Plame Game - Final Days

One of the strategies taken by conservative commentators throughout L'Affaire Plame has been to insist that "there is no there there" - that is, that Valerie Plame was not "really" a covert operative, that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act represents an unconvictable statute, that "all is fair" in love, war and domestic politics, and so forth. Usually, these arguments walk hand-in-hand with an enumeration of the lies which Amb. Wilson is alleged to have told in his NYT Op-Ed and following public appearances (plus - did you hear he worked for the Kerry campaign?).

For example, I am informed (via Salon) that John Tierney engages in this rhetorical strategy today within the gated community of the NYTSelect.

Apart from the facts that (1) By attempting to smear Wilson at the same time that they allege no harm done, these commentators undermine their own case - since if there is no crime, there is no victim, and no need to smear same; and (2) The CIA made the initiating criminal referral to the Justice Department, would not have done so if no crime were committed, and presumably know better than anyone else whether Valerie Plame was "truly" covert or not; we now have (3) Another iron-clad argument that proves - proves - that somewhere in the machinations against Wilson/Plame lies a true crime.

Namely, we now have the cover-up. I am not talking about the various public statements, now revealed to be lies, that were made by Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Scott McClellan, and the President. Lying to the American people is their stock in trade (apparently). No - I am talking about lying to Federal investigators, which is a Federal crime. According to news reports, both Rove and Libby have been caught in lies made to investigators or the Plame grand jury.

If there was indeed "no crime" then this was the dumbest thing they could have done - they told a lie, which was a crime, to protect themselves from... nothing. These men are not dumb, and they know the ins and outs of the law. Whether or not the IIPA is provably unconvictable, it is a very tough statute to get a conviction from. So long as they told the truth - or took the fifth! - in response to every question, they had nothing to fear... as long as there was no original crime.

The fact of the cover-up therefore proves the existence of that original crime.