I am going to say this one more time, so this time even the differently abled pundits on both sides of the blogosphere understand it. Stating that Bush does not care about the Plame affair is so farcically absurd that it pains me that reasonable people keep making the claim.
If, on no other level, Bush cares from a mere political standpoint, and that is assuming the most crass approach the President could take. Even the ‘dummy’ Bush understand the vast amount of political damage this scandal has caused.
However, I think it is also safe to say that the President is probably livid about someone intentionally or unintentionally outing a CIA agent, for whatever the reasons. Having said that, it is important to point out that Bush simply can’t just ‘hold a Cabinet meeting and end this.’ There is now a criminal investigation in place, run by the Counterespionage civil servants in the DOJ, and if Bush did anything, it would be widely seen (correctly, IMHO) as interference.
While Kevin Drum might like to continuously repeat the ‘Bush doesn’t care’ meme over and over again for partisan effect, there is really not much he can do at this point in time. Personally, I wish it were that simple, that President Bush simply ‘caring’ would fix this matter, but it is clear that this is something that has to be treated with a bunch of investigative and legal procedures directing the outcome.
It is fair to say that this should have been handled in July- on July 22nd I wrote the following:
If Wilson’s charges are accurate, this is ugly, very ugly….
And he is right- not that politicization of intelligence and this sort of retribution is anything new, as it has been going on for ages, even during the Golden Age of Clinton- but that is not the point. If some ‘senior officials’ compromised CIA agents, heads need to roll and someone needs to go to jail or have his/her career ruined.
Nothing has changed with my opinion, but with the DOJ referral, things are now out of the President’s hands. Period.
Kevin Drum
Bush is livid? There’s not much he can do?
I thought Rush was the guy addicted to painkillers, not you, John. Bush hasn’t done a single thing about this for over two months, even though it was likely planned by some his top level people.
I gotta tell you, my definition of “livid” is a little different from yours.
John Cole
Kevin- your version of livid has been on display for a couple of months now- I would use it interchangeably with ‘hysterical.’
At any rate, I am not playing pop psychologist- I am taking what he has said in the past about leaks and assuming that he would maintain a consistent attitude. Hence- Bush is ‘probably livid,’ as I stated, rather than you blanket assertion that ‘Bush doesn’t care,’ which is absurd.
IF this turns out to have not come from the White House, what is going to happen? I am not sure what to make of Novak’s flip-flopping.
Norbizness
I’d wait until there’s an independent investigator until saying that “things are now out of the President’s hands”, or at least the Administration’s hands.
Andrew Lazarus
John, I don’t think the President doesn#146;t care. In my opinion, the failure to investigate the problem in July was deliberate. (I realize you are unlikely to agree with this, yet.).
I don’t see any evidence that the President is livid, and strong evidence that he is not. If he were livid about this issue per se, as opposed to its potential political impact, he’s hidden it awfully well for three months. The only excuse I can think of is that he literally didn’t KNOW about it.
David Perron
Well, given that Bush’s state after a couple of airliners took down a couple of buildings in NYC, killing about 3000 people in the process can’t justifiably be characterized as “livid”, I’m not sure what you expect in this case.
RW
That’s another loony Bush conspiracy for another day, David. Then again, I just reread this thread. :)
Larry
John,
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re right that there is nothing more that Bush can do NOW to find the leaker. I don’t quite buy that (though I agree that the “all he has to do is call a cabinet meeting” meme is a bit simplistic), but let’s assume for a moment that you’re right.
You’re missing the most cogent criticism of Bush: where was he during the weeks before Justice started (was, in essence, forced to start it by the CIA request for an investigation) the investigation? Where was the outrage from the admistration?
Remember – Bush (or his aides) knew Plame’s status – hence they knew, as soon as the Novak column appeared that SOMEONE had burned a covert agent. Now, let’s put the best possible spin on it from the Bush perspective – assume they were sceptical about whether the source was from the White House. Still, someone, somewhere had burned Plame. And someone had probably (or at least possibly) committed a serious crime. Where was the outrage? Its not like Bush didn’t have the power to do anything – at the very least, he could have called for an investigation. He does, after all, head the executive branch – you know, the branch which, inter alia, investigates and prosecutes Federal crimes. But nothing, not a word, till he realistically had no choice.
