I told myself this issue’s note from the editor wouldn’t mention the US president. Even we at the Earth Island Journal do get tired of paying attention to bad news, after all: I planned to
take one of the many small-scale victories that have happened over the
last few months and draw it into a metaphor for the larger, hopeful
trends that we like to emphasize where possible.
But this weekend, just two days before we were due to send the Journal off to the printer, a rather remarkable story broke. By the time you
read this, it may have blossomed into a major scandal - or it may have
just barely surfaced for a few days, to be replaced in the official
public consciousness by celebrity gossip or the results of the
California recall (as if there were a difference between the two as far
as the major media are concerned).
The story involves the notorious Niger yellowcake that wasn’t there.
Before the State of the Union address in which George W. Bush alleged
that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium ore from Niger for use
in weapons of mass destruction, the administration sent State
Department veteran Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger to investigate. Wilson
found no evidence of such a sale; in the State of the Union, Bush went
ahead and made the allegation anyway.
Wilson, peeved that his investigations were ignored, called the ethics
of the Bush administration into question over its approach to war with
Iraq.
Apparently as a result - the details here are still sketchy - senior
White House officials called a number of journalists to inform them
that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plume, was a CIA operative. Conservative
journalist Robert Novak ran with the story in July. As we go to press,
speculation is rife among some online media sources as to the identity
of the officials: Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, Andrew Card, and Dick
Cheney have been mentioned as possible sources for the leak.
Regardless of your opinions about either the CIA or the war with Iraq -
and we’re fans of neither - it’s hard to argue with the notion that
charges of treason might reasonably be brought against someone who
leaks the identity of a CIA staff member, endangering her life and the
lives of anyone who’s worked with her. And to commit such an act as
revenge for a perceived political offense is especially chilling. We’re
increasingly used to corporations (or politicians) who look no further
into the future than the next quarter (or poll cycle). But is the Bush
administration really so insanely short-sighted that it’d risk a
scandal worse than Watergate to get revenge over a PR gaffe? And if so,
what does that short-sightedness say about the administration’s ability
to protect air and water quality, biodiversity, or the climate for
future generations?
Thanks, Adam
Speaking of those future generations, we’re sorry to report that we’ve
had to say goodbye to Adam Spangler, our intern these last few months,
who’s back to school in Florida. Working here ain’t nearly as much fun
without him, but he promises to write a few stories for us when he gets
a chance.
I told myself this issue’s note from the editor wouldn’t mention the US president. Even we at the Earth Island Journal do get tired of paying attention to bad news, after all: I planned to
take one of the many small-scale victories that have happened over the
last few months and draw it into a metaphor for the larger, hopeful
trends that we like to emphasize where possible.
But this weekend, just two days before we were due to send the Journal off to the printer, a rather remarkable story broke. By the time you
read this, it may have blossomed into a major scandal - or it may have
just barely surfaced for a few days, to be replaced in the official
public consciousness by celebrity gossip or the results of the
California recall (as if there were a difference between the two as far
as the major media are concerned).
The story involves the notorious Niger yellowcake that wasn’t there.
Before the State of the Union address in which George W. Bush alleged
that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium ore from Niger for use
in weapons of mass destruction, the administration sent State
Department veteran Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger to investigate. Wilson
found no evidence of such a sale; in the State of the Union, Bush went
ahead and made the allegation anyway.
Wilson, peeved that his investigations were ignored, called the ethics
of the Bush administration into question over its approach to war with
Iraq.
Apparently as a result - the details here are still sketchy - senior
White House officials called a number of journalists to inform them
that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plume, was a CIA operative. Conservative
journalist Robert Novak ran with the story in July. As we go to press,
speculation is rife among some online media sources as to the identity
of the officials: Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, Andrew Card, and Dick
Cheney have been mentioned as possible sources for the leak.
Regardless of your opinions about either the CIA or the war with Iraq -
and we’re fans of neither - it’s hard to argue with the notion that
charges of treason might reasonably be brought against someone who
leaks the identity of a CIA staff member, endangering her life and the
lives of anyone who’s worked with her. And to commit such an act as
revenge for a perceived political offense is especially chilling. We’re
increasingly used to corporations (or politicians) who look no further
into the future than the next quarter (or poll cycle). But is the Bush
administration really so insanely short-sighted that it’d risk a
scandal worse than Watergate to get revenge over a PR gaffe? And if so,
what does that short-sightedness say about the administration’s ability
to protect air and water quality, biodiversity, or the climate for
future generations?
Thanks, Adam
Speaking of those future generations, we’re sorry to report that we’ve
had to say goodbye to Adam Spangler, our intern these last few months,
who’s back to school in Florida. Working here ain’t nearly as much fun
without him, but he promises to write a few stories for us when he gets
a chance.
We don’t have a paywall because, as a nonprofit publication, our mission is to inform, educate and inspire action to protect our living world. Which is why we rely on readers like you for support. If you believe in the work we do, please consider making a tax-deductible year-end donation to our Green Journalism Fund.
DonateGet four issues of the magazine at the discounted rate of $20.