Bush's Brain is Leaking

Oh wait, sorry, that’s not right. Republicans are not demanding an investigation. Instead, they’ve covered Karl Rove in a warm blanket of spin in an effort to deflect attention away Rove. Does it matter that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said at a September 29, 2003 press briefing that it was a “ridiculous” idea to suggest that Karl Rove was involved in the leak of Plame’s name because McClellan had spoken to Rove about it? Nah, of course it doesn’t. Sure, someone was lying in 2003, since we now know that Rove was involved.

I don’t understand some conservatives. They can attack Bill Clinton for his supposed lack of morals because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky, yet they looked the other way when it was revealed that former Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich had been involved in a six-year-long affair with one of his staff members. Drug addicts should be thrown in jail, but drug addict Rush Limbaugh needs our sympathy. William Bennett, a conservative advocate of morality and author of The Book of Virtues, turns out to be quite the gambler. I’m pretty sure gambling is a vice. But hey, there’s nothing wrong with the morality czar gambling! Gambling is legal. So leave Bill Bennett alone!

I think if George W. Bush volunteered at an abortion clinic for a week, his right-wing defenders would find a way to come to his defense: “He didn’t actually perform any abortions! Leave him alone! This is just another tactic by liberals to bash the President!”
I wonder, at what point did conservatives abandon the ideals of ethics and morality?

One of the talking points about Karl Rove is that he didn’t do anything illegal. Okay, maybe that’s true, but does it make it right? Should a top Bush administration official mention that a particular individual works for the CIA? When you say “So-and-so’s wife” it’s not that hard to figure out who that person is.

George Bush, while not perhaps the most honest person in the world, is protective of his inner circle to the point that he seems to look the other way in matters like Karl Rove’s involvement in the Plame case. Bush is sticking by his man, as the White House avoids commenting on any aspect of the Plame case. But back in 2003, the White House was very forthcoming about the case when the press asked about it. CNN reported on February 11, 2004, Bush’s response to questioning about the leak:
“If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is…if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of…I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job…I want to know the truth. Leaks of classified information are bad things.”

This again from CNN, February 11, 2004:
“Bush said he has told his administration to cooperate fully with the investigation and asked anyone with knowledge of the case to come forward.”
Which brings up something else about Karl Rove. If he learned the identity of Valerie Plame from Robert Novak in 2003, why didn’t he tell his boss about it in 2004? After all, Bush was asking “anyone” with knowledge of the case to come forward.

Did Rove come forward? If he did, why would Bush say the identity of the leaker, or at least the identity of someone involved, was not known?
Possibly because the White House has not asked Rove any questions about the case, and the administration continues to not ask questions of Rove. You’d think in light of all the information that has been reported, someone in the Bush administration would be trying to get to the bottom of things.

Rove, being a master of politics, obviously would not volunteer to Bush what he knew. In laymen’s terms, Rove had engaged in operation CYA.

I’m trying to imagine what the reaction would have been if, say, James Carville in the 1990s did the same thing during the Clinton presidency. Republicans would obviously be calling for Clinton to terminate Carville’s employment. But now, when it’s one of their own, Republicans will do all they can to make sure nothing happens to Karl Rove. Which is an application of situational ethics, something conservatives claim not to do. They only want to get to the bottom of the truth in cases involving Democrats. No surprises there.