Bush claims he can’t ask Rove about the leak

One of the several enduring questions of the Plame scandal is why, exactly, Bush has never bothered to ask any of his top aides, including Karl Rove, what happened with the Plame leak. The president has claimed to have an interest in who did the leaking — indeed, Scott McClellan has said no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than Bush does — and yet, he won’t ask simple questions of those he speaks with multiple times a day.

Up until now, many of us have assumed the president’s interest is in plausible deniability. Bush has sworn to fire anyone involved with the leak, so as long as he doesn’t know anything, he doesn’t have to do anything. Yesterday, however, we got an expanded excuse — Bush hasn’t asked questions of his staff because he can’t.

[W]hile indicating that all he knows is what he has read in newspapers, Bush gave Rove a ringing endorsement.

“Karl’s got my complete confidence. He’s a valuable member of my team,” Bush said, adding that internal fact-finding has been hampered by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s request that the White House not discuss the inquiry.

Asked if he feels he knows the facts about what his staff’s involvement might be in any leaks, Bush said, “We have been cautioned about talking about this issue.”

Asked if that caution covered internal White House discussions, Bush said, “Yes.”

As far as I know, this is the first time Bush has ever made this claim. And when you think about it, it’s a doozy — the president suggested to reporters that he wants to know the facts, but, as the Washington Times put it, Patrick Fitzgerald’s “gag order has hampered internal White House fact-finding.”

This is probably the most painfully absurd claim Bush has made about this scandal yet.

There is no “gag order” and the president doesn’t need to rely on newspapers for information. If Bush called Rove into the Oval Office and demanded answers, there’s nothing to stop them from having the conversation. When Bush told reporters yesterday, “We have been cautioned about talking about this issue,” this passively sidestepped who, exactly, did the cautioning and to whom the president is not supposed to speak.

In Civics 101 terms, the president is chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. Even if Fitzgerald, for some inexplicable reason, asked the president not to talk to Rove or Libby about this controversy, Bush could still ask anyone anything he wanted. Instead, he’s chosen not to.

The Washington Times mentioned “internal White House fact-finding.” As far as anyone can tell, there hasn’t been any “internal White House fact-finding.” That’s the problem. If the Bush gang is looking for an excuse to explain why that is, they’ll need to look elsewhere. Blaming Fitzgerald doesn’t make any sense.

Bush said yesterday, in response to a question about Rove’s role in the scandal, “Why don’t you wait and see what the true facts are?” My only response is this: why don’t you, Mr. President, find out what the true facts are, and we won’t have to wait anymore.

As far as I’m concerned Bush was pissed and put everyone else up to it!
We all know he is an arrogant rich kid bully who needs everyone to agree with him and to do as told. OR ELSE THE WOODSHED

  • I think this goes to your previous post. It’s just Dubya putting his fingers in his ears and yellling “LA LA LA LA LA LA I can’t hear you!”

  • It’s one thing for Bush to peddle this crap, but no self-respecting newspaper (oh, wait–it’s the Moonie Times) should be printing this “gag order” stuff. Witnesses are free to talk.

  • but no self-respecting newspaper…

    You mean Sun Myung Moon’s propaganda machine plays fast and loose with the facts? The horror!

  • I think it’s very possible that Bush has “been cautioned about talking about this issue” — by HIS lawyer. If Bush talked to Rove and got the truth, Bush could then be a witness in the probe. The same for anyone else in the White House. If Bush talked to Rove and Rove lied to him, the world would find out that Bush is being manipulated by his staff. If Bush has a good lawyer, and I think he does, probably one of the first pieces of advice he received in 2003 when the CIA referral was made was to not discuss this with Rove or any other member of his staff. It’s not just plausible deniability, but maintaining real distance from the legal morass.

  • It’s not just plausible deniability, but maintaining real distance from the legal morass.

    I would buy that–sort of–if he couldn’t get more “real distance” from the morass by firing them without even asking. I’m pretty sure the President can do that.

    No, this has nothing to do with an innocent President trying to avoid the consequences of runaway aides’ actions. This has to do with a lot of White House employees, probably including the President, desperately clinging to the hope that no indictments are forthcoming, and that they’ll be able to say “See? We told you nobody did anything illegal!”

  • It’s highly likely that Bush already knows the truth. But Rove is one of his people and performs the invaluable service of “making bad things happen to bad people”, i.e. anyone who opposes Bush in any way, so he is once again selectively enforcing the law to suit his own convenience. What a surprise.

  • I’m not suggesting “an innocent President trying to avoid the consequences of runaway aides’ actions.” Bush is an obvious hypocrite and a liar with respect to what he said he would do and what he has done. I’m merely saying that a good lawyer would advise him not to talk to Rove about exactly what happened. If Bush tells us the real reason why he hasn’t asked Rove, it looks really bad, so he and McClellan tell us that they aren’t talking about it at the prosecutor’s request. If you deconstruct Bush’s statements, there’s a grain of truth in the midst of the deception — they wouldn’t be so constrained in internal discussions if there weren’t a serious investigation going on.