I’ve been following this issue pretty closely. There are some cogent arguments made by those sceptical that this is a real scandal. Not convincing arguments, IMO, but real arguments that could convince someone more predisposed than I am to trust the Bush administration. But on this particular issue – Bush’s inaction until now – all I’ve heard from Bush defenders is bluster. The administration response – “hey, it was an anonomous source, you can’t trust those, so why should we have investigated” more or less – doesn’t pass the laugh test.
If there is a good explanation for the silence of the Bush Administration up till recently, I’d like to hear it – seriously. But I haven’t heard it yet.
Ricky
***”Kevin- your version of livid has been on display for a couple of months now- I would use it interchangeably with ‘hysterical.'”***
Understatement of the year.
Sad to say, but you’re right on the money, John. Much of the blogosphere is becoming unreadable.
John Cole
Larry-
I am not sure how I am missing that when I acknowledged in this post that very thing:
It is fair to say that this should have been handled in July- on July 22nd I wrote the following:
I certainly would have taken care of things differently. Everyone needs to slow down here. Let the investigation run its course.
Larry
John,
Yes you acknowledge that Bush should have “taken case of things differently.” What really gets me is the disconnect between that acknowledgment and your initial claim that:
“Stating that Bush does not care about the Plame affair is so farcically absurd that it pains me that reasonable people keep making the claim”
I’d say that Bush’s earlier inaction – which even you don’t defend – is pretty strong evidence that he wasn’t interested in getting to the bottom of the Plame affair. Which isn’t exactly the same as saying he “doesn’t care” about it, but its the former charge that his critics have been making. I’m sure he does care about the affair in the broader sense, if only for political reasons (as you say yourself) but so what – that’s not the issue. Straw man argument on your part.
You spend most of your post arguing that Bush’s CURRENT “inaction” doesn’t prove that he doesn’t care about the leak. But that’s another straw man. Its the earlier inaction that proves he doesn’t really care (about finding the source of the leak).
John Cole
Larry-
You really need to go look up what a straw man argument is. I can provide you with some links if you would like.
We are not debating what happened over the past two months. We are debating the behavior of Bush right now- and claiming that he does not care is stupid, as there is no way to ‘show he cares.’
Unless, of course, you would like him tostand up and state “I feel your pain.” Kevin and others keep claiming that Bush does not care, because he has done nothing this WEEK. As I have stated, there is nothing he can do except let the investigation progress. Unless, of course, you will give him a free pass should he decide to meddle in the investigation because he ‘cares.’
Larrry
John,
Nice little snark there. Gee, the reward I get for trying to keep it civil. Now I’ll just try to keep it simple.
“WE” aren’t debating about “the behavior of Bush right now.” YOU seem to think that Bush critics are relying on Bush’s recent behavior for proof that he doesn’t care about finding the leak. Now, its true that Kevin to some extent, and some of his commenters to a greater extent, have suggested that Bush should be doing more now (and using this as ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE that he doesn’t care about finding the source of the leak). But that has NEVER been the centerpiece of the argument that Bush doesn’t want to find the leaker. The centerpiece of that argument has ALWAYS been the fact that he didn’t do anything until basically forced to.
What WE are debating is the truth of your original claim – that it not just wrong, but “farcically absurd” for Bush critics to argue that Bush doesn’t care about finding the leak. I suggested that the fact that he sat on his hands for several weeks (which even you admit was a mistake) is incredibly strong evidence that he didn’t care about finding the source of the leak. And I don’t find it particularly credible to believe that he had a sudden conversion in the past week and is now dedicated to finding the source of the leak.
And your response to this particular point? Ah, well, silence. Because honestly, on that point at least there just ISN’T any defense of your boy Bush.
And regarding the straw man argument – you try to refute argument A (Bush doen’t want to find the source of the leak) by refuting argument B (Bush isn’t doing anything about the leak now). But advocates of argument A don’t rely on argument B to prove argument A – they rely (primarily) on argument C (Bush did nothing for several weeks). You refute the “straw man” (argument B) rather than the real argument (C). That’s a classic straw man argument.
Larrry
John,
Nice little snark there. Gee, the reward I get for trying to keep it civil. Now I’ll just try to keep it simple.
