Bush should expect more of these questions

July 12, 2005

Obviously, the person everyone wants to hear from directly on the Plame scandal is Karl Rove. Short of that, press secretary Scott McClellan will do, but he’s not talking.

And then, of course, there’s their boss.

The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn’t involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer.

President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond.

Of course not. But there’s every reason to believe the president hasn’t heard the last of these questions.

Rove, to be sure, is at the center of this scandal now and reporters smell blood. But it shouldn’t take too long to get into what-did-the-president-know territory.

Let’s not forget, there was a time when Bush feigned interest in this controversy. In September 2003, the president said, “I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information, inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.”

Later in the month, Bush added, “[I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”

Well, guess what, Mr. President. Now we know who the leaker is. What are you going to do about it?

These questions could, conceivably, get kind of tricky for the White House.

When this story broke in 2003, did the president ask anyone on his staff about what happened? If not, why didn’t the president care about his aides leaking classified information? Rove started talking to reporters in July 2003. Did Bush know about Rove’s efforts? Did he approve the drive to smear Joseph Wilson? When did he learn about Rove’s work on this?

Bush gave Rove a promotion this year, announcing in February that Rove would be responsible for coordinating policy between the White House Domestic Policy Council, National Economic Council, National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Did Bush inquire about Rove’s leaks before he made the decision? Why not?

As I see it, there are three ways for the president to go here.

1. Bush could say he knew literally nothing, never asked any questions, and never inquired about what his top staffers did. The head-in-the-sand defense could be problematic, since it would suggest the president is oblivious and incompetent.

2. Bush learned about Rove’s leaks, but didn’t think they were serious enough to act on. This could be even more problematic, especially if Bush expressed support for a cover-up. “When did he know it?” becomes inevitable.

3. Bush asked Rove, but Rove lied to him. This could conceivably shield Bush from most responsibility, but it’d obviously force Rove from his job and destroy his career, not to mention add some turmoil to the White House.

Bush dodged the questions today. He won’t be able to do this forever.

PLEASE, PLEASE all reporters. Now that you’ve finally started asking questions keep it up. Our country has been screwed over to many times by this bunch. GO GET THEM

  • Poor George. With Rove’s hand up his back and the training wheels still bolted firmly to the frame of his bicycle, his head must be spinning. Karl was supposed to keep him from having to think about stuff like this, not cause it. LAURA! LAURRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

  • The revelation of the file in Powell’s position on Air Force One is one HOT bit of news. That puts Powell, Rove, and Bush (and who knows who else – maybe Miller) in proximity with the information just before the leak. Could it be that the conspiracy mentioned over at BOP News goes all the way to the top?

  • The smart thing to do would be to publicly destroy Rove.

    Even now, they could spin the silence. ‘We didn’t want a rush to judgement…’ the ‘President wanted to wait for all the facts…’ ‘But it is now clear that not only did a top WH aide show incredibly poor judgement, he lied to the President when directly questioned… The President understands the importance of loyalty, but that loyalty cannot take precedence over honestly, trust, and the people’s business…’

    The President’s popularity would go up. Not quite the puppet we thought, capacity to not only recognize mistakes, but correct them…

    Not going to happen. Unless Rove goes to prison, he’s not going anywhere. Think of the lies that this crowd has weathered already. Is Condi punished for incompetence? What about the worst Sec. of Def. ever (and I’m old enough to remember a real turd)?

    Give it a week, and if the press is still sniffing we’ll go on National alert, code magenta or something and Cheney will go on TV and tell everyone to stock up on tampons and electrical tape.

    -jjf

  • And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of

    And thusly promoted, as per the W doctrine. If I were Andrew Card, I’d polish up the resume…

  • Bush dodged the questions today. He won’t be able to do this forever.

    Sure he can. Republicans won’t allow any committee hearings on this, and without that the story will eventually die through lack of oxygen.

    Rove won’t be fired. They’ll use the “can’t comment on continuing investigation” excuse to say nothing, until the WH press finds some shiny new thing to pay attention to, like a couple of SCOTUS nominations.

    The only hope for keeping this story alive is if Fitzgerald indicts Rove, and the only way Rove will leave before 2009 is if he’s convicted.

  • Republicans won’t allow any committee hearings on this, and without that the story will eventually die through lack of oxygen.

    You sure they’ll still hold both houses of Congress after 11/06? Americans like split government; they really do. Especially when it’s abundantly clear that crimes are going unpunished.

  • Later in the month, Bush added, “[I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”

    Define “taken care of.” Like he took care of Tenet and the other guys who got medals for gross incompetence and lying to cover Bush’s ass? Or perhaps a full presidential pardon for turdblossom? Taken care of can mean a lot of things.

    The head-in-the-sand defense could be problematic, since it would suggest the president is oblivious and incompetent.

