The Arrogance of Richard Nixon Revisited

June 29 2004
Counterbias.com
Marc Krug

No American President sits above the law. Any belief that he does justifiably earns him the moral judgment of unforgivable arrogance.

This remnant delusion from the Nixon era should be relegated once again to the historical scrap heap, so that George Bush, like Nixon, can be held accountable for what he has done.

Earlier this month, Capital Hill Blue reported that witnesses told a federal jury Bush knew about the impending release to a journalist of a covert CIA operative's name, but did nothing to stop it. Nor did he report it after it happened. Releasing the name of an operative can be a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. More importantly for Bush, knowing about that crime and yet not reporting it might also constitute a criminal act.

To get to the bottom of this matter, Bush was interviewed last Thursday (June 24) for 70 minutes by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald, head of the Justice Department's investigation, and by members of his team. The only other person present in the room was Jim Sharp, Bush's private attorney. As was the case with his interview before the 9-11 Committee, Bush insisted that he not be questioned under oath.

Now, if Bush knew that someone released classified information - specifically, the name of a CIA operative - and yet did not report it, our current President might soon find himself standing before the American public, saying words similar to those spoken by Richard Nixon in 1973. "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. I'm not a crook." But as history later proved, he most certainly was.

The operative in question was CIA employee, Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador, Joseph Wilson. As for why Plame was "outed," the reason seems to have been that of avenging Wilson's unforgivable sin - telling the truth.

In February of 2002, on assignment from the CIA, Wilson went to Niger, Africa. He was sent there to investigate whether Saddam was trying to buy uranium from that country, thus to advance his nuclear weapons program. Although Wilson shortly thereafter told Washington that this claim was counterfeit, Bush still mentioned it in the 2003 State of the Union Address that he gave in January.

Exercising what he considered his duty as a citizen, Wilson then wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times in July 2003. In it, he stated that: "Intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

In apparent retribution for this act, someone leaked his wife's status as a CIA operative to conservative journalist William Novak, who later mentioned it in his column - effectively ending her ability to work undercover. According to Wilson, the source of this leak was most likely Karl Rove, Elliott Abrams, or Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Should Wilson be right, these men were likely attempting to harm someone who had angered their President. In which case, their actions would bear a frightening similarity to tactics used by Nixon's lead henchmen, Messrs. Haldeman, Erlichman, and Colson.

That Bush did not know what these men were doing strains credibility - particularly if Rove was one of them. Bush's feigned ignorance as to what his minions may have done, along with his likely "creative" recitation of the facts during the Fitzgerald interview, come straight from the Nixon playbook.

What made Bush initially look worried about having to testify before government investigators was that on June 2nd he consulted with a private attorney, Jim Sharp, before hiring him. Previously, only one President had hired a private attorney to advise him for a government probe - Richard Nixon for investigations into Watergate.

What makes Bush look like he listened to someone else's advice is that he chose a private, not a federal, attorney. As to why a private attorney is a better choice, keep in mind that in an earlier case, Deputy White House Counsel and federal attorney Bruce Lindsey refused to testify about what he knew of Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. In his defense, Lindsey cited attorney-client privilege. But Kenneth Starr then persuaded a U.S. Court of Appeals to violate that privilege.

Starr had achieved this exact same feat several months earlier, using another Court of Appeals - and another Clinton. In this case, the federal attorney involved was taking notes during a conversation Mrs. Clinton was having with her private attorney.

Starr wanted these notes; the federal attorney refused, citing
attorney-client privilege. Unfortunately, the attorney lost. The Court ruled that government officials - even when serving as attorneys - were obligated to provide whatever incriminating information they might have.

And there might well be incriminating information in this "outing" case, particularly if this offense were a felony, and if Bush had known about it and yet failed to report it "to some judge or other person in civil authority." In that event, Bush would be guilty of "Misprision of a Felony," a misdemeanor - as in "high crimes and misdemeanors." Although this failure to report might not actually qualify as an impeachable offense, it may still meet the criteria of being a criminal act.

Admittedly, an association with criminal acts is not the legacy Bush would like to leave. But he wouldn't be the first President to do so. Richard Nixon was the first.