  • And G, I’m sure there are many drug kingpins who wouldn’t be so constrained in their internal discussions if there weren’t a serious investigation going on, but it’s not like they’re being circumspect out of some respect for the law.

    Bush would have us believe his silence is because he’s respectful of the law. But it’s not. It’s because he’s afraid of it.

    See the difference?

  • I’m merely saying that a good lawyer would advise him not to talk to Rove about exactly what happened.

    I totally get that. My point is that if he wanted to get real distance, he not only wouldn’t talk to Rove or others about the case, he would peremptorily fire them. These people aren’t contract employees; he can just fire them if he wants to insulate himself from their misdeeds, and he doesn’t need to find out their involvement in the leak in order to justify the firing.

    Unless, of course, he was in on the conspiracy, in which case firing them does no good. If that’s the case, one’s only choice is to say nothing and hope Fitzgerald comes up short. Not coincidentally, that seems to be the choice they’ve made.

  • Hey!

    “[W]hile indicating that all he knows is what he has read in newspapers, Bush gave Rove a ringing endorsement.”

    I thought he didn’t read the newspapers. So he’s read
    nothing, and therefore knows nothing.

    Why doesn’t someone ask Fitzgerald if that’s what he
    requested from the president? Or don’t they want
    to dig?

    Coming from the corporate world, I can only say
    that Bush’s attitude is bizarre, and irresponsible.
    In the analogous situation in the corporate world,
    the CEO, if not involved, would get to the bottom
    of this in no time flat, and fire the subordinates
    responsible, regardless of whether a crime was
    committed or not.

    I agree with those who suggested that Bush’s
    lawyer instructed him to stay out of it. There’s
    no other explanation. Even Bush can’t be that
    hopeless and dimwitted.

    I also continue to think that Bush actually is not
    involved.

  • Why doesn’t someone ask Fitzgerald if that’s what he
    requested from the president?

    I believe someone has asked him (well, his office), and Fitzgerald gives the same answer he always gives: “We never comment on ongoing grand jury proceedings.”

  • G’s explaination is plausble. If Rove is one of the leakers, Bush cannot take the rational approach and fire him. After all, without Rove there is no Bush.

    Putting aside the question of whether Fitzgerald has requested the White House not to investigate the matter on its own or, whether Bush has come up with this as a rational for inaction, there is an inherent contridiction in Bush’s statement with past Bush behavior. Have you ever known Bush to defer to anyone? Just yesterday he appointed Bolton without Senate approval. Someone should ask Bush why he is deferential in this case, but in no other.

  • The bottom line continues to be, “Who was the source of the leak out of this White House?” AND “What was ANYONE in the White House doing talking about Joe Wilson’s wife?” This White House is crooked and it appears President Bush will wait to see what the prosecuter finds to see how he will deal with the “Rove Problem.” The Bush Administration is scary-dangerous. It is a group that is fully committed to the NEOCON ideology—an ideology that is entirely self-contained and completely self-referencing. The NeoCons do not care about public opinion, facts, or the truth. They are motivated and are acting based only on their own narrow vision of the world.

  • Wasn’t one of the impeachment charges against Clinton “obstruction of justice” simply because Bill got involved in talking it up among staff? Perhaps that is exactly what GWB is concerned about avoiding.

  • Fitzgerald wasn’t appointed until October, 2003. So the Chimp still had more than 3 months to question Rove et. al. before a special prosecutor existed.

    Maybe Scotty can verbally time travel to explain why Bush wasn’t asking questions in July, 2003.

  • Ron Z,

    You just did beat me to it. I will, though, add one more bit that I think is highly relevant: Bush himself, in July 2003 — again, 3 months before Fitzgerald was appointed (and certainly several weeks before the Justice Department decided to open a criminal investigation and communicated that to Gonzalez) — said he wanted to get to the bottom of the outing, and that everyone in the White House would have to come clean. Riiiggghhht.

    It is pathetically ridiculous for Bush to now claim, more than 2 years later, that he can’t ask the questions that he should have asked immediately after Novak’s column appeared in print on July 14, 2003. So, yes, Bush is covering his ass in a very unconvincing way.

    And to commenter “G” above, the political point here is also the legal point: Bush would have gained much more political capital if he had fired Rove and Libby, as the majority of Americans want (hell, 75% want Rove to resign); AND legally Bush can only continue to dig his own hole deeper by keeping Rove and Libby on board (e.g., a “co-conspirator” remains responsible for the actions of each and every other co-conspirator until either the conspiracy itself ends, or a particular co-conspirator takes affirmative and notorious (i.e., open and public) action to repent of the conspiracy — firing Rove and Libby would go a long way towards meeting that legal requirement to stop the accrual of liability that Bush himself faces as a co-conspirator).

    P.S. Sort of OT, but with Bush it is “dead-on” relevant (pun definitely intended): 7 more soldiers killed in Iraq today, including 6 at one time (and not in Baghdad). So where are Jenna and Barbara today Where is Jonah Goldberg? Where is Mary Cheney? Hell, where is Ken Mehlman? Bastards. All of them.

  • I’m getting more and more impressed by the “Bush Crime Family” Mafia model. It seems to fit most of the facts involving anything Bush and his cronies do.

