I haven't the time to write about this affair with sufficient detail. Suffice it to say that the revelation of a 12-hour gap is one factor that now makes this scandal a matter of "What did the President know and when did he know it?" That gap refers to the window between the time Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez unofficially told White House Chief of Staff Andy Card about the Plame Leak Investigation, and the next day -- 8:30pm on Sep 12, 2003 -- when he gave official word.
Lots of mischief can occur in twelve hours. Lots of shredded and burnt documents. Lots of swapped-out hard drives. Destroying that material became illegal the moment Gonzalez gave official notice of the investigation.
The best discussion of this and related matters may well be found on good old Brad Friedman's blog, here and here). The more recent story refers to David Gergen's appearance on This Week, in which he also raises the dreaded "What did the President know" question.
(Some wags will aver that the larger question should be "What does the President know...in general?")
You'll also want to read the ThinkProgress column here. Very likely, Card warned Bush (who has retained private counsel) during that twelve hour gap. Bush allegedly spoke to Rove early on.
As New York Times colunist Richard Stevenson notes:
Allan Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University in Washington, said the lesson of recent history, for example in the Iran-Contra case under President Ronald Reagan, is that presidents tend to know more than it might first appear about what is going on within the White House.More:
"My presumption in presidential politics is that the president always knows," Lichtman said. "But there are degrees of knowing. Reagan said, keep the contras together body and soul. Did he know exactly what Oliver North was doing? No, it doesn't mean he knew what every subordinate is doing."
But Bush's political opponents say the president is in a box. In their view, either Rove and Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time when Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully with the investigation, or Rove and Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles.The even more important point is: Did Bush provably lie at any point?
"We know that Karl Rove, through Scott McClellan, did not tell Americans the truth," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., and a former top aide in the Clinton White House. "What's important now is what Karl Rove told the president. Was it the truth, or was it what he told Scott McClellan?"
Running for Cover: This New York Times piece indicates that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, (R-Kansas) still does not understand what NOC means, or that the Agee law refers to anyone who has functioned in a cladestine capacity for CIA at any time during the previous five years.
Actually, I'm sure he does know these things. Senator Roberts is simply operating under the well-known Rovian principle that a talking point, even if utterly fraudulent, will gain credibility if repeated ad nauseum. ("I heard it a hundred times. It must be true!")
But the newest trick runs deeper than that. Roberts' Committe will conduct "hearings" -- read: propaganda extravaganzas -- on the very nature of CIA cover. Obviously, these hearings exist for one purpose: To get testimony on the record (which will add credibility to the Republican charge that Valerie Wilson was not really a CIA covert agent. You can bet the rent money that if, when such testimony appears, the Murdoch pseudo-press and the radio rightists will do their utmost to give it publicity.
The only kind of "cover" that interests Pat Roberts is covering Dubya's sorry ass.
3 comments:
That gap refers to the window between the time Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez unofficially told White House Chief of Staff Andy Card about the Plame Leak Investigation, and the next day -- 8:30pm on Sep 12, 2003 -- when he gave official word.
Wasn't Ashcroft still AG at the time?
Regarding whether Card told Bush about the investigation before it became public, let's ask just one question:
Given Bush's vaunted obsession with "loyalty", and the near-certainty that he would find out after the fact that Gonzalez called Card, is there any chance in hell that Card wouldn't phone Bush as soon as he hung up on Gonzalez?
This "what did the president know and when did he know it?" line of questioning is pure Kabuki.
first, i believe that the 12 hour gap ended at 8.30 AM on the 12th.
second, ashcroft was AG, but gonzalez was the prsident's counsel (sort of like john dean's role in watergate).
third, the question you call kabuki is actually the larger, broader version of the assumption you assert. you may be right, but the 'kabuki' question is still the operating one; it's key.
finally, but most importantly, it turns out that roberts may well have a very wicked notion in mind with this committee. if he calls several folks to testify before the senate committee, they will be able to claim - as did north and poindexter in the iran-contra hearings - immunity from prosecution.
tasty little twist, is it not?
Post a Comment