“WE” aren’t debating about “the behavior of Bush right now.” YOU seem to think that Bush critics are relying on Bush’s recent behavior for proof that he doesn’t care about finding the leak. Now, its true that Kevin to some extent, and some of his commenters to a greater extent, have suggested that Bush should be doing more now (and using this as ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE that he doesn’t care about finding the source of the leak). But that has NEVER been the centerpiece of the argument that Bush doesn’t want to find the leaker. The centerpiece of that argument has ALWAYS been the fact that he didn’t do anything until basically forced to.
What WE are debating is the truth of your original claim – that it not just wrong, but “farcically absurd” for Bush critics to argue that Bush doesn’t care about finding the leak. I suggested that the fact that he sat on his hands for several weeks (which even you admit was a mistake) is incredibly strong evidence that he didn’t care about finding the source of the leak. And I don’t find it particularly credible to believe that he had a sudden conversion in the past week and is now dedicated to finding the source of the leak.
And your response to this particular point? Ah, well, silence. Because honestly, on that point at least there just ISN’T any defense of your boy Bush.
And regarding the straw man argument – you try to refute argument A (Bush doen’t want to find the source of the leak) by refuting argument B (Bush isn’t doing anything about the leak now). But advocates of argument A don’t rely on argument B to prove argument A – they rely (primarily) on argument C (Bush did nothing for several weeks). You refute the “straw man” (argument B) rather than the real argument (C). That’s a classic straw man argument.
John Cole
My goodness this is tedious:
You said it nicely:
Now, its true that Kevin to some extent, and some of his commenters to a greater extent, have suggested that Bush should be doing more now (and using this as ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE that he doesn’t care about finding the source of the leak).
To which I responded this is farcicly absurd, because HE CAN NO LONGER DO OR SAY ANYTHING about the matter without appearing to interfere with the investigation.
YOU, on the other hand, may be arguing that he never cared, which may not reach the level of farcically absurd, but certainly is a dubious claim at best. Regardless, you have set up the straw man argument here- you are attacking an argument I am not making.
BTW, if you want to play around with argumentatiuon and fallacies, perhaps it is best that you understand the proposition of the argument, which, since it continues to elude you is:
“It is farcically absurd to state that Bush currently does not care about the leak.”
Have fun with that.
Now, since you seem to have some deep inner working into Bush’s mind, could you provide me with the evidence that Bush did not care in July, other than your assertion that he ‘should have done something about it.’
For fun, try to think of reasons he may not have done anything about it (other than he ‘didn’t care.’) Like, for example, the White House Counsel told him not to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. I am sure you can think of several clever ideas why nothing may have been done, and it may shock even you to discover (after this exercise) that there may be some reasons this was not ‘simply dealt with at a Cabinet meeting’- reasons that actually make some sense- legally and politically, from the White House’s advantage.
John Cole
For the record, Larry- the proposition I have stated is a proposition of fact, in case you were curious.
Larry
John,
Its late, and your right, this is getting tedious, so let’s just tackle two of the high points:
(1)You say:
“BTW, if you want to play around with argumentatiuon and fallacies, perhaps it is best that you understand the proposition of the argument, which, since it continues to elude you is:
‘It is farcically absurd to state that Bush currently does not care about the leak.'”
Well John, there is just one LITTLE problem with that – your original post doesn’t include the qualifier “currently.” Even as restated, I think your (new) proposition is weak, for the reaons stated in my prior posts. (i.e., based on past behavior Bush didn’t care about finding the source of the leak, and there is no reason to believe he had a change of heart. You my disagree with this, but it certainly isn’t “farcically absurd.)”
And you phrase it “care about the leak.” Now, I’m sure he does currently “care about the leak” in the sense that he wishes it didn’t happen, for political reasons if nothing else. But that isn’t the issue; what his critics contend is that he dosen’t care about finding the SOURCE of the leak – a slightly different and much more significant proposition.
So, yes, I suppose if one takes your (revised) proposition literally – i.e., doesn’t care about the (existance of) the leak as opposed to not caring about finding the source of the leak – it is true – But if you mean it literally, then your proposition is kind of meaningless. And – wait for it – a straw man argument, since the argument people are making is that he doesn’t care about finding the source of the leak (or, possibly, that he doesn’t care that a CIA agent was burned, except to the extent that it comes back to hurt him politically).