    You’re kidding, right CB? I mean, really, suggesting that the president is oblivious and incompetent is kind of needless, wouldn’t you say? Everybody in the entire world knows that that’s the case. And his true believers who deny it won’t stop denying it if they use it here.

    …but it’d obviously force Rove from his job and destroy his career…

    And this is a problem how? Rove can spend the rest of his life writing books and giving speeches that the right will will gobble like candy. Look at Ollie North. Liddy. Rove will remain a wealthy man and getting wealthier. Plus, Bush doesn’t have to have him in the White House to continue to use him (though of course I’m sure turdblossom would miss the prestige). Rove pulled the strings for years with no official title.

    As an aside, with all the Rove talk, I’ve grown so weary of people saying that Rove is the genius behind the throne. Read Machiavelli’s The Prince, which Rove proudly points to as his guidebook. How to lie and cheat to control the stupid masses, that’s the gist of it. Getting results by being an unethical slimeball who will not be slowed by anything as quaint as scruples does not qualify one as a genius, only as an unethical slimeball who knows how to manipulate. Of all the sleazebags in the Bush administration—and there are oh so many—Rove holds a special place in my atheist heart where I secretly hope there is a hell, and that I’ve been wrong all along.

  • Bush has another option: Rove resigns with a typical desire not to be a distraction for the White House. Then Rove gets bankrolled by the Heritage Foundation, or the American Enterprise Institute or some other den of wingnuttery, and returns to the White House as an advisor-without-portfolio to the President, where he can offer “unvarnished” advice from the private sector.

    This is, of course, assuming Rove beats the treason rap. But there’s always a Presidential pardon, and that could happen at any time. Face it, the fungus that is Rove is going to survive all attempts to eradicate it with the Tinactin of Truth.

    But hey, meanwhile, pass the popcorn.

  • Well, guess what, Mr. President. Now we know who the leaker is. What are you going to do about it?

    Seems like a Medal of Honor is in order.

  • If it ever gets to the point that we ask, seriously,
    what did the president know, and when did he know it,
    I think we’re in for some rude shocks. Bush, the boy
    president, the village idiot, the language gaffer,
    the man who couldn’t name the world’s leaders, the
    puppet president, may very well have been left out
    of the loop on many of the nefarious deeds of his
    neocon handlers and puppeteers.

    If Rove is half as brilliant as they give him credit
    for, why in the world would he have confided in his
    incompetent and ignorant boss?

  • Bush hired a private criminal defense lawyer in 2004, as did Cheney. This was an item that was very briefly noted then seemingly forgotten by most.

    John Dean (Yes, Watergate’s John Dean) a former Presidential counsel, wrote a series of articles about the Plame investigation. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean

    On 06/04/04 he explored the reasons why a sitting President would take the highly unusual step of hiring an outside private counsel in “The Serious Implications of President Bush’s Hiring a Personal Outside Counsel for the Valerie Plame Investigation.”

    As the President has access to the WH Counsel Office, there would seem to be few reasons for his feeling the need to go beyond that office, then occupied by Alberto Gonzalez.

    Per John Dean, the most likely reason for seeking outside counsel would be to maintain attorney-client privilege. Government employees, such as WH legal staff, could be compelled to testify.

    Therefore Bush, if he needed to discuss potential testimony regarding the Plame investigation, would be far more protected seeking outside counsel, knowing that he could take the Fifth if compelled to testify before a Grand Jury and his atty could maintain confidentiality privileges.

    While this could be explained as simply being a prudent measure, J.D. wrote that an attorney “told me that he is baffled by Bush’s move – unless Bush has knowledge of the leak.”

    Also, in a prior article of 10/10/03 entitled “A Further Look At the Criminal Charges That May Arise From The Plame Scandal”, J. Dean posits that the WH “need not have leaked to have committed a crime”. “But even if the WH was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the Federal Conspiracy Statute.”

    Of course, in 7/2005 we now know that Rove, at least, was involved.

    The John Dean articles on FindLaw – these two are only some of a series – on the Plame investigation are worth reading.

    That Bush and Cheney each hired private criminal defense attorneys in regards to this investigation is something to keep in mind when asking “What did the President know and when did he know it?”

    The Fitzgerald investigation is for all intents and purposes functioning as an independent investigation, as then-Atty Gen John Ashcroft recused himself; the Justice Dept isn’t running the show.

    Yes, a Congressional hearing is certainly warranted, but the answer to calls for one now should be “Let Fitzgerald finish.”

    Thanks

  • This sort of “old news” posture is one Bushco has tried to pull off on a number of issues, some of them even successfully. There was a time when Bush claimed interest in getting Osama bin Laden, too. He’s since said he’s “not really concerned” about him.

    Will the public continue to buy this line if OBL ends up being linked to the London bombings?

    • Comments are closed.