Informed Speculation

No, I’m not talking about perjury, but rather, Rove’s security clearance. Jonathan Alter makes the case for Rove losing his, and it’s a pretty compelling one:

According to last week’s indictment of Scooter Libby, a person identified as “Official A” held conversations with reporters about Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA operative, information that was classified. News accounts subsequently confirmed that that official was Rove. Under Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton in 1995, such a disclosure is grounds for, at a minimum, losing access to classified information.

Section 5.1 of Clinton’s executive order prohibits “any knowing, willful or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.” While the law against revealing the identity of a CIA operative requires that the perpetrator intentionally disclosed such classified information (a high standard, which may be one reason Fitzgerald did not indict on those grounds), the executive order covers “negligence,” or unintentional disclosure.

So, malice, treason, perjury, none of these things is necessary to lose your clearance. How likely is it, then, that Rove’s will soon be history?

Not very:

Because Rove’s apparent violation is covered by executive order, not legislated law, the issue of his security clearance is unlikely to wind up in criminal court. But he may face a civil suit from the Wilsons, who could seek damages because of the damage done to Plame’s CIA career by the leak.

Certainly, the clownish publicity hound Joe Wilson is not above a self-serving lawsuit; but by the time it was litigated, the point would most likely be moot. In the end, interesting parlor talk, but not much else here…

UPDATE 8:22 a.m.: On further reflection, there can’t be more than a half-dozen high government officials who should retain their clearances under this standard…

However, the Washington Post has a more substantial critique of Rove that fits in with a long-standing concern of mine: that of Rove as a distraction. I treat Democratic calls for Rove’s resignation as what they are: naked attempts at partisan gain. However, that doesn’t mean I think his resignation would be a bad idea. I sincerely believe that the easiest way for this administration to regain the initiative would be to make some wholesale staffing changes.

The Post article says that Rove’s continuing legal problems should not be discounted, but neither should his affect on morale:

A swift resolution is needed in part to ease staff tension, a number of people inside and out of the White House said. Many mid-level staffers inside have expressed frustration that press secretary Scott McClellan’s credibility was undermined by Rove, who told the spokesman that he was not involved in the leak, according to people familiar with the case.

Some aides said Rove told Bush the same thing, though little is known about the precise nature of the president’s conversations with his closest political adviser.

McClellan relayed Rove’s denial to reporters from the White House lectern in 2003, and he has not yet offered a public explanation for his inaccurate statements. “That is affecting everybody,” said a Republican who has discussed the issue with the White House. “Scott personally is really beaten down by this. Everybody I talked to talks about this.”

I’ll just conclude by making a point I’ve made before – no one is indispensable – not even Karl Rove…