(2)You say:
“For fun, try to think of reasons he may not have done anything about it (other than he ‘didn’t care.’)”
Yeah, I thought about the reasons. Problem is, all of the reasons either (a) don’t make any sense, or (b) don’t reflect very well on Bush. Your only suggestion – the White House Counsel idea – makes no sense at all. Why would the White House Counsel give such advice, and why would Bush follow it? Even assuming arguendo that he could have been advised not to bring the issue up at a cabinet meeting – and I don’t buy that for a second – there are plenty of other steps he could have taken. I mean, I’m not saying he PERSONALLY had to conduct an investigation (yeah, I know some people are saying that; I’m not sure that they are wrong, but again, let’s simplify the argument by assuming for a moment that they are), but what was stopping him from going on the record deploring the leak (as he rather tepidly did recently) or (more to the point) ordering Justice to investigate? You know, exercising some leadership? Of the executive branch, which is (again) responsible for investigating and prosecuting Federal crimes.
Interstingly, you probably do hit the nail on the head in one sense by refering to political reasons. But fear of political fallout, while quite likely at least part of the explanation, doesn’t reflect much credit on Bush.
Thomas J. Jackson
This is the biggest joke I have seen since I saw Clinton carrying a bible. What is this nonsense about? None of it makes sense except that Wilson is trying to grab some headlines and has demonstrated himself to be a loon of the first order. The news media has also demonstrated why it is trusted slightly less than used car salesmen and lawyers.
Andrew Lazarus
The New Republic on the weakness of the affirmative defenses offered by the right wing.
As for Thomas, why don’t you take your complaint up with Poppy Bush and Congress? They thought outing CIA agents was a serious felony. Whatever contacts Plame had can now, of course, be rolled up. I’m sorry it doesn’t make sense to you, but that’s probably a function of limited interest and intelligence, not the question itself.
Andrew Lazarus
I like this one from Maureen Dowd, as repeated by moderate liberal Mark Kleiman: George W. Bush’s stated desire to “get to the bottom” of the exposure of a covert CIA officer by people in his immediate official family had a lot in common with O.J. Simpson’s stated desire to find the man who murdered his wife.
Lots of other good Plame material on that site, including two more solid quotations that Plame was a major undercover agent. Meanwhile (according to Kleiman), the WSJ opeds are reduced to hoping Plame hadn’t been overseas recently enough to trigger the 10-year penalty, and suggests that Clifford May (who identifies himself by his journalist experience and omits his work as an official of the Republican Party), who claimed that Plame’s role was common knowledge that he’d heard about, is a liar.
Eric Sivula
Mr. Lazarus, the article Mr. Kleiman reports about contains an assertion by two NYT reporters that Ms. Plame was a covert agent. They cite NO SOURCES, unnamed, or otherwise, except Mr. Wilson. How does this proove she was a secret agent again?
Also what about link, dated 2002, in which Mr. Wilson’s wife madien named is revealed, and yet in this article, Mr. Wilson is quoted as saying: “In carefully discussing what he called the hypothetical possibility his wife is a CIA employee, Wilson noted that the use of her maiden name would compromise work done before their marriage five years ago.”
If revealing her name was dangerous, then why did Wilson NOT go ballistic when the Middle East Institute, whom he apparently worked for, revealed it LAST YEAR? And how did they discover her maiden name? Did he tell them, or was there another non-classified source? Either way, it certainly appears that Ms. Plame’s name did not HAVE to come from Karl Rove or anybody else in the White House
Eric Sivula
Also, Mr. Lazarus, the article that Mr. Kleiman blogged on says that quote: “Ms. Plame was married just after finishing her studies, but that ended in a year. She then worked in a department store before going into government work and what would be, until recently, a life under cover.
In recent years, her life has been divided. Friends said she had worked as a volunteer counselor for postpartum depression while seeing to her “regular” job at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Va.
And Seattle PI article that I linked quotes MR. Wilson as saying that the “use of her maiden name would compromise work done before their marriage FIVE YEARS AGO.” (caps added to highlight)
So Somebody is wrong here Lazarus. Either the NYT reporters are blowing smoke, or Mr. Wilson is wrong about what his wife was doing before he married her. The NYT story also does not line up the claims that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA for “three decades”, even if that phrase is taken to mean that she worked for them in the ’80’s, ’90’s, and 2000’s.
