Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Dear Leader Bush did what?

So far, the comments I've seen in the blogosphere on this story have mostly been snarking about the cynicism of how it looks like BushCo is preparing to cut Karl Rove loose.  Or at least put on a show of doing so.

Bush whacked Rove on CIA leak by Thomas DeFrank New York Daily News 10/19/05

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.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

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. ...

"Karl is fighting for his life," the official added, "but anything he did was done to help George W. Bush. The President knows that and appreciates that."

Other sources confirmed, however, that 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.

Now, I haven't been following this as closely as some bloggers.  But, uh, if the Preznint knew this is 2003, didn't he have some kind of obligation to report this to the proper authorities?  Or to remove Rove's security clearance?  Did he and his attorney (Bush hired one for this case) tell the straight story to investigators about this?

Now, the Daily News report could be phony.  The Rovians have spinners spinning the spinners, so who knows where this story came from.

But, still, this is the first suggestion I've seen that Bush may have been directly complicit in misdeeds - "high crimes and misdemeanors"? - in the Plame case.

[Update: George Stephanopoulos of ABC did report in a vague way about an allegation of direct involvement by Bush and Cheney.  But his report didn't much impress me, because it was vague and he presented it as essentially a rumor.  The Daily News report, if true, raises more substantial questions.]

No comments: