I have been lurking here for a while but after reading some of the diaries about Rove and the Plame leak I noticed an important point that has been overlooked and felt the need to post a diary. When the Plame story first broke, Bush publicly stated that he wanted to find out who the leaker was and he instructed his staff to cooperate with the justice department. Let me repeat that, Bush told his staff to cooperate! This is really important, because if Rove didn't admit to leaking Plame's name, then he defied the president. This is insubordination. Any boss would fire an employee who disobeyed him. If we can frame this properly, it puts Bush in a lose/lose situation where he only has two options.
"I want to know the truth," (Bush Unsure if Name Leaker Will Be Caught , Oct 7, Associated Press)
Bush renewed his pledge to cooperate with the investigation to "come to the bottom of this." (Bush Unsure if Name Leaker Will Be Caught , Oct 7, Associated Press)
Bush pledged to provide investigators with "everything we know." (Leaker May Remain Elusive, Bush Suggests, Oct 8 New York Time)
Mr. Bush said that he wanted the truth and that he had instructed his staff to cooperate fully. (Leaker May Remain Elusive, Bush Suggests, Oct 8 New York Time)
Bush's first option is to stand by Rove and the leak, making it appear that he is complicit in the outing of a CIA operative. This also demonstrates Bush lying to the American people. When Bush said he wanted to know the truth and asked for his staff to cooperate, and Rove didn't cooperate, it appears that either Bush knew about the leak all along and lied about wanting his staff to cooperate with the investigation, or that protecting a political adviser is more important to him than leaking of the identity of a CIA operative, which possibly put the lives of other operatives in danger.
The second option forces Bush has to admit that Rove disobeyed him, which would distance him from Rove and drive a wedge between the two of them, leaving Rove to take the fall. This is especially true for Bush, who is known to require loyalty from his underlings. Consider Paul O'Neill, former Treasury Secretary, who was fired for questioning whether the Bush Administration's proposed tax cuts were a good idea, Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was fired after saying several hundred thousand troops were needed in Iraq, and Lawrence Lindsey, the President's chief economic adviser, who was fired after stating that the cost of the Iraq war could approach $200 billion. Those were just off the top of my head. Surely disobeying Bush's orders is as serious an offense as any of those and Rove needs to be fired. This option insulates Bush from any fallout, but removes his most important political adviser. This is an important victory in itself, especially now with the Supreme Court battle looming.
The beauty of approaching the story from this angle is that it doesn't matter what Rove's defense is or what he knew. It makes it a personal issue between Rove and the president. I have been looking over some of the possible defenses the Rove might use; he didn't know she was undercover, or that he wasn't the original source of the leak. By making it personal, it doesn't matter if Rove technically committed a crime or not. Even if he didn't and everything he did was technically legal, he still disobeyed the president. This prevents Bush from supporting Rove by claiming everything he did was legal. Rove was insubordinate, defying Bush's orders, and Bush is not a president who lets his underling defy him.
If we can frame this correctly and get a reporter to question Bush about this, there is no easy way for him to wiggle out of the situation. This could be a good starting point to expose more of the lies and deceptions of this administration.