So who is getting the story wrong? Maybe you know, I do not.
RW
“moderate liberal”?
Is that anything like “somewhat pregnant”?
BTW, Kleiman charged racism over the anti-tax vote in Alabama….which is blatantly partisan on top of monumentally perverse.
Andrew Lazarus
Eric, your comment is a perfect example of the bizarre thinking that characterizes the Administation’s “slime-and-defend” mode.
1. So far we have not just Wilson, but also Vincent Cannistraro, who used to run counterterrorism for the CIA, saying that Plame was a deeply-covert agent. And, of course, if she weren’t, there would be nothing for the CIA to refer to DoJ. And of course, there’s her classmate from covert training. HOW MANY MORE EFFING SOURCES DO YOU NEED? Do you think the CIA has a phone list of clandestine operatives?
2. What does it matter how many years ago the compromised work would be? Do you think we would go easy on someone in OUR WMD industry if we found out they worked with a Chinese spy, but only five years ago? What a non sequitur!
3. Explain to me again: why does her working as a volunteer on depression mean she stopped working for the CIA? I mean, that one has me really confused. Why does working in a department store mean she wasn’t already in training, or even working, for the CIA. What a non sequitur!
4. The point is not revealing Ms. Plame’s maiden name. You could get that from Marriage License records. The point is identifying her AS AN AGENT. Your thinking is inside out. The small number of people who knew that Valerie Plame was an agent would, after her marriage, know that Valerie P. Wilson was an agent. Everyone else, who thought Valerie P. Wilson was an energy analyst (or, for that matter, a depression counselor), wouldn’t know anything more about her if told her maiden name was Plame, Smith, or Rumpelstiltskin, until Novak’s column. Did you even think about this “talking point” about maiden names before copying it? It makes no sense at all.
5. As I commented before, it’s possible that Plame’s name was given to Novak by someone outside the White House (Plame herself, the CIA, some other spy agency either ours or not). BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT NOVAK FIRST WROTE. HE WROTE HE HAD WHITE HOUSE SOURCES, AND AT LEAST SIX OTHER JOURNALISTS SAY THEY WERE APPROACHED BY WHITE HOUSE SOURCES. Of course, they might all be lying, but given their lack of motive, compared to the White House’s obvious motive in punishing the Wilson family, I doubt it.
Eric, there isn’t any Santa Claus either.
John Cole
Larry- Your quarrel is not with me, it is with the English language. The phrase “President Bush does not care” does not need the word currently in order for people to uderstand that we are talking about the present.
I am sorry you do not like the proposition or think that it is weak, but really, arguijng something else is nothing more than a waste of your time, since it is clear what point I am arguing.
I didn’t think you would be able to come up with any reasons. Try again- I bet JKC and Andrew Lazarus could even come up with some plausible explanations.
Eric Sivula
You missed the point, Lazarus. You claim that the NYT report that Kleiman based his blog post on was somehow accurate, and yet it CONTRADICTS the PBS report you just mentioned AND Mr. Wilson’s earlier comments. Yet they say that they interview Mr. Wilson. So how is it if they interview him, they print the following statement:
“Ms. Plame was MARRIED just after finishing her studies, but that ended in a year. She then worked in a department store BEFORE going into government work and what would be, until recently, a life under cover.” Less than two months earlier Mr. Wilson indicated that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA BEFORE they were married. But Kleiman’s “nails-down-Ms.-Plame’s-covert-role” artilce says that she began work for the CIA AFTER they were married. Which would mean less than 5 years at the CIA, and thus be in conflict with the PBS interview.
Andrew Lazarus
“Ms. Plame was married just after finishing her studies, but that ended in a year. She then worked in a department store before going into government work and what would be, until recently, a life under cover.”
Eric, as I read the NY Times story, Plame entered into a FIRST MARRIAGE shortly after college and IT ended in about a year (see boldface). THEN she went on to covert training, and a SECOND marriage.
