There’s little sign that the controversy swirling over President George Bush’s political right-hand-man Karl Rove and his alleged role in helping out a CIA operative’s identity is abating.
If anything, the controversy is growing as Bush is silent on his past statements about firing leakers and many in the GOP party, political and media elite get on the same wavelenth: an increasingly cohesive and legalistic defense of Rove coupled with a counterattack on the husband and wife at the center of the controvery.
Two bottom line questions are emerging for non-partisans:
- Are the same standards of veracity going to be applied here that GOPERs insisted needed to be applied to the Clinton administration?
- If you cut away all of the political and legal nicities, is it realistic to assume that no matter what Rove will not be forced from or leave his job?
- What kind of impact will this new furious battle have on a White House that does have the partisan votes to advance most of its agenda — and how will all of this play among non partisans. Won’t a bitter battle over Rove add yet ANOTHER dash of poison to the upcoming Supreme Court nomination(s)?
In other words: is time running out for this administration’s power since it seems now to be battling a holding pattern as it veers towards the end of its second term? The Rove battle can’t be viewed as a net plus for it — no matter how this turns out.
If you want to keep tabs on what’s happening, you must read Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post’s devastating piece detailing GOP response to this controversy. Read it in full but here are some of his main conclusions about how the controversy is being confronted, particularly by conservatives playing defense (who believe the best defense is a vigorous offense):
I tuned into O’Reilly and Hannity on Monday night, but there was no mention, none, of the Rove/Plame affair. Imagine if an e-mail had surfaced showing that a top aide to Clinton–say, Sid Blumenthal–had told a reporter about a covert CIA agent. Would those Fox shows have given the controversy a bit of air time?…
He notes:
While the White House remains in lockdown mode over Rove, my first clue to the GOP defense came in a statement from RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman:
“It’s disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks.”
So the response is that 1) the Dems are playing politics (and Rove wasn’t, in dragging in Mrs. Joe Wilson?). And 2) Rove was just performing a public service by steering a reporter away from a false story (actually, Wilson was right about the bogus Niger uranium tale, and the White House was wrong).
Another tactic: Change the subject to Judy Miller…Still another approach is to blame Wilson….Oh, and there’s the no-crime-was-committed defense. Which may be true, given the vagaries of the law. But is that the standard for service in the White House? And are these folks conveniently forgetting Bush’s pledge to fire the leakers?…..
He gives examples to back all of these up.
But the point is: it isn’t a pretty sight for anyone who believes principles and values should be fixed and shouldn’t be be adjusted for people on “my side” then strictly enforced for people “on the other side.”
Indeed, if you cut out all of the political ballet on this issue, that is what seems to be occuring here: if Rove had been a Democrat using the arguments used in his defense under Clinton the GOP, its media allies and talk shows would be clamoring for his head. And there’s a good chance he’d be out the door by now due to the ongoing political erosion and distraction. But Rove is NEEDED and vital.
The bottom line is that Karl Rove — unless there is not merely a “smoking gun” but a gun actually in the process of being fired, viewed in live television by millions of Americans — is unlikely to ever resign, quit or even go to jail. He a modern day political untouchable.
Writes Bull Moose, who details the critical role Rove has played throughout Bush’s career and the methods he has used to help propel GWB to the top:
Short of a criminal indictment, Rove will remain in place. For Bush to get rid of Rove would be like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.
We now know why Rove launched the attack on “liberals” a couple of weeks ago. Feeling the heat of the grand jury, Rove was likely cementing his relationship with the conservative base of the Republican party. Agnew was also a master of this game.
In another post, Bull Moose, a former conservative GOPer now associated with the Democratic centrist DLC, says with more eloquence what we’ve tried to say here:
The Moose observes that the right is very flexible when it comes to the rule of law.
It is striking how indifferent the right has been about the Plame leak. It seems likely that someone in the Administration leaked the name of a covert operative. If it had been in a Democratic Administration, the right would be in a fury. “Rule of law” would be the slogan on the banner that the right would wave as they would take to battle. Charges of treason would be the talking point of the day.
When the Moose traveled in conservative circles in the late ’90’s he would often argue that impeachment was the product of legal phenomena that conservatives opposed on principle – the independent prosecutor statute and frivolous litigation. In essence, the right was pursuing impeachment by any means necessary – even by means they once opposed on principle.
The response by the right was that they were upholding the “rule of law”. “Perjury” was perjury – even it was obtained by the unprincipled means of entrapment. Principles be damned – they were “defending” the constitution.
His conclusion sums up the dilemma for conservatives:
Conservatives are the new moral relativists. If you don’t believe the Moose, just ask Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, Tom DeLay, and yes, Karl Rove. They came to power in ’94 promising to tame the power of government – now they are enamored by it.
Conservatives have made the ultimate faustian bargain. Can conservatism survive conservatives? Perhaps, the solution is to create a new organization – Conservatives Anonymous.
Barry Goldwater considered big government with its thirst for power and weak traditional values an enemy of the Founding Father’s original vision.
In the Plume/Rove affair, as they nimbly adjust and seemingly jettison principles with each passing day, conservatives seem to be increasingly embodying the saying: “We’ve met the enemy — and the enemy is us…”
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal is now THANKING Karl Rove and calling him a whistleblower — and the paper argues it’s a waste of time pursuing the case.
If there’s any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a “special counsel” probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.
As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.
Stephen Green aka Vodka Pundit stands back and gives you his take on the controversy. Read it in full but heres’ a small taste:
Republicans have complained since 1975 that Congress gutted our human intelligence — and it’s a fair cop. Between Congressional meddling and Clinton rule-making, Republicans are right when they say our human intelligence resources have been gutted. But those complaints seem less justified – and more hypocritical – when a high-ranking Republican treats an agent’s identity with anything less than perfect circumspection.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.