How far up the White House food chain does this scandal go? Lewis Libby indictment

The two-year inquiry by Patrick Fitzgerald and his investigators at the US department of justice shows the lengths the Bush administration appeared to be prepared to go to in order to silence those who challenged its authority.

The indictment against Libby, prepared after a long investigation, has led many in Washington to believe the case that will come before him in a trial will be substantial. But at least he will have the opportunity of a fair trial. Before flying to Camp David last week, President Bush put his faith in the US justice system. "Each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial, " he said. And on this the president is correct. However, which part of his selective memory allows him to filter out the situation faced in Guantanamo Bay by foreign detainees who are currently receiving no due process, no fair trial and no presumption of innocence? It has to be assumed that President Bush believes there is one law for those of the elevated Washington elite around him, and another for those unfortunate enough to have fallen foul of US authority abroad and been shipped to

Guantanamo.

If that same selective application of the law has been at epidemic levels in and around the Bush administration, we can expect to see more people indicted in the fallout from the Fitzgerald inquiry. Libby was the chief of staff of the vice-president, Dick Cheney, one of the key neoconservative architects of the Bush White House. That in itself is highly damaging and should be enough for any president to consider a radical overhaul of his entire staff, from top to bottom. Other presidents in similar positions of failing authority have resorted to the US equivalent of a Cabinet clearout, the assumption being that a raft of new bodies will divert attention from the guilty faces of the old ones. But Bush is no ordinary president - even with his claim to be on speaking terms with the almighty.

This weekend, Bush might have to consider a clear-out. But how extensive will it need to be? His own right-hand man, Karl Rove - the man often called Bush's brain and the individual most responsible for the strategy that put Bush into the White House for two terms - is currently supposed to work as normal, despite having the threat of indictment hanging over him. This is an impossibility - Rove will be spending more time with lawyers than with White House staff. The result, inevitably, will be further erosion of the White House power and influence over a Congress that looks as though it has already accepted that the presidency has all but gone into retreat for the remainder of this term.

Last week's failure to get through Bush's choice for the free position on the supreme court is evidence enough of a growing weakness. This is a lame duck presidency that could last three years. Three years in which the Democrats, possibly through Hillary Rodham Clinton, could firmly establish their bid for an extension of the Clinton presidential dynasty.

But should the criminal investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent now widen to other actions and misdeeds of the Bush administration? And how long will it be before the calls for impeachment are heard? Bush's popularity rating is at rock bottom for a president at the beginning of his second term. This is the period when a president should be concerned about a lasting legacy, a place in history.

Instead Bush looks like he's trying to stay afloat. Should Rove go the way of Libby and have to leave the White House to fight a scandalous court case, Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, would seem a powerless duo occupying a powerless White House.

Bush has tried to turn Iraq to his advantage. In the immediate post-war days, it looked like his gung-ho authority would prevail. Even a year ago, in the presidential elections, the US voters gave him the benefit of the doubt. Now the war in Iraq, the cost of the occupation and the lack of any light at the end of the long tunnel of US presence in that country have left him a president having to repeat and repeat the same familiar message:

that he has no choice, that he has to win the war against terrorism.

That may sound a familiar position to those who have watched Tony Blair's prime ministerial authority dissipate as untruths and falsehoods on his so-called case for war have emerged. Blair is not quite yet fully a lame duck, but on authority alone, the comparison between the two leaders is close. Both believed they were untouchable when it came to the decision to go to war; both believed they could manipulate the truth to get what they wanted, namely a war in Iraq; and now both are suffering the consequences.

The US media may be trying to take some comfort in what happened in the UK after the Hutton Inquiry - Blair survived and for a brief period looked like he could keep his authority intact. But his victory at the general election this year may well be put down to poor opposition rather than a positive affirmation of Blair's character - and to his promise that he wouldn't be sticking around too long. Bush does not have the option of a departure of his choosing. The next presidential race already has its dates and the starting clock is running. But the losers have already been identified: the US voters. They wanted a president and a "moral" White House. They got George Bush, Dick Cheney and their cronies.