Bush, Rove Probed

(Heh heh.)

Interesting report from the AP, inasmuch as it’s not really reporting anything new, yet makes a point of noting that Bush is part of Fitzgerald’s investigation:

Among the many questions surrounding the investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer is whether President Bush's top political adviser told his boss the truth about his connection to the case.

Two years ago, the White House denied that Karl Rove played any role, but revelations in the past month have shown that Rove spoke with two journalists about the operative, Valerie Plame. Whether Bush knew the truth while the White House was issuing its denials is not publicly known.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was so adamant in his denials in September 2003 that he told reporters the president knew that Rove wasn't involved in the leak.

"How does he know that?" a reporter asked, referring to the president.

"I'm not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff," McClellan replied.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald questioned Bush a year ago and the prosecutor's office has questioned Rove repeatedly, so presumably investigators know the answer to what, if anything, Rove told Bush.

Whether Rove shaded the truth with Bush two years ago is a potential political problem. The president so far has stood by Rove's side, even raising the bar for dismissing subordinates. Two years ago, Bush pledged to fire any leakers, but now he says he would fire anyone who committed a crime.

If Rove didn't tell Bush the truth, that theoretically could be a legal problem for the presidential aide under the federal false statement statute.

[…]

Presidential scholars say a White House's refusal to comment can suggest an administration in political trouble.

"When under fire they suddenly hide behind the shield of secrecy as though they have no control over the matter," said Mark J. Rozell, a public policy professor at George Mason University who has written five books on the presidency.

"What we really don't know factually is whether Rove lied to the president or whether the president knew something about Rove's role and dissembled," said Rozell.

Again, nice to see the media starting to pay attention to the fact that Bush isn’t infallible, but that ought to have been the case all along. It’s striking that this article actually seems critical of the administration when one first reads it, but, in reality, is just a factual account of what’s happening. That says everything there is to say about the objectivity of the media lo these past five years.