Rove

The folks over at the Huffington Post--among others--have been whipped up into a craze at the possibility that Bush advisor Karl Rove may be in trouble. Make no bones about it, liberals smell blood here and can't wait to try to hurt the Bush presidency in any way possible. I am certainly no Bush fan, and I am in no way pro-Rove as I dislike the neo-con wing of the republican party. That being said, this time at least, Bush is not behaving abhorrently.

President Bush said Monday that if anyone in his administration committed a crime in connection with the public leak of the identity of an undercover CIA operative, that person will "no longer work in my administration." At the same time, Bush again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter.

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here and it's being played out in the press," Bush said at an East Room news conference.

Pretty standard background political fare. Still, I think he should get credit for promising to toss Rove out if he gets caught. I realize that this isn't the highest moral standard, but we're talking about a politician. Bush goes on to clarify his stance further.

Asked at a June 10, 2004, news conference if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

"It's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts," Bush said Monday. "I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

This seems like an entirely reasonable statement. While I dislike the man's policies, I do, for the most part, trust him. Is it too much to believe that he knows just as much as the rest of the country does? Apparently it is, which I find strange since I was told Bush is an idiot.

It was the second time that Bush, when asked specifically about Rove's involvement in the matter, passed up an opportunity to come to his adviser's defense.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Bush shouldn't wait for charges to be filed to take action.

"The standard for holding a high position in the White House should not simply be that you didn't break the law," he said. "It should be a lot higher and if Mr. Rove or anyone else aided and abetted the leaking of the name of an agent, even if they don't meet the narrow criminal standard, the president should ask for their resignation."

To say this reaks of hypocrisy is an insult to hypocrites everywhere. Mr Schumer, may I remind you that your boy Bill Clinton was clearly guilty of lying under oath and obstructing justice. Do you hold yourself to the same code of ethics you expect Bush to adhere to, one that is above and beyond "the narrow criminal standard"? Doesn't matter, because Schumer voted nay on whether or not Clinton should have gotten the boot, just like the rest of his democratic comrades.

No one really likes being lectured to. It is especially annoying when the lecturer is bedfellows with folks like Ted Kennedy, Gary Condit and the Daly family. Clearly there are crooks in the republican party as well--Richard Nixon comes to mind quite quickly--but that is not the point. Let us have the facts. If Rove is guilty and Bush does not let him go, then one can let loose the dogs of war. Until then, it would behoove liberals to have some patience. Desperation is a sick thing.

I can only hope that the democrats expend all their energy trying to get Rove that they haven't the energy to filibuster a conservative Bush supreme court nominee. That's almost as funny as the folks over at the Huffington Post. Settle down Arianna, it's just a presidential advisor. I would hate to see what would happen if Bush's head was on the chopping block.