Wavering Leadership Amid the Plume Affair

Why has this story even become an issue? It seems yet just one more excuse for people to jockey for political position. From reading all the coverage, some things seem very clear to me:

• Rove possibly outed Plume as part of undermining public resistance to the Iraq war. This should be investigated, since it is a serious offense.
• Journalists should have the privilege to go to jail as part of their civil disobedience. Time Magazine did something unmentionable by compromising Cooper's sources instead of letting him decide what he was willing to sacrifice for.
• Bush should be the first to demand an investigation of Karl Rove and cut him loose if he did indeed compromise Plume and thus place many CIA agents in jeopardy. Bush seems oddly to be "wishy-washy" on this matter, back-pedaling in order to give himself some flex.
• Most Americans think Bush is not coming completely clean in this matter.
• There is some partisanship occurring on both sides.
• There is some honest indignation on both sides -- in fact, a lot of it.

And in "All Things Rove and Elsewhere," Bush is hard to lay a finger on, mainly because he likes it that way. He offers the illusion of unswerving confidence and decisiveness, while quietly preserving as much flex as possible in order that he not be locked into a certain course of action. Whether one appreciates this or not, it's an admirable display of political legerdemain.

Deep-down, Bush always seems to be searching for a legacy, something to validate the position history has currently placed him in, but I think this desire has betrayed him in some ways. The Iraq war is one such attempt to use power to accomplish something important, something good. (The underlying philosophy seems to be, if you can't change anything or make a difference in the world, why have power at all?)

He did not prefer war, but driven by his sense of "divine will" and his own urge for validation, he plunged headstrongly into it without considering the complete ramifications on America and without having a long-term plan for success.

I have heard it stated that he admires Lincoln, and some have drawn comparisons between the two presidents simply because of the common emphasis on "freedom." I find this comparison mostly misguided.

Lincoln was a great man, not necessarily because he helmed the side of the North in the Civil War or because he "ended" slavery but because (simply) he was a great man.

It comes out in the letters he wrote, the Gettysburg Address, how he tried to give everyone a voice in his cabinet -- even his enemies, especially his enemies! -- because he knew his own decisions would be better because of it.

The last thing he wanted was war and he consciously fought to avoid it, as long as reasonable. He didn't champ at the bit, trying to do something "important" during his tenure that would validate him. As far as I know, it was never a consideration.

Most tellingly, he refused to punish the South for their rebellion (despite the ardence of his supporters) because he knew it would prevent reunification and be a moral affront to God himself. His divine inspiration led him in directions different from Mr. Bush.

Getting back to the topic, I wish things were merely as simple as investigating the Plume leak, taking steps to punish the culprits, and ensuring that it does not happen again. That seems to be common sense. It's unfortunate that it seems it will not really happen.