By: Daniel Moss

As conservatives race to embrace John G. Roberts, President Bush’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, references to Mr. Roberts’ sterling resume and strong legal qualifications abound. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist detailed this resume in a statement on the Senate floor greeting the President’s nomination. Citing Roberts’ judicial and legal background, Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) raved about the nominee, describing him as a “highly qualified individual” who has “led a very distinguished career,” and extolling his ”distinguished and high credentials.” Similarly, Progress for America, a conservative group with connections to the Bush White House, has launched an ad campaign on behalf of the nominee which highlights his educational and professional background. Clearly, conservatives feel that a nominee for the Supreme Court should meet the highest of standards, and that John Roberts meets those standards.

It is strange, then, that these conservatives are silent about the remarkably low standards President Bush has set for members of his own Administration. Buffeted by questions about the mushrooming scandal surrounding the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the President made headlines when he informed us on July 18 that “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”

This is news? The fact that criminals would not be permitted to work in the White House?

The fact that this is news is news. The point, of course, is that President Bush’s statement represents a significant shift from his previous vow to fire anyone involved with the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity. Evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, and Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, meet this earlier standard of leak involvement. And yet, the President retreats and apparently will refuse to fire either Mr. Rove or Mr. Libby unless they are convicted of crimes. For President Bush, the man who vowed to restore “honor and dignity to the White House” in 2000, leaking the name of a CIA operative solely for political purposes is not a fireable offense if the act of leaking did not technically violate the letter of the law.

Let’s be clear. Contrary to the talking points of Republican apologists for Mr. Rove’s alleged behavior, illegally leaking the name of an intelligence agent is not a trivial matter. In a July 18 letter to congressional leaders, eleven former intelligence officers concisely addressed the heart of the issue:

“….The disclosure of Ms. Plame’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.”

The authors conclude that

… We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation’s leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.

By President Bush’s new standard, anything that falls short of a criminal conviction is good enough for the White House, creating a veritable “ethics-free zone.” In fact, the notion that one is technically not a criminal (yet) seems to be a badge of honor in this White House, and worthy of a promotion or, at the very least, a medal. The Wall Street Journal editorial page certainly seems to think so. As does Fox News’ John Gibson. For these and other Administration supporters, “ethics cleansing” must feel intoxicatingly liberating.

Still, this minimal standard for employment at the White House really just addresses those who would like to keep the jobs that they already have. Perhaps President Bush has set a higher standard for those who are seeking promotions. After all, on July 18 – the same day the President Bush boldly banned criminals from working in the White House – the Administration proposed to expand the system of merit-based pay (which is currently being implemented at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security) throughout the rest of the federal government. President Bush would like to see at least part of every pay raise for federal employees based on an annual performance evaluation.

Alas, this proposed standard has not applied to the White House itself and high-ranking Bush officials. On the contrary, the Bush Administration’s perverse standards for promotions seem to be directly linked to one’s professional incompetence. Consider that:

- Former CIA Director George Tenet – who boasted that the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a “Slam Dunk” – is rewarded for his colossal “Oops” with the Presidential Medal of Freedom;

- Former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice played down the warnings of former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke before 9/11, and minimized the importance of an August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S” – and is promoted to Secretary of State.; and

- Former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez – who approved a memo authorizing torture, which helped create the conditions which led to the torture scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and which has significantly damaged to our image worldwide, particularly among Muslims –is promoted to Attorney General (and eventually, perhaps, to the Supreme Court.)

(Conversely, those who have proven to be perceptive truth tellers in this Administration – such as General Eric Shinseki (who argued that we need would need significantly more troops in Iraq), Mr. Clarke, and former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill -- have been forced into early retirement or have been the targets of character assassination.)

This inclination to hold no one accountable for misdeeds and to reward incompetence also reflects the President’s redefined concept of “affirmative action.” Rather than offering women and minorities opportunities to level the professional playing field, the Bush version of “affirmative action” offers something much more valuable to his most fervent supporters.

If you affirm your loyalty to President Bush through years of blind, unquestioning service, then:

1. Positive actions will be taken on your behalf to advance your professional career, regardless of what laws you may or may not have been broken or which ethical boundaries you may have crossed; and

2. No negative action shall be taken against thee, regardless of what laws you may or may not have been broken or which ethical boundaries you may have crossed.

And so we return to the John G. Roberts, the nominee with the impeccable academic and professional credentials. He certainly deserves a fair hearing. After all, he apparently has not committed a crime.

Yes, it is comforting to know that the White House has such high standards for its employees. It is a wonder why Tom DeLay, the morally bankrupt Majority Leader in the House of Representatives, has not applied.

Daniel Moss is a consultant based in Arlington, Virginia. He took a leave of absence in September 2004 to work as the regional field director in Pittsburgh for the National Jewish Democratic Council.