Bush Flip Flops (Again) on Whether He'd Fire Leak(s)

[JABBS]

Would President Bush fire a White House leak under any circumstance, or just if a crime has been committed?

The President, and those representing him, have been unclear about this, leading to a lot of misinformation -- from across the political spectrum.

A brief review on the administration's statements regarding the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to the media:

On Sept. 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said of actions against potential leaks: "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."

But the next day, Bush, speaking at the University of Chicago, qualified McClellan's words, saying: "And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Bush then contradicted himself on June 10, 2004. Speaking at the G-8 summit, he had this exchange with a reporter:

Q Given -- 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.

That led to yesterday, when, during a joint press conference with Indian Prime Minister Singh, Bush again offered the qualified version of his policy:

Q Mr. President, you said you don't want to talk about an ongoing investigation, so I'd like to ask you, regardless of whether a crime was committed, do you still intend to fire anyone found to be involved in the CIA leak case? And are you displeased that Karl Rove told a reporter that Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife worked for the Agency on WMD issues?

BUSH: We have a serious ongoing investigation here. (Laughter.) And it's being played out in the press. And I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

***

Now, here's the funny thing. The conservative spin machine wanted you to forget McClellan's comments on firing a leak. It also wanted you to forget Bush's 2004 comments, which offer an equal, unqualified policy for firing.

Instead, the spin machine wants you to remember Bush's 2003 comments -- with the qualified rules on firing a leak.

How do we know this? Because even before Bush's comments today -- his first clear comments on firing policy since the June 2004 exchange -- numerous media outlets offered the qualified Bush policy, skipping over the other statements.

How can that be? How can it be that the CBS Evening News, and the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and Washington Post -- what conservative mythmakers say are four of the most "liberal" media outlets in the country -- each repeated Bush's "qualified" firing policy comments in the four days prior to Bush's comments July 18?

There's only one conclusion to draw. The White House press corps, even as they cover the leak story, has been told for several days that the president has consistently said he would fire anyone who "committed a crime" in the course of leaking information. And four reporters took the bait, ignoring the White House's flip-flops on the subject.

***

Of course, this is moot if special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald determines that either Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, or another as-yet-unidentified senior administration official knowingly "committed a crime" in leaking Plame's name or identity.

***

This is one of several attempts to qualify whether what Rove, Libby or another senior administration official did.

Here's what you need to know:

Federal law prohobits goverment officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless outed his or her identity.

So what has the conservative spin machine been up to? It's a large shell game, trying to come up with out-clauses for the various suspected leakers -- out-clauses that can potentially allow Bush to say that the leaker did not commit a crime, and thus does not have to be fired.

In the court of public opinion (which one hopes will not sway Fitzgerald):

-- You have Rove lawyer Robert Luskin offering the qualifier that Rove did not "knowingly" disclose information.

-- You have some conservatives suggesting that Plame's wife, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, admitted that his wife was not covert at the time of Novak's column. This story was helped along by a faulty Associated Press story, which took comments Wilson made to CNN's Wolf Blitzer out of context. The AP story was later corrected, but the conservative spin machine has pretended not to notice.

Confused? You don't have to be. All you need to know comes from this July 22, 2003 article in Newsday:

"Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak."

-- You have conservative spinners suggesting this is a Democratic witch hunt. But that makes no sense, because it was the CIA that asked for the investigation.

From an Oct. 1, 2003, article in the Washington Post:

"The decision to open the investigation was made by career counterespionage section chief John Dion, without the consultation of the attorney general, as is standard practice, the department said. The Justice Department asked the FBI and the CIA to preserve relevant records; requests were apparently not made of the Pentagon or the State Department."

***

Of course, all of this is also moot if Fitzgerald determines that either Rove, Libby, or another as-yet-unidentified senior administration official knowingly "committed a crime" in leaking Plame's name or identity. Stay tuned.

***

This article first appeared on Journalists Against Bush's B.S.

[M155Y_A1CH]

1. Fire/shmire

Mr.*, if anyone in your administration is found guilty of high treason, will you allow them to be executed or will you pardon them?


edit:sp

[uppityperson]

2. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

So he won't just ask Karl, must wait for the US Attorney to ask him? If my friend or family member or co-worker or employee were accused of breaking a law, I'd damn straight ask if they did it. They might lie to me, but I sure would ask them and not let them continue on with whatever they were doing "until the investigation is over".

[JABBS]

3. ask Karl

I'm sure Bush has asked Rove (and Cheney has asked Libby) about leaking. But that doesn't mean they'll share that with the press.