Editorial: President's loyalty misguided

Opinion

Sometimes in politics the reaction to an incident can be more important than the event itself. Such was the case with the Watergate scandal. President Richard Nixon was forced to resign from office not because of the bungled burglary of the Democratic National Committee's offices but because of the attempted cover-up. Such is now also the case for George W. Bush if he is to revive his flagging presidency.

The indictment of Lewis Libby, the chief of staff for Vice-President Dick Cheney, for perjury and obstruction of justice offers an unflattering insight into the state of mind in the White House. At worst, it suggests a willingness by aides to go to almost any length to silence critics and protect the President. Only those with no tolerance of dissent or debate could have contemplated leaking the identity of covert Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, whose diplomat husband was a prominent critic of the Iraq war.

Yet the charges against Mr Libby, even if proved, are unlikely in themselves to severely wound Mr Bush. There would be a greater chance of that happening if Mr Bush's close adviser, Karl Rove, were also to be indicted. But at the moment the American heartland is clearly far more interested in the President's handling of Iraq and the vacant Supreme Court seat.

This could change, however, if Mr Bush responds inappropriately to the indictment. The signs so far are not auspicious. His response to Mr Libby's resignation was a glowing reference, stating that the former chief of staff had "worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service of the country".

This was an odd endorsement of a man, who, according to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, lied, first to Federal Bureau of Investigation agents, and then, twice, to the grand jury investigating the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity. It was even odder coming from a President who swept into Washington pledging a new standard of ethics.

Instead of issuing such testimonials, Mr Bush should be putting distance between himself and those who have been, or could be, indicted. A shake-up of the White House staff would do this. Certainly, it worked for both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan when their second terms looked like being blighted irretrievably. And Mr Bush could garner further advantage by pledging not to pardon White House aides convicted as a result of the Plame investigation.

All that, however, would run counter to the President's huge sense of loyalty to his closest associates, even when he has strong reason to doubt their wisdom. His decision to stand by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld offered clear evidence of this trait. A similar response now, however, could deliver an increasingly impotent presidency.

This term was to shape the President's legacy: restructured tax and social welfare systems. Republican majorities in both houses of Congress provided the opportunity for a transformation of the domestic landscape. But now Mr Bush's plunging approval rating - a symptom of growing public opposition to the Iraq war, the wretched response to Hurricane Katrina and the misguided nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court - threatens that. The Democrats are rubbing their hands in expectation of the mid-term congressional elections.

As yet, the Libby indictment is a wound of indeterminate severity. But if nothing else, it adds to an unflattering picture of the White House. A shake-up is required. New blood and a fresh approach are necessary if Mr Bush is to save his presidency.