VPW - We Continue To Mock Boston

In a pleasant merging of the Valerie Plame Wilson scandal and the Boston Red Sox debacle, today we mock an editorial in the Boston Globe, which calls for President Bush to be more involved in uncovering the truth:

Bush has left the work of locating the leakers to the Justice Department and the FBI, while he plays the role of a detached observer. This stance makes him look like a weak leader presiding over a band of unruly subordinates who feud with each other, betraying patriotic Americans like Ms. Wilson, with no fear of being brought to hand by the president.

I gave the long answer here, so I will excerpt Alex Parker, who, for the benefit of my left leaning readers, tilts your way:

...I also don't buy into the "Bush should find the leakers himself" meme. For one, what did anyone expect? Two, it would resolve nothing: whoever Bush frog-marched out of the White House, that action would be treated by his critics with about the same credulity that O.J. would receive announcing he's found the real killers. But it would give Bush an alabi for the general public--he would be admired for his honesty, all while engaging in a cover-up.

Well, yes. I am not thrilled with "Bush - OJ", but why would sacking two officials, or five, or a dozen, satisfy the critics? As Bogie noted in "Key Largo", what they want is "more".

And we have MORE! The very useful Parker Collection of Intimigate links.

UPDATE: Brad DeLong wants President Bush (and me) to do the right thing. Well, I am not convinced that letting the process work, with a professional investigation handled by professionals, is the wrong thing. Ashcroft will at some point have to separate himself from this, and at roughly the same point, I will have to firmly grasp the distinction between a special prosecutor and an independent counsel. I want the credible outsider operating under the aegis of the DoJ, especially since the special prosecutor statute has lapsed.

And a link to the non-supportive reaction of four Senators to the current investigation.

UPDATE: Let's give Alex Parker the mike, so that my Evil Excerpter doesn't put him in a corner - his new post amplifies his previous thoughts, and is titled "President Bush is morally culpable".

MORE: Mark Kleiman is not pleased. I sense an avenging Strawman - Are we to suppose that the President cares, and should care, exclusively about the PR aspects of this and not at all about the national security aspects?

Well, the President has said he doesn't like leaks. DCI Tenet has not complained to him at their weekly meetings about the national security implications (or had not, as of a few weeks ago). And I continue to doubt that a chicken-sans-head investigation will really resolve the national security issues here.

Comments

[dwight meredith]

Perhaps Mr. Bush should want to locate the persons who burned Valerie Plame because such persons should no longer have access to classified information lest it be placed in the public domain to the deteriment of our national security interests.

[CMike]

Ashcroft will at some point have to seperate himself from this, and at some point I will have to firmly grasp the distinction between a special prosecutor and an independent counsel. I want the credible outsider operating under the aegis of the DoJ, especially since the special prosecutor statute has lapsed.

First, I suppose you meant to say "since the independent counsel statute has lapsed." It is a special prosecutor that Ashcroft might appoint and the DoJ would maintain some control over that position as you would prefer.

Second, as you remember Judge Starr was an independent counsel - for years. I am new to this site and may be jumping to an erroneous conclusion but it appears the host leans to the right and prides himself on being fair minded. I would guess that the host boiled through the 90's at Clinton and his scandals and felt confirmed in his prescience by the affair Monica. What I find very interesting is that the host, an astute and fair minded political observer the Clinton presidency, has yet to "firmly grasp the distinction between a special prosecutor and an independent counsel."

Speaking of prescience, you might want to read Judge Scalia's dissent in the independent counsel case, Morrison v. Olson (1988).

[TM]

Dwight - we may be confusing means and ends. Even assuming Bush himself knew about this incident during the long, quiet summer, it is not at all clearrthat an amateur investigation will be accepted as credible, will find all of the culprits, and will shield the President from obstruction of justice and witness tampering charges. What Bush views as a good-faith attempt to learn the truth might be construed by others as an attempt to coordinate stories and orchestrate a cover-up.

CMIke - Goopd point! I don't understand all of my attempts at humor either.

Anyway, when I google "Ken Starr 'special prosecutor' ", I get about 4,000 hits, including, at a quick glance, some from TIME and CNN. "Ken Starr 'independent counsel' " gets about 14,000 hits.

A similar test with Lawrence Walsh favors independent counsel by about 2-1.

So, I am inclined to think that the confusion is real, and irelevant, since I thought I was clear as to what I meant. Anyway, I had very recently linked to (or at least read) an Alex Parker post where he had chided folks for not knowing the difference, so I thought it was kind of funny, but there you are... these jokes are always soo much funnier after the explanation, aren't they?

And yes, I remember Ken Starr, and Lawrence Walsh, and how Reps wanted to kill the independent counsel in the early 90's, but Dems (and Clinton) insisted on re-enacting it, so there we were.