The coverup worked

Thanks to Tom Oliphant, who in his column in today's Boston Globe brought forward a thought that's been rattling around in the back of my mind since Friday's indictment press conference.

''I would have wanted nothing better," [Fitzgerald] said, ''that when the subpoenas were issued in August of 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October of 2004 instead of October of 2005."

Give or take a nuance and some garbled syntax, the prosecutor was in effect showing that the quixotic pursuit of a nonexistent right or privilege by some news organizations is one reason President Bush was reelected last year.

- snip -

Obstruction of justice is an elegant legal term for a felony that prosecutors take personally. Fitzgerald noted that the victims of this crime are not just the people who work under the protective shield of anonymity in the world of intelligence, but all of us who are injured when our system is prevented from working.

I would add that the obstruction of justice alleged in this case kept us from knowing material things about our leaders at the moment we were deciding whether to keep them in office. In more common speech, obstruction of justice is a coverup, and the coverup worked -- just as the Watergate coverup in 1972 kept facts from the public that would have guaranteed Richard Nixon's defeat.

When I heard Patrick Fitzgerald say those words Friday they made me sit up fast. And then slump back down. A will to win at any cost is the real Bush II legacy. Screw honesty, screw fairness, screw the poor, screw civil rights, screw womens' rights. Screw 'em all. Just win, and scoop up the spoils. It's personal, and I got the feeling listening to Fitzgerald that he takes it personally too. It's a small comfort, but it's a comfort nevertheless that he is out there trying to extract some justice for us.

Oliphant:

As one of the victims of this farce, Kerry has carried himself with dignity. Not enough people noticed, but he made an important speech here last week about the ongoing war in Iraq, offering a plan to gradually withdraw US troops over the next 15 months as Iraqis shoulder the burden of their own security. The timetable is responsive to a request by a third of the country's Parliament.

By contrast, President Bush was back before a handpicked audience in Virginia last week, insisting that Americans are at war in Iraq so they won't have to battle terrorists in this country.

Kerry was merely offering ideas responsibly in the public square. Can anyone seriously claim that Bush is doing that and that he could have survived the surfacing of the truth a year ago?