As the White House prepares for probably indictments in the CIA leak case, there has been much speculation as to the administration's response. At first, it seemed that Republicans would go with the ever-popular "over-zealous prosecutor". Then, this weekend on Meet the Press, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison fumbled trying to advance the idea that prosecutions over perjury or obstruction would be technicalities, not real crimes. Of course, this is the same Texas Senator that voted to convict Bill Clinton on the same charges of perjury and obstruction, but oh those pesky details.
However, watching Countdown last night, I began to sense that there was a new strategy developing. Former Bush/Cheney spokesman Terry Holt told Keith Olberman that he rejected the notion that perjury or obstruction were technicalities and went on to assert that, if indictments come, they would be for mistakes made by aides, not by Bush:
Well, I don‘t think that it‘s proper to call perjury a minor
thing. The president has called it a serious thing. And,
in fact, he‘s brought honor and dignity back to the White
House, as he said in 2000, by holding the law to high
esteem.
And so I think it would be a mistake to turn back on that.
I‘m not sure that it would be a smart political move, after
all, as other reports have mentioned tonight. We
haven‘t taken a shot at Fitzgerald. He has conducted an
investigation without leaks, and he has done it generally
correctly. It‘s more like the Clinton administration of
past years to demonize the prosecutor. Remember
what he did, Ken Starr, for example.
It‘s not the road we want to go down. At the end of the
day, most Republicans are concerned about this
president and getting his agenda passed. It‘s not about
staff, it‘s about the president. It‘s about his ability to do
his job in the next three and a half years.
And we need to focus on that.
The tone of the entire conversation - Bush is the same guy you elected, but maybe he's been let down. Republicans are gonna stand by Bush.
Did someone just get thrown under the bus?
Think Progress seems to think so. They're reporting on part of Scott McClellan's briefing today in which the press secretary is asked again about the leak case. And although McClellan does his usual bob and weave, "I'm not going to talk about an ongoing investigation", he adds:
"(Y)ou know that our relationship is built on trust.
And I have earned that trust with you all. As you
pointed out, you pointed back to some past
comments that I made (about assurances that
Rove and Libby were not involved), and I’ve
talked to you about the assurances that I had
received on that."
Says Think Progress: "McClellan is emphasizing to the reporter that he was just relaying the assurances he received from Rove and Libby. In other words, they lied to me."
If so, this is the first time McClellan has sought to absolve himself or the White House from the actions of Rove and/or Libby. Last week, he was attacking the press, this week he's saying, "guys, come on, you know me. I've always been straight with you."
We will know whether this is the official strategy by week's end.
Comments