When Did He Know It?

For all the talk there was about John Kerry flip-flopping during the "Election" of 2004 (hard to believe it was an election, given Diebold electronic voting machines in Ohio, among other states), Smirk does a lot of flip-flopping himself. He finally spoke out about the Plame scandal which, as I discussed just this weekend, seems to lie at the feet of Karl Rove and possibly others. I mentioned at the end of my blog that Smirk himself has yet to answer quite a few questions, and what he's said so far has lacked moral resolve.

Let's go back and revisit something I posted there:

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration." [White House Press Briefing, 9/29/2003]

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [President Bush, Chicago, Ill, 9/30/2003]

First of all, either Scott McClellan is lying, or he's out of the loop. He's starting to give Nixon's press secretary Ron Ziegler a run for his money, in my opinion. So far no one has even been given the hint of a rebuke, much less been fired.

Second, it's now nearly two years since Smirk's comment about wanting to "know it." You'd think given the cramped quarters of the West Wing and the closeness of Rove to Smirk, he'd have known "it" quite a long time ago. All Smirk has to do is summon Rove to his office, or walk down the halls to Rove's office, close the door, and ask Karl Rove point-blank about his involvement in the leak. It doesn't have to take long-- it's a "yes" or "no" series of questions: "Did you leak Valerie Plame's name?" "Do you know who leaked Valerie Plame's name?" "Are there others involved?"

For someone with an MBA who comes from a "business background" and has been Governor of Texas, Smirk should know how to stay on top of things, operate and manage teamwork, and be able to get answers on the spot.

Well, it's nearly two years later, and today Smirk had this to say: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." For a (slightly) deeper account, go here and here. Whoa. Waitaminit. How did we suddenly go from "involvement" in to "commission" of a crime? Talk about ass-covering. For that matter, talk about flip-flopping. Today everyone's calling Smirk on this, but sadly enough, probably in a few days no one will keep the pressure on-- and they should. So much for the "honesty" and "integrity" Smirk promised back in the campaign season of 2000. It's always been my understanding that the minute there is a sense of conflict of interest or the merest hint of impropriety, it's best to step down, leave, blow town, etc. Any decent, principled person would do that-- and even quite a few crooks see the writing on the wall fast enough to have some semblance of grace to do so. But not this administration. Instead of sending Karl Rove packing, or at the very least temporarily sidelining him, Smirk is essentially saying, "I don't give a damn. Screw you." That "screw you," my friends, is to ALL of us. By the time Fitzgerald makes a final report this fall and the grand jury passes indictments, if any, time will have passed. By the time the indictments are acted upon, more weeks on the calendar will have flown by. By the time anyone is actually convicted, 2009 could have rolled around and Smirk could very well be back on the plane to Crawford. Of course, just as Daddy did, Junior could very well by then have handed out pardons like they were all-day suckers. It's happened before: Daddy pardoned Casper Weinberger, among others, so that any possibility he'd be nailed for his part in Iran-Contra would vanish. As it is, Smirk's Executive Order 13233 shielding presidential papers and archives (which thankfully, is being challenged by my fellow historians!), in effect revoking the Presidential Records Act, protects the people now (or formerly) working under him, including: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Colin Powell, and Elliott Abrams (proof Smirk has no problems with shady government officials!). Some of these folks were around during the Nixon and Ford administrations; others served during Reagan's time, and thus would have seen their work product released (or any involvement with Iran-Contra-- we're talking about Daddy and Daddy's friends, again) had Smirk not stonewalled history. John Dean, who should know a thing or two about secrets and hiding information, has a pretty good take on EO 13233 (as Dean notes, 13233 covers Vice-Presidents too: hmm, what's Dick Cheney got to hide?). "Honesty" is not just about refusing a blowjob or two in the Oval Office; it's about being candid with Congress and the country (I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence of that yet), and about being honest enough to allow historians to assess the past, warts and all.

Whether you think loyalty is an admirable trait or not, I think it's despicable that Smirk doesn't have the balls to stand behind his words: loyalty may mean all the world to him, but apparently "honesty" and "integrity" and "being consistent with what you say, even if you don't like it" don't mean $#*%.

As for Rove, if I were him, I wouldn't feel too complacent yet, or ready to join Smirk in a smirk. Again, John Dean brings up another law: Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. As Dean says: "This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions." So the Identities Protection Act may be the least of Rove's problems. Personally, I think Fitzgerald has indictments of some kind in mind, or he wouldn't have brought the grand jury this far. We'll see what happens when Fitzgerald's report comes out.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Smirk further says of L'Affaire Plame: "...I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts."

My response? As Howard Baker said in 1974 of Nixon: "What did the President know and when did he know it?"