Ashcroft’s conflict of interest

By Bill Press

How far is the Bush White House willing to go to cover up the lies it told about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction? We found out this week.

The story starts in February 2002. Responding to an inquiry from Vice President Dick Cheney about reports that Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate. Wilson came back and said it was nonsense.

January 2003. In his State of the Union address, ignoring protests from the CIA, President Bush uttered those infamous 16 words: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Months later, the White House admitted they were bogus.

July 6, 2003. Frustrated by Bush’s repeated claims of yellowcake from Niger, Wilson wrote an op-ed column in the New York Times accusing the administration of “misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was fundamental justification for going to war.” That’s when dirty pool began.

Eight days later, columnist Robert Novak, quoting a senior administration official, revealed in the Washington Post that Wilson’s wife was a CIA operative. He was the one to out her, but others were also given a chance. Another source told the Post that, before the Novak column ran, two government officials called at least six Washington journalists to identify her by name and occupation.

There’s only one reason why the White House made those calls: political retaliation. Since Wilson had questioned the president’s case for war, they were trying to destroy his credibility. Put out the word he can’t be trusted, because his wife worked for the CIA. And because he contributed $2,000 to John Kerry (even though he also gave $2,000 to Bush/Cheney in 2000). Teach him, and anybody else who dares criticize the president, a lesson.

It’s a classic case of the politics of personal destruction. But unfortunately for George W. Bush, it’s a lot more than that: It’s also a federal crime. It’s against the law to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Doing so puts an agent’s life at risk, violates national security and could blow years of undercover work. Anyone who does so faces 10 years in prison.

First, the White House tried to dismiss the whole flap as much ado about nothing. The Justice Department killed that, announcing it has opened a “full-blown criminal investigation” into whether anyone in the administration broke the law by leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent.

Now the big question: Can John Ashcroft be trusted to investigate his own White House? The answer is NO! Not just because he owes his job to President Bush, but because he also has a cozy relationship with Karl Rove.

As Bush’s political hit man, Rove is a prime suspect as the leaker, or the one who authorized the White House leaks. If so, it wouldn’t be the first time. In 1992, Rove was fired from the Bush-Quayle campaign in Texas for leaking information to – guess who? – columnist Robert Novak, about an internal campaign shakeup.

On “Buchanan and Press,” Wilson told us he is convinced that Rove at the very least condoned calls to reporters about his wife. There is no evidence of that – yet. But there is evidence of Rove’s long-time association with Ashcroft. He started consulting for him in 1985, handled direct mail in his 1992 Senate campaign and recommended Ashcroft to Bush as attorney general.

Also on “Buchanan and Press,” former CIA agent Larry Johnson suggested that Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was the leaker. But whether it’s Rove, Libby, or anyone else in the Bush White House, there’s no way John Ashcroft can be trusted with this job. He has a clear conflict of interest. The only way to assure a full, fair and fearless investigation is for Ashcroft to appoint a special counsel.

Of course, White House aides insist no special counsel is needed. They insist career professionals in the Justice Department can do the job – which is exactly what Bill Clinton said about Whitewater. He was wrong then, and Bush is wrong now.

So now we know. How far is the Bush White House willing to go to cover up the lies it told about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction? Far enough to break the law, destroy one person’s career and put our national security at risk. Bring on the special counsel.

Bill Press

Bill Press is host of a nationally syndicated radio show and author of a new book, "TOXIC TALK: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America's Airwaves." His website is billpress.com. Read more of Bill Press's articles here.