If you’ve been waiting patiently for a genuine what-did-Bush-know-and-when-did-he-know-it moment, it’s arrived. <\/p>\n
The New York Daily News reports today<\/a> that the president has known for two years that the man he affectionately calls “Turd Blossom” was very much involved with the Plame leak.<\/p>\n An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.<\/p>\n “He made his displeasure known to Karl,” a presidential counselor told The News. “He made his life miserable about this.”<\/p>\n Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President’s rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Already, the White House is criticizing the article and telling reporters<\/a> it’s not true. Which part? The White House won’t say.<\/p>\n But since the Bush gang’s credibility isn’t exactly golden, and McClellan’s denials are generally meaningless, let’s say the article is true and consider the questions it raises. Bush made Rove’s life “miserable about this”? Considering the fact that Bush asked Rove to plot out his re-election campaign right around this time, I find the claim hard to believe.<\/p>\n But let’s put aside questions about whether Bush was genuinely upset by this knowledge and consider it in the context of the current legal predicament. Josh Marshall summarizes<\/a> the key questions.<\/p>\n The possible perjury indictment hanging over Rove’s head (to the extent we can know about these things from press reports) stems from his ‘forgetting’ to tell the grand jury that he leaked Plame’s identity the first time around. Later, he ‘remembered’ this detail — seemingly after Fitzgerald got other sworn testimony about it. <\/p>\n Did Rove tell the president about his role, then ‘forget’ before the grand jury, then ‘remember’ later? Not that many folks believe he forgot. But this would seem like the sort of chronological detail that could seal Rove’s fate as far as a perjury indictment.<\/p>\n And that leads us to a second question.<\/p>\n Patrick Fitzgerald interviewed President Bush (at least, he was interviewed by his team; I don’t remember whether it was Fitzgerald specifically who conducted it, though I would assume it was). The president’s lawyers succeeded in getting Fitzgerald to agree that the interview not<\/i> be under oath. Still, though, an interview took place and at the top of the list of questions must have been just what happened and what the president knew.<\/p>\n Did President Bush say that he knew Rove was involved? Did he deny it?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\nFirst, I’m skeptical about Bush’s alleged “anger.” The president reportedly learned that his top political aide exposed an undercover CIA agent and was responsible for a criminal investigation of the White House. Bush “made his displeasure known”? What does that mean? As far as I can tell, Rove never suffered in any way for his role. Not only was he not demoted, he was actually promoted. No lost influence, no lost power. <\/p>\n