See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil now seems to be the official White House position in the case of political bigwig Karl Rove’s alleged role in leaking a CIA agent’s identity — and President George Bush’s ringing comments a year ago about not tolerating leakers in his administration.
Is this a controversy that will have what they call in the movie biz “legs?” Will it be for the press a news story gift that keeps on giving? It looks that way. And will it be for the Democrats the political gift that keeps on going? It looks that way since it is not helpful to the White House’s image in the case of voters who are not Republican partisans:
For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer’s identity and that whoever did would be fired.
But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn’t repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove’s own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame’s name.
McLellan repeatedly said he couldn’t comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded: “I’ve really said all I’m going to say on it.”
Will the press accept that as an answer? In of the classes yours truly took at the Medill School of Journalism in 1973 for an MSJ the prof would have insisted the question continue to be asked.
McLellan clearly set down the ground rules with his previous comments. Now he is changing the rules because, apparently, it isn’t advantageous to answer. MORE:
Democrats jumped on the issue, calling for the administration to fire Rove, or at least to yank his security clearance. One Democrat pushed for Republicans to hold a congressional hearing in which Rove would testify.
“The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true, this rises above politics and is about our national security.”
Indeed, you can read President Bush’s own Feb. 11, 2004 words on how he would not tolerate leakers here. But is there a lawyerly (a Republican would say Clintonesque) escape-clause in that? Was GWB suggesting if a leaker didn’t violate the letter of the law it OK?
Then be sure to READ THIS collection of previous and current White House statements on this case and on Rove. YOU DECIDE. MORE from the Washington Post piece linked in the first line of this post:
Within days of the July 11, 2003, e-mail, Cooper’s byline was on a Time article identifying Wilson’s wife by name _ Valerie Plame. Her identity was first disclosed by columnist Robert Novak.
The e-mail did not say Rove had disclosed the name. but it made clear that Rove had discussed the issue.
That ran counter to what McClellan has been saying. For example, in September and October 2003, McClellan’s comments about Rove included the following: “The president knows that Karl Rove wasn’t involved,” “It was a ridiculous suggestion,” and, “It’s not true.”Reporters seized on the subject Monday, pressing McClellan to either repeat the denials or explain why he can’t now.
The Post story contains several examples of the President’s spokesman declining comment on specifics. Then adds this:
The disclosure also left in doubt whether Bush would carry out his promise to fire anyone found to have leaked the CIA operative’s identity. Rove is one of the president’s closest confidants _ the man Bush has described as the architect of his re-election, and currently deputy White House chief of staff.
Indeed: even if Rove’s apparent actions didn’t violate the letter of the law, forcing Rove to pay serious career consquences would send a message to the country and to young people about political ethics — about the fact that some principles are more important than whether someone is on your team or has helped your side.
So it’s therefore unlikely this White House will do it.
Another reason why the White House may balk: punishing Rove — who could leave the White House and still closely advise the President without anyone knowing it — would in effect conceed a Democratic victory since Democrats are pressing hard on this issue. The Bush White House does not like to yield to in-your-face opposition.
And Rove is vital as a Bush strategist, as moderate Democratic blogger Bull Moose writes:
…It is unlikely that the Prosecutor would throw a journalist in jail if he isn’t on the trail of a much bigger fish. And you can’t get a bigger barracuda than Rove.
Rove is to W. what Lee Atwater was to the father. Perhaps Rove is even more significant than Atwater because he “created” Bush as a candidate for Governor and then for President. When Atwater left Bush’s orbit due to illness, the Administration was deprived of its political acumen which led to it eventual decline. If Rove had to leave due to his role in the Plame case, the son’s Administration and the GOP could suffer a similar fate. He is the President’s political eyes and ears. He is the political antenna. He is the closest this Administration has to an indispensable man – even more so than Cheney.
To lose Rove at this critical moment would be disastrous. The President could even go off and alienate the base. Heaven forbid!
David Corn writes:
Either Rove knew that he was revealing an undercover officer to a reporter or he was identifying a CIA officer without bothering to check on her status and without considering the consequences of outing her. Take your pick: in both scenarios 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.
This ought to get Rove fired — unless he resigns first.
Can George W. Bush countenance such conduct within the White House? Consider what White House press secretary Scott McClellan said on September 29, 2003, after the news broke that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. McClellan declared of the Plame/CIA leak, “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.”
OUR HUMBLE PREDICTION: This won’t end soon. It probably won’t end with Rove’s exit.
He will probably be defended by GOP partisans and talk show hosts who will then in effect morph into their most detested creatures: the Democrats who defended President Bill Clinton no matter what during the Monica Lewisky affair.
It the end the political fall out won’t mean much in terms of partisan Democrats (they will want to see Rove go no matter what) or many partisan Republicans (they will want to see Rove stay no matter what).
But it may be significant in how this plays out with independent thinking swing voters from both parties and independents.
If they conclude they see and hear evil, the GOP could face some unwanted political erosion in 2006…and beyond.
UPDATE: Watch a VIDEO OF THE PRESS BRIEFING via Crooks and Liars and make your own decision about whether the White House press aid looks like someone who’s happy about (a) his job right now, (b) what he has to say.
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.