Looks like the media is slowly starting to clue in to the Rove scandal again. Washington Post earlier today, now the Associated Press. Are they starting to pick up the pace for a reason?
Finally, though, AP is asking about the Bush involvement:
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.And here is the conundrum for Bush and his brain:
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.Hmm. So if he lied to Bush, then Bush is not only protecting a treasonous traitor who outed a spy, he is protecting a staffer who lied to his face. Not good.
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.
And then there is this assessment of the current situation at the White House:
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.
