On Meet the Press yesterday, two pretty good reporters made the same point, using almost the same words, about what Bush “must” do in the coming months regarding the Plame scandal. I agreed with their sentiment, but think both are probably off-base.
First, NBC White House correspondent David Gregory explained why he believes the president is “in a lot of trouble.”
“At some point, the president has to account for his top officials who were involved in this matter whether they committed a crime or not because it may well have been conduct that he wouldn’t normally countenance in his White House.”
Several minutes later, on the same program, the LA Times’ Ron Brownstein offered a similar observation.
“At some point the president is going have to answer — and not only the president but the vice president is going to have to answer — questions that are raised in that indictment beyond the legal process…. Clearly at some point, I think the American people have a right to know what was discussed on the plane, what the vice president said and the president himself cannot probably — I can’t see how he can go indefinitely saying he’s not going comment on Karl Rove’s assertions to the American people that he was not involved.”
At face value, I think Gregory and Brownstein are right. The White House is still the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation; the president has personally been interviewed by prosecutors; top presidential aides have been implicated; and there are multiple inconsistencies between previous White House comments and the public’s current understanding of the controversy. It would seem, therefore, that at some point, it would be incumbent upon the president to, at a minimum, give some explanation of what transpired.
As Brownstein put it, he can’t go on “indefinitely” avoiding questions. I’d like to believe that’s true, but I know better.
David Gregory said the president will have to account for the conduct of his top aides. That sounds nice, but since when is this standard for the Bush White House?
Consider this U.S. News account of Dick Cheney’s attitude.
Far from being chastened by recent setbacks, including the indictment of his chief of staff, Vice President Dick Cheney is thumbing his nose at his critics — and encouraging President Bush to do the same. […]
Cheney is described by White House insiders as combative and eager to rally the GOP faithful. As part of that effort, he will continue to ride the Republican fundraising circuit in advance of next year’s midterm elections, as he did last Friday, headlining events in Cincinnati and Bloomfield Hills, Mich.
Behind the scenes, Cheney is feeding Bush’s instinct never to give ground when under attack, White House advisers say, despite rising concern among Republicans that the president doesn’t realize the depth of his political trouble.
Someone asks a question, ignore it. Someone pushes for answers, push back for ignorance.
I understand where Gregory and Brownstein are coming from. In their political background, there are certain things presidents just don’t do. There are unwritten rules and widely accepted standards of behavior for national leaders. A White House can’t be implicated in a criminal scandal, Gregory and Brownstein assume, with the president saying little more than, “Huh? Who? Look over there! Something shiny!”
But I suspect that’s exactly the plan in dealing with the Plame controversy. It’s not complicated. No matter how corrupt and/or negligent the White House is, deny everything, count on a Republican Congress not to ask uncomfortable questions, and wait for reporters to get tired of asking the same questions over and over again.
This must sound terribly cynical, but the Bush gang likely assumes they have nothing to lose. Reporters invariably move on to the next story — and it’s not like GOP majorities in Congress are going to start drawing articles of impeachment together. Brownstein said, “I can’t see how he can go indefinitely saying he’s not going comment.” I can see it easily; he’s been doing it for five years.
At some point, Americans deserve the truth. That doesn’t mean we’re going to get it.