Does it all make sense now? If you lose the idea that the liberal media, arch-conservative Robert Novak, and the Directorate of the CIA have joined in a strange-bedfellows conspiracy to smear Dear Leader, you won’t fall into comprehension errors like this.
dwight meredith
John. I agree that GWB does care about the leak now. He really has no other option. I also agree that he should have handled things much differently from the beginning.
Third, I agree that there is not much he can do now without potentially undercutting the investigation.
Where I disagree is in whether or not Mr. Bush has had a consistent attitude towards the leaking of classified information. He personally disclosed classified information to Bob Woodward.
His administration leaks often when it is in his political interest to do so. Mr. Bush hates leaks that put him in a bad light. He loves leaks that make him look good.
I suspect that at this point, he hates the Plame leak.
David Perron
Ah, telepathy. I can only turn green.
Moe Lane
“Ah, telepathy. I can only turn green.”
I’d imagine that the extra muscles can come in handy for those difficult jar lids.
JKC
Raw conjecture here:
Some of my more enthusiastic liberal friends will consider me too soft, but I doubt GWB knew anything about this business until very recently: whoever did this would certainly want the President to be able to maintain plausible deniability.
I’d also say that whoever is responsible for this is an idiot of the highest order, as they obviously thought the CIA would sit and whimper quietly in the corner when one of their own got burned.
As much fun as conjecture is, the investigation will reveal what it reveals. Let’s see what happens. I do think that if Justice doesn’t appoint a special prosecutor, they’ll have a tough time putting this behind them.
JKC
“…but I doubt GWB knew anything about this business until very recently”
Note of explanation: this is a guy who’s admitted to just scanning the headlines, and who depends on his aides de camp for news. Think they’d volunteer this little trivial bit?
That’s the problem eith “MBA-style management” in politics. (But that’s the subject for another rant…)
Andrew Lazarus
Some of my more enthusiastic liberal friends will consider me too soft, but I doubt GWB knew anything about this business until very recently: whoever did this would certainly want the President to be able to maintain plausible deniability.
I think it’s 50-50. Right now there isn’t any evidence that Bush knew in advance, and as you point out, he doesn’t pay much attention to matters that don’t interest him.
On the other hand, I absolutely also think it’s wrong to rule OUT the possibility that Bush knew or even approved in advance. I don’t think it’s out of character at all. Bush is a mean, petty, vindictive man who is shrinking before our eyes. All that “compassionate” and “humble foreign policy” stuff was nonsense.
HH
Yeah and Clinton is guilty for any accusation remotely related to him because he’s a mean, evil man, because I said so.
Thumper
I disagree with John’s main point that the Bush Administration cannot call all officials to the table and ask them, point blank, “who leaked?” Or more effectively, IMHO, perform a search of phone records to see who called Bob Novak on or around July 14, 2003 (or whenever the column was written).
Explain to me how that is obstruction of justice again? Obstruction would be actions which would hinder the investigation or otherwise tarnish or tamper with the evidence. This investigation is occurring under the public microscope. The President has already publicly called for anyone who knows anything to step forward.
More damning, the President has repeatedly issued denials on behalf of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and others, saying they affirmatively did NOT have anything to do with the leak.
How can the President have done that unless he has asked them, in person, to deny the allegations?
I am more disturbed that the President would publicly exonerate members of his administration prior to an independent investigation.
His job is to find the GUILTY.
David Perron
No, the President’s job description doesn’t contain any words whatever to that effect, Thumper. You don’t actually live in this country, do you? If you do, I’m wondering how it is you think that the executive branch has any business whatever dabbling in the business of the judicial.
That’d be just like some court creating new legislation. Maybe that’s a bad example, though.
Thumper
David Perron:
“I’m wondering how it is you think that the executive branch has any business whatever in dabbling in the business of the judicial.”
You are clearly un-American if you think that the Department of Justice is a part of the Judicial, and not the Executive, branch.
Plus–what makes you think that the White House isn’t “dabbling in the … judicial” when it is publicly exonerating potential suspects in its administration and having White House Counsel review emails and phone logs for “executive privilege” prior to giving them to the Justice Dept?
David Perron
Whee! Correct. My bad. .45 round right through the foot.
Now, do you think that Bush ought to micromanage the DoJ? If it were the FBI’s bailiwick, would it make