. There isn't. But the standard of the office should be higher
than that: the White House should symbolize integrity, not legalistic
refusals to discuss criminal cover-ups. I didn't want technical
indictments of White House officials because they inflame partisanship
and impede government; for just the same reason, it's unsavory when a
vice president resorts to technical defenses and clams up.
At the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in August 2000,
Mr. Cheney won adoring applause when he suggested that Bill Clinton's
deceit had besmirched the White House. Mr. Cheney then pledged that
Mr. Bush would be different: "On the first hour of the first day, he
will restore decency and integrity to the Oval Office."
Mr. Cheney added of the Democrats: "They will offer more lectures, and
legalisms, and carefully worded denials. We offer another way, a
better way, and a stiff dose of truth."
You were right, Mr. Cheney, in your insistence that the White House be
beyond reproach. Now it's time for you to give the nation "a stiff
dose of truth." Otherwise, you sully this country with your own
legalisms.
jack freeman
WeAreA...@thewhitehouse.com (Michael Myers) wrote:
> Mr. Cheney then pledged that
> Mr. Bush would be different: "On the first hour of the first day, he
> will restore decency and integrity to the Oval Office."
Has Mr Bush succeeded in this noble course?
If this debacle continues, deepens, and worsens, Mr Bush
will find himself embroiled in the worst White House scandal
since Watergate.
Traditional Conservative
"jack freeman" <jfy...@prohost.com> wrote in message
news:jfyeah-757F2F....@news1.west.earthlink.net...