    The Mafiosi have a concept “omertà” (oh-mair-TAH) – their “code of silence” – which American Heritage defines as “A rule or code that prohibits speaking or divulging information about certain activities, especially the activities of a criminal organization.”

    The derivation is apparently a corruption of humilitas, Latin for “humility” – a nice touch considering Shrub’s fondness for demeaning nicknames such as “turd blossom” and “pootie-poot”.

  • This is the one answer the media needs to get out of GWB:

    “Did you ask if your staff talked to the media about this particular CIA agent before the special prosecutor was appointed?”

    That eliminates the fudge associated with ‘involved’ or fuzzy deniability language. The points there are explicit – ‘talk to the media’ and ‘CIA agent’. If he didn’t ask that explicit question (or variation), it’s confirmation, yet again, that he’s not interested in the truth or a completely lousy manager.

  • Ed – I’ve been having the thought that the Bush Crime Family is somehow a result of breeding between O’Brien from 1984 and the Corleone family from the Godfather. Maybe Bush is getting his directions from the Ministry of Ethics.

  • hark writes: Even Bush can’t be that hopeless and dimwitted. I also continue to think that Bush actually is not involved.

    Hark, what has come over you? Is there any limit to Dubya’s hopeless dimwittedness? And look at what a vindictive bastard he’s always been. It’s beyond believability to imagine that, even being the puppet that he is, that he wouldn’t have been involved in this. He and Rove are two peas in a pod in that regard. I would so love to see them all tossed in the slammer. Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

    I think the worst that’ll happen to Rove is that he’ll be indicted and convicted of some combination of charges, which with the inevitable appeals and all will take at least until the next election. And after the election and before the new prez takes office, Bush will simply pardon turdblossom, who’ll likely never see the inside of a cell. Then Rove can go on to a lucrative career of speaking engagements to wingnuts and his own hate radio show, plus of course the fat book contracts.

    I’m afraid schadenfreude is going to be thin gruel for us liberals when all is said and done. Better to get the voting system cleaned up so it really works, then take over Congress, then put the screws to them and turn the lot of them over to the International Criminal Court for war crimes. Now that would be karma at work. Too bad they demolished Spandau…

  • hark writes: Even Bush can’t be that hopeless and dimwitted. I also continue to think that Bush actually is not involved.

    Hark, what has come over you? Is there any limit to Dubya’s hopeless dimwittedness? And look at what a vindictive bastard he’s always been. It’s beyond believability to imagine, even being the puppet that he is, that he wouldn’t have been involved in this. He and Rove are two peas in a pod in that regard. I would so love to see them all tossed in the slammer. Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

    I think the worst that’ll happen to Rove is that he’ll be indicted and convicted of some combination of charges, which with the inevitable appeals and all will take at least until the next election. And after the election and before the new prez takes office, Bush will simply pardon turdblossom, who’ll likely never see the inside of a cell. Then Rove can go on to a lucrative career of speaking engagements to wingnuts and his own hate radio show, plus of course the fat book contracts.

    I’m afraid schadenfreude is going to be thin gruel for us liberals when all is said and done. Better to get the voting system cleaned up so it really works, then take over Congress, then put the screws to them and turn the lot of them over to the International Criminal Court for war crimes. Now that would be karma at work. Too bad they demolished Spandau…

  • God look at the whinning libs on these posts. Juat cant stand having a president with some guts.

  • rich09888,

    You say “guts,’ I say “craven.”

    You say “guts,’ I say “heartless.”

    You say “guts,’ I say “childish.”

    You say “guts,’ I say “stubborn.”

    You say “guts,’ I say “traitorous.”

    You say “guts,’ I say “liar.”

    You say “guts,’ I say “stupid.”

    And that’s just for starters….

  • Guts to do what? Where? When?

    Guts to. . . NOT talk?
    Guts to. . . NOT fight?
    Guts to. . . NOT fire?
    Guts to. . . NOT get to the bottom of things? (his words)
    Guts to. . . NOT solve a problem?

    Or are you talking about the guts of a draft-dodging little #### to send out men and women to their deaths and then try and cover-up the fact that they knew there was no good reason to go? Remember that?

  • Just when you think Bush can’t act more clueless he surprises us with this. Is this something Karl Rove told him to say? He never makes a move without Karl’s approval.
    Time is running out for this bunch and they know it. They have to put more resources into defending their depravity so other areas are now
    suffering. Case in point- look at Tuesday’s Ohio election. Since Rove and company are faced with saving their own sorry butts there’s less time and energy to give to Congressional races in the provinces. The fact that
    the Democrat lost by only 4 percentage points shows the Master is
    otherwise preoccupied. If Fitzgerald hands down an indictment of Rove he’ll have even less time to engage in future electoral mischief.

  • “Questions remain about who in the Bush administration outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Anne Marie Squeo of The Wall Street Journal discuss the case and the subsequent jailing of the Times’ Judith Miller for refusing to reveal her sources.”

    From an interview yesterday on NPR’s Fresh Air:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4781943

  • Comments are closed.