Bush's Plame Promise

[Hissyspit]

So when does the President make good on his promise - yes, he DID make that promise, despite his attempts at waffling - and send Rove packing? The statements of Novak in his recent column to be published today (as reported and parsed HERE by AP) seem to be simply more confirmation and acknowledgment that the pledge Mr. Bush made in 2003 and later concerning the loss of position in the administration of anyone involved in the leak of the identity of covert C.I.A. agent Valerie Plame Wilson should not remain unfulfilled, now more than ever:

Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said.

I am not naive. Bush has no intention of firing Rove, and Rove wouldn't be out of the picture and planning even if he was fired. Bush will continue to "disassemble" about what it would take for him to fire Rove. And Novak could be full of shit, of course, but, two concerns for this post, 1) the documentation of Bush's promise, and 2) a re-visitation of David Corn's arguments for Rove's removal regardless of legalities, that the reasons for fulfillment of the promise are already in place, Novak notwithstanding. I don't mean to dwell on the implications of a Rove firing.

As Corn pointed out in The Nation exactly one year ago yesterday, Bush would need to fire Rove to fulfill the promise... Actually, Corn's stated that the facts "OUGHT to get Rove fired." Well, of course he OUGHT TO get fired. Bush OUGHT TO fire Rumsfeld, Cheney, Condi, Addinton, and himself, get us out of Iraq, apologize for everything, and throw himself on the mercy of The Hague. Bush would NEED to fire Rove to FULFILL his promise, no matter the technicalities of Bush's semantics, any indictments or lack of indictments, and the veracity of Novak's column. Corn's arguments for the ethical and integrity-based NEED to fire Rove are simply given further weight by Novak's revelations, and his now year-old declaration was based at the time in part on the revelation of the infamous Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper "double super secret background" email...

...the first documentary evidence showing that Rove revealed to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. In a July 11, 2003 email that Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper sent to his bureau chief, Cooper noted he had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." "Agency" means CIA. This is not good news for Rove and the White House.

Corn conceded that the email might not be enough to "prompt" special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to indict Rove, but that beyond that legal issue, the email alone showed that "Rove committed a firing offense," leaking the information for the purpose of perpetrating intimidation as part of "a fierce campaign to undermine Wilson."

"Rove is acting in a reckless and cavalier fashion, ignoring the national security interests of the nation to score a political point against a policy foe," he insists. Certainly, that kind of behavior from a senior WH aide is among the criteria that might concern a president enough to threaten loss of position, especially after said-president took a public stand on it?

About the Plame matter, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan offered recognition of these types of concerns back in 2003 when he declared, as Corn documents, that "That is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing." At the same time, Corn says, McClellan, who probably quit his post a tad too late, if you ask me, called the idea of Rove involvement in the leak "a ridiculous suggestion." All the above is information a year or more old.

Lastly Corn made the point that Bush ordered any government employee with awareness of the leak to "come forward and speak out." Rove had not done so by last July when the email and Corn's article came out - "He should be pink-slipped for that, too" - and he has not done so since, obviously.

All that laid out, here, for your information and research, a compendium of various ways Bush and the former press secretary have stated the criteria concerning the appropriate action and reaction regarding White House employees involved in the Plame outing, courtesy Google and Media Matters and one of their posters. Click the Wikipedia link for info on the legalities:

In fact, both Bush and White House press secretary Scott McClellan have clearly indicated that if found, the leaker would be fired. But Cameron attributed to "reporters and Democrats" suggestions that senior White House adviser Karl Rove could be fired for his role http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/ in outing Plame.
Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit: http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/33463.htm

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it , they would no longer be in this administration.

- snip -

Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Q: At a minimum?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.


WaPo: White House Briefing -- News on President George W Bush and the ...
"Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak," DeFrank wrote. ...

Bush says he will fire anyone who breaks law
MSNBC.com CIA leak probe July 19: President Bush states, "If someone committed a crime, ... to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered, "Yes. ...

CNN.com - Bush appears to shift course on CIA leak
- Jul 19, 2005 President Bush appeared to backtrack Monday from his 2004 pledge to fire anyone ... by his promise to fire whoever was found to have leaked Plame's name.

Plame affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Plame affair (also called the Plame CIA leak controversy) refers to the ... Bush would honor his prior promise to fire individuals involved in the leak.


ABCNews.com | Associated Press | 9/30/2005:

President Bush has given varying accounts of the circumstances under which he would fire leakers in the Plame probe.

In September 2003, Bush said "we'll take the appropriate action" (against those "involved") and his spokesman said "they (those "involved") would no longer be in this administration." In June 2004, Bush reiterated the pledge, answering "yes" when asked if he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked Plame's name. In July, amid revelations that Rove and Libby had been involved in the leaks, Bush said that "if someone committed a crime" he would be fired.

ABCNews.com | The Note | July 15, 2005:

Reports the Wall Street Journal's John McKinnon, "Some longtime Bush watchers think the outlines of serious damage are clear in the contradiction between Mr. Rove's conversation with Time reporter Matt Cooper about Ms. Plame's employment and earlier White House assurances that he wasn't involved. What is more, Mr. Bush has previously pledged to fire anyone culpable in the leak."

ABCNews.com | The Note | October 4, 2005:

In a piece that looks at why some Republicans are worried by the idea of a White House without Karl Rove, the Wall Street Journal's John McKinnon charts the evolution of President Bush's statements on the CIA leak case. "Early on in the controversy over the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity, the President vowed to fire anyone involved. Later, after testimony implicating Mr. Rove became public, Mr. Bush expressed a looser standard, saying he would remove aides who committed crimes. Last week, amid speculation that Mr. Rove might face charges from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Mr. Bush wouldn't say whether he would remove an aide under indictment."

ABCNews.com | Associated Press | October 14, 2005:

For the White House in 2004, the good news about Fitzgerald's probe was that it didn't become an issue during the presidential election year....The president promised to fire any leakers.

ABCNews.com | ABC 7 | November 4, 2005:

In June 2004, Bush said he stood by his previous pledge to "fire anybody" in his administration shown to have leaked Plame's name. His press secretary, after checking with Libby and Rove, assured the public that neither man had anything to do with the leak.