Speaking today about the Plame affair, President Bush said that “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”
The New York Times parses this as a “raising of the bar for dismissal”:
“If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration,” Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, “I don’t know all the facts; I want to know all the facts.”
For months, Mr. Bush and his spokesmen have said that anyone involved in the disclosure of the C.I.A. officer’s identity would be dismissed. The president’s apparent raising of the bar for dismissal today, to specific criminal conduct, comes amid mounting evidence that, at the very least, Mr. Rove provided backhanded confirmation of the C.I.A. officer’s identity.
Aside from the fact that this development would be better described as a lowering of the bar for acceptable ethical standards in the White House, I think that the New York Times is once again swallowing Bush spin whole (it’s not alone). Though the article is critical of Bush, it makes an unwarranted jump in logic.
President Bush has already pledged to fire anyone involved in the leaking of classified information about Valerie Plame. As White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan put it in 2003, “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.”
Until President Bush says that it is acceptable for leakers of classified information to remain in his administration — until he clearly and explicitly recants his earlier pledge to purge from the White House payroll anyone involved in the Plame leak — we have no choice but to view this new pronouncement as an additional statement on the issue, not a substitute one: he will not only fire the leakers of the Plame name — he will also fire anyone who committed a crime. The new pledge does not absolve him of the old one; only a recanting of that earlier pledge can do that.
After all, President Bush promised to restore honor and dignity to the White House. He has said that he is a man of his word. And we have no choice but to take him at his word, until he lets us know that it no longer stands.
As Leah at corrente so aptly puts it, “so much shit, so many fans” . . .
3 Comments on "A Man of His Word?"
an american:
Strength and honor is something this president has never had. Why would he change now?
that colored fella:
Matt,
You can take issue with the NYTimes’ Editorial page’s failure to accurately set the bar or reach the obvious conclusion from the facts already presented. But, you cannot expect the same from a reporter who has efficiently laid out the damaging facts, as is his job.
You can also be annoyed by what you consider is effective spin from the White House. But, you must entertain the notion that with only 25% percent polled find the administration truthful and cooperative in this matter, their spin ain’t working.
Suzy Shedd:
Hey, Matt –
This is sarcasm, yes? Since when has Bush kept his word on ANYTHING? With some people, I would agree that this is an “also,” instead of an “instead of.” Bush knows perfectly well that Rove (as well as Cheney’s chief of staff) have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar. There is every reason to yank their security clearances and at least put them on leave, until the investigation is completed. We can only hope that Fitzgerald will find a way to charge them and make it stick — wish he would do as much to Novak. No, I think the big question is whether Bush will offer convicts who work for him complete pardons.
Comments