There was always a glaring contradiction in George W, Bush’s three year claim of ignorance as to who leaked CIA agent Valerie Wilson’s name: Either Messrs. Rove and Libby admitted their involvement to the President at the start of the scandal in 2003—in which case the President brazenly misled the American people about what he knew for three years—or Rove and Libby consistently lied to the President, which would be a clear firing offense. The fact that Karl Rove kept his job after he was exposed as the individual who leaked Valerie Wilson’s name to Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper, never added up. Now we know why: The vendetta against Joe Wilson and his wife was not an independent, rogue action conducted by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby; it was a conspiracy hatched in the Oval Office and sanctioned by both the President and the Vice-President.

   Rep. Jane Harmon, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, called the new evidence that Bush had authorized selective leaks of classified information “breathtaking.” While I don’t find it breathtaking that Bush was involved in the conspiracy—it had always seemed the most plausible scenario that Rove and Libby would not be acting on their own—what is breathtaking is the President’s shamelessness in lying to the American people. On September 30, 2003, George Bush visited the University of Chicago and took questions about the growing Leakgate scandal. Here is a portion of Bush’s Q&A with reporters:

Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of… I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative.

I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.

Bush was then asked about the involvement of Karl Rove in the leaks:
Q Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes

Q -- have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him --

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.

And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.

One has to be shocked by the sheer brazenness of the President’s answers. Based on Scooter Libby’s testimony to the grand jury, Bush would have known immediately that Rove and Libby were the individuals who planted the Valerie Wilson story. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald gives the rationale for their behavior in his filing to the court. Wrote Fitzgerald, Vice-President Cheney was intent on discrediting Joe Wilson’s views on the Iraq-Niger connection, and tried to accomplish this by planting the story that Wilson’s trip to Niger was a worthless “junket” that had resulted from “nepotism.”

While one has to applaud Prosecutor Fitzgerald for his dogged investigation of these facts, it is puzzling to me that he is so quick to dismiss Bush’s involvement in the Valerie Wilson leak itself. Fitzgerald states that Bush’s involvement was limited to that of declassifying information from the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s nuclear aspirations, rather than divulging information that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent. Fitzgerald even goes so far as to say the Bush “unaware of the role” that Scooter Libby played in outing Valerie Plame. How Fitzgerald could reach such a definitive conclusion is baffling. Any common sense analysis of the situation leads one to suspect that Bush knew about, and probably instigated the Valerie Wilson disclosure. After all, it was in Scooter Libby’s interest to testify that Bush had already declassified any information that Libby passed to reporters; it was not in Libby’s interest to implicate Bush in the Valerie Wilson leak. That would have cost Libby the support of the White House, and incurred the wrath of the entire Republican establishment.  Further, and equally importantly, the so-called “classified” statements that the NIE made about Iraq and Niger were already fully in the public domain.

The relevant statements from the NIE, that "we judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions," and that “a foreign government service” had alleged that Iraq was trying to secure enriched uranium from Niger, were in fact nothing new. These statements were no different and no more persuasive than those Bush had made in his 2003 State of the Union message when he first floated this allegation. Indeed, the only thing new and titillating that Rove and Libby had to pass along was the notion that Wilson’s wife was a covert agent who may have cooked up his trip to Niger. The administration knew full well that their best chance of discrediting Wilson was to attack him and his wife personally. And they did. That’s the only thing that would have been news to Judith Miller, Tim Russert, or Matt Cooper. To their credit, none of these reporters took the bait when it was dangled in front of them. Only Robert Novak was cynical enough and ethically challenged enough to recklessly expose a CIA agent in his column.

Perhaps Fitzgerald is giving Bush a pass on the Valerie Wilson leak because he wants to keep it simple. To suggest that Bush was complicit in the Plame leak would be to raise the prospect of Bush being called before the grand jury. It is possible that Fitzgerald wants to head off a constitutional crisis.

What is now clear, however, is that Bush has been an accomplice in a cover-up for three years running. And it is important to remind oneself that the leak and the subsequent cover-up began before the 2004 presidential election. Last week, Senator Russ Feingold appeared on the Fox Sunday News program to discuss his initiative to censure the president for violating the law on domestic spying. Feingold compared the arrogance of this administration to that of Richard Nixon during Watergate. Host Chris Wallace, angry and hectoring in his manner, took exception to Feingold’s characterization:

WALLACE: Let me explore that Watergate comparison a little bit more. Has President Bush created an enemies list? Has he used the federal government to punish his political opponents? Has he authorized break-ins of his political enemies?

Well, it is now clear that Bush had an enemies list of at least two, Joe and Valerie Wilson, and had little concern about compromising either her or the CIA in the pursuit of his political agenda. It is also clear that Bush’s disrespect for both the law and the American people is edging ever closer to—to use Feingold’s phrase—“being within the strike zone of impeachment.” Now, to be sure--and I believe Feingold would agree--the impeachment of Bush is a pointless and imprudent goal: He has only two years left in his term, and would be succeeded by a man who is even more dangerous. However, it is always important to remind ourselves of what our bedrock values are, and just how far the President has strayed.