July 22, 2005

When it comes to political controversy, we always seem to sweat the small stuff and get distracted from the bigger, more substantial problems.

The current outrage over Karl Rove is a perfect example. During an interview with syndicated columnist Robert Novak, Rove indirectly confirmed the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame, and he later discussed her, but not by name, with Time reporter Matthew Cooper. The suspicion is Rove was providing background for a story that would discredit Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, and bolster the administration's case for the war in Iraq.

When the story of the leak first broke two years ago, President Bush assured the public that no one in his administration was involved, and he promised to fire the guilty party if it did turn out to be someone on his staff.

Now that we know it was Rove, Democrats are lining up to condemn him, special council Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to determine if he broke any laws, and the Bush administration has gone on the offensive to defend the president's chief adviser.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller is sitting in prison for refusing to reveal who gave her Plame's name - even though she never published it - and Americans are waiting to see if Bush will deliver on his promise.

Clearly, Rove was wrong in revealing what he did about a covert CIA operative - even if she was not currently working undercover. He may have compromised her ability to go undercover in the future, and he threatened the security of all covert agents.

But what's not so clear is why we're focusing so intensely on this piece of the puzzle rather than the big picture. The Bush administration launched a war on false pretenses; caused the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi citizens; has so far spent $192 billion on fighting in Iraq (the Congressional Budget Office estimates that war expenses will hit $600 billion by 2010); has created record-setting budget deficits; pushed the national debt to a new high; and is holding prisoners in extra-legal limbo - all of which damages the U.S.

Rove's decision to do what he did is evidence that the Bush administration was willing to do just about anything to persuade the American people to support the war.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that Bush was determined to attack Iraq from the earliest days of his presidency. After Sept. 11, Bush falsely asserted a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. British memos suggest that Bush fixed intelligence about Iraq to fit his desire to go to war. And now we learn that Rove was willing to threaten national security to discredit a political foe.

This investigation shouldn't be primarily about Karl Rove. It's about President Bush and his administration's single-minded drive to launch a war.

Unfortunately, Rove's actions are being judged mostly in isolation. It's hard to call someone as highly placed and as influential as Rove a scapegoat, but if a scapegoat is someone who takes the blame and thereby shifts attention away from other perpetrators, then that's exactly what he's becoming.

The questions that prosecutors and pundits are asking do not focus on the administration's overarching policy decisions in the build-up to war. Instead, they're asking technical legal questions about whether Rove leaked the information and whether he broke the law.

People are excited about this opportunity to "catch" a major player, but the focus on Rove for this particular offense is like a prosecutor abandoning a murder case against a kingpin in order to convict a lieutenant for tax evasion.

Yes, Karl Rove deserves to be punished, but his indiscretion is just piece of a very big, coordinated puzzle. In the court of public opinion, President Bush is on trial for starting an unnecessary war, and everything his underlings did should be judged in the context of his broader policy goals.

Former Denver Broncos player Reggie Rivers writes Fridays on the Denver Post op-ed page.

© 2005 Denver Post