Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Basic Logic and Bush's options regarding Rove

There are some very basic rules of logic that ought to be applied to Karl Rove's current employment status.

First, for Mr. Rove himself there are two options:

1. Rove is guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent

2. Rove is not guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent

Second, Karl Rove is employed as the Deputy Chief of Staff in the Office of the President of the United States of America. I do not know what his security clearance is but it is safe to assume that it is fairly high and that he has a great deal of access to highly classified information.

Third, for President Bush there are three options:

1. Bush knows that Rove is guilty

2. Bush knows that Rove is not guilty

3. Bush does not know whether Rove is guilty or not

Fourth... the If-Then construct...

If President Bush knows for a fact that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is guilty then it is obvious that Rove must be fired immediately, security clearances revoked, documents and computers confiscated, and all pertinent information handed over to Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and the police.

If President Bush knows for a fact that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is not guilty then the pertinent facts ought to be shared with Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald and both Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Bush ought to be able to state categorically that Mr. Rove is not guilty and the pertinent facts will be revealed at the appropriate time.

If President Bush does not know for certain whether Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove is guilty or not then it is President Bush's duty and obligation in defense of the United States of America to place Mr. Rove on temporary leave from all of his duties, revoke all security access, confiscate all documents and computers that might contain classified information Mr. Rove would have normal access to until such time as Mr. Rove's guilt or innocence can be determined.

There are no other choices.

The Summary:

Mr. Rove is guilty, not guilty, or it is not known.

I assume that if Mr. Bush knew that Mr. Rove had knowingly and willfully compromised the security of the United States of America that he would already have acted accordingly, fired Mr. Rove, and requested that charges be brought up against him.

To not do so would make President Bush complicit in Mr. Rove's actions.

Likewise I assume that if Mr. Bush had proof that Mr. Rove is innocent of all charges that he already has gladly come to the defense of one of his most trusted friends and aides, shared that proof with the prosecutor, and that both the Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Bush can publicly declare Mr. Rove's innocence.

To not do so would make President Bush a disloyal man.

Since neither of these of occurred then it must be assumed that it is not known whether or not Karl Rove is guilty or not.

President Bush therefore has no choice... no choice... but to defend the United States of America against a potential enemy within and place Mr. Rove on temporary leave of absence.

To not do so would make Mr. Bush negligent in his duties as President and show willful disregard for the security of the United States of America.

The question:

Which is it Mr. President? There are only three choices. Which is it?

No comments: