This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_031F_01C59011.7298FDC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Posted on Sun, Jul. 24, 2005
Right or wrong, not legality, should be standard for Rove
By Les Francis
We have another political scandal heating up in Washington. Karl
Rove's involvement in the outing of a CIA operative has the White House
reeling, the media drilling and grilling, and Democrats getting red-faced
with exaggerated rage. Sadly, though predictably, most players in the
exercise are looking silly -- or worse -- in the process.
The White House, particularly in the person of press secretary Scott
McClellan, already looks shellshocked, and the battle has just begun.
McClellan comes across as rattled and unconvincing, which is not
surprising given the fact that the world now knows that he has either been
winging it -- or fibbing -- from the briefing room podium for the better
part of two years.
Reporters are zeroing in on the question of Karl Rove's possible
legal vulnerability. That question is important, but it is not the most
important issue at stake here. The more fundamental question is not
whether Rove's actions were legal or illegal, but whether they were right
or wrong.
Here's what we now know for sure: Rove was involved in outing a CIA
operative. That may or may not have violated a federal statute. But it
certainly was wrong. It was wrong because it may well have put people --
allies, sources and informants -- in danger, and perhaps compromised
ongoing CIA information-gathering efforts.
It was also wrong because it was done as part of an orchestrated
effort to trash a political opponent and administration critic, and
apparently to score points in an intra-administration feud. Political
arguments and policy debates are essential to the survival of democracy
(which is why tyrants always seek to stamp out both). What is unnecessary
and harmful is what has become known as ``the politics of personal
destruction.'' Candidates, office holders and political operatives on both
sides of the aisle are guilty of the offense, but that sure doesn't make
it acceptable.
Rove's actions were wrong, most of all, because they represented an
ugly and dangerous mentality -- that any political end justifies any
political means. Rove demonstrated that mindset when he sought to
politicize the tragedy of Sept. 11 during the 2002 midterm elections. And
he did it again when tried to demean all ``liberals'' by arguing that they
were somehow soft on terrorism and terrorists. It was reminiscent of
Richard Nixon, who made his political bones arguing for decades that,
during the Cold War, Democrats were ``soft on communism.''
Now, for the Democrats' silliness: Sens. John Kerry and Hillary
Clinton, among others, are demanding that the president fire Karl Rove.
Now that will do it! No doubt the views -- and wishes -- of Democratic
Party leaders will figure prominently in any decision President Bush makes
about whom his top advisers should be. You can just hear him musing, ``You
know, Laura, I've been trying to figure out this whole Rove thing, how to
get out of the mess. But nothing made sense to me until I read that Kerry
and Hillary think I should fire Karl. By golly, that's just what I'll do.
Hey, Scott, is the briefing room available?''
The Democrats should just keep quiet. Rove, McClellan and others in
the GOP are doing more to inflict damage on their party and themselves
than anything the Democrats might say or do. And the White House press
corps, which critics claim has been too docile in its coverage of
President Bush, is going after Rove & Co. tooth and nail. So, my fellow
Democrats, just cool it.
For their part, the media should worry less about legalities; for
the time being at least, leave that to the special prosecutor. Instead,
dig more into the bipartisan tendency to discredit and destroy political
opponents. Reveal and analyze the current administration's obsession with
secrecy -- except when it suits it to blab. Go after those, in this
administration or any one seeking to replace it in 2008, who believe that
disagreement is akin to disloyalty, or who act as if anything less than
100 percent support is the same as 100 percent opposition. The doctrine of
absolutism is dangerous in a democracy, a fact too often lost on the
fiercest partisans in either party.
As someone who has worked in the White House, I know how easy it is
for the staff there to adopt a siege mentality. And how tempting it is to
lash out at critics. But the American people deserve better from their
president and those who serve the country with him. President Bush should
think about the tone -- and low standards of behavior -- he has either set
or tolerated among his staff and other political allies.
Frankly, I don't care whether Rove stays or goes. What I want is to
have him and his colleagues behave ethically, to serve ably and with
distinction, and to have people such as myself, and other members of the
loyal opposition, saying, ``While I don't agree with them, I like and
respect them and I admire the way they do their jobs.'' Right now, that's
the last thing I can say.
LES FRANCIS, a graduate of San Jose State University, served as
deputy chief of staff for President Carter, and as executive director of
the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/12211304.htm
------=_NextPart_000_031F_01C59011.7298FDC0
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="spacer.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://www.mercurynews.com/images/common/spacer.gif
R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAEZGRgAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_031F_01C59011.7298FDC0--
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
