The perjury trial of former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby is still underway. He might be found guilty; he might not.
Who cares?
Unlike Bill Clinton's headline-stealing escapades in the Oval Office, the case of who in the White House leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the media isn't exactly riveting the nation. Unlike Watergate, this situation hasn't inspired feelings of justice served against a corrupt government.
What is this case, exactly? One reason it hasn't grabbed the public's attention is that the meaning of the case is muddy and confused, involving events from the beginning of the war in Iraq and tangled in a net of so many people, organizations and affiliations that it hardly makes sense.
In 2002, Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by the Bush administration to investigate claims that uranium yellowcake was being sold to Iraq. When the claim turned out to be bogus, Bush used it in his State of the Union address anyway, citing it as evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, expressing concern that intelligence shown to be inaccurate was used to garner support for the war. Eight days later, the identity of his wife, Plame, was revealed in a column by Robert Novak, who cited two "senior government officials" as sources.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Libby is being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying to the FBI and a grand jury investigating the leak.
So, was this an act of political revenge? With all we know about Iraq now - no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and preinvasion links to al-Qaida are now believed to have been nonexistent - it is not unreasonable to think the Bush administration was capable of leaking the information intentionally. Like the boy who cried wolf, it's hard to believe the White House anymore, including when it says the leak was not malicious in nature.
But the Libby trial hasn't come to symbolize a battle between a lying government and an angry public. Instead, it's a mess. It might mean the press is corrupt, careless with national security and suspiciously secretive in its methods. Or, it could mean the press was more a puppet of the White House in 2003 than any of us want to believe.
Libby contends he heard about Plame from "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert, a claim Russert refutes. In a mind-twister of an explanation, Libby said in court that Vice President Cheney may have told him Plame's name, then he forgot, then several months later, he heard it again from Russert.
After more powerful figures like Karl Rove and Cheney were investigated, Libby is the only one to stand trial over the leak. But anyone who believes the crime was isolated to one person, especially one as insignificant as Libby, is naive. It's yet to be determined if the leak was politically motivated, but in any case, this was probably more than an instance of one man's slippery tongue.
If this trial is supposed to be vindication for all who feel lied to, it is weak. All it's done so far is embarrass the press, giving a view of reporters as incompetent or overly trusting of the government.
Would Libby's conviction change Bush's inaccurate statements in 2003? Would it provide a solution for U.S. involvement in Iraq now? No. If he's convicted, few will even be convinced justice has been served.
It's a perfect trial for our times - highly partisan and confusing, giving satisfaction to none and providing solutions to nothing.
Joe Buffaloe
Opinion editor
