![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() Just Above Sunset
October 23, 2005 - Perhaps More of a Squib
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
Perhaps this political
bombshell is more of a squib: 1 a: a short humorous
or satiric writing or speech - b: a short news item; especially filler: FILLER The item, Wednesday, October
19, was part of the swirl of speculation given that no one yet knows what will come of the investigation of the leak of that
CIA agent's name. There were lots of rumors going around the day before. Would Cheney resign? Would Bush name Condoleezza
Rice Vice President? Just who was going to be indicted, and for what? How high up was this going to go? DeFrank suggest the AP
folks were punked, with this: An angry President Bush
rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.
That's it. Short and sweet. Karl's been in the doghouse because he handled
this badly. The implication is the
boss felt there were better ways to "discredit" that Wilson guy. This leaking crap to the press was a lousy way to smear the
guy, or not sneaky enough, or something. Listen, I know of nobody
- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information,
I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And February 2004, this – "If there's a leak out
of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising
stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. So maybe DeFrank is lying,
or he himself has been punked. Who are you going to believe? The New York Daily News
says that Bush and Rove had discussions about Rove's involvement in the Plame case "beginning shortly after the Justice Department
informed the White House in September 2003 that a criminal investigation had been launched into the leak." If that's true,
then Bush may have been telling something less than the full truth during a Cabinet meeting on Oct. 7, 2003, when he told
reporters that he didn't know who leaked Valerie Plame's identity. "I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who
like to leak information," Bush said then. "And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official
[who leaked Plame's identity to Robert Novak]. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials.
I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully
with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll
find out who the leaker is." This is enough to make
your head hurt. Question: Is it true
that the president slapped Karl Rove upside the head a couple of years ago over the CIA leak? Well, that was illuminating.
David Wurmser, has agreed
to provide the prosecution with evidence that the leak was a coordinated effort by Cheney's office to discredit the agent's
husband. Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war. It's a hall of mirrors. Who knew what, and when? And who ordered this thing be done?
And note this from John Dean: It is difficult to envision Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuting anyone, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, who believed
they were acting for reasons of national security. While hindsight may find their judgment was wrong, and there is no question
their tactics were very heavy-handed and dangerous, I am not certain that they were acting from other than what they believed
to be reasons of national security. They were selling a war they felt needed to be undertaken. In short, I cannot imagine any of them
being indicted, unless they were acting for reasons other than national security. Because national security is such a gray
area of the law, come next week, I can see this entire investigation coming to a remarkable anti-climax, as Fitzgerald closes
down his Washington office and returns to Chicago. Move
on folks, nothing to see here? There's no deep conspiracy here. What if they believed some things had to be "emphasized and reinforced" and other ideas
dismissed, for our own good. They would see that as a conspiracy to "persuade."
It was then the right thing to do, even if some people get hurt. It's all how you look at it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
This issue updated and published on...
Paris readers add nine hours....
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||
![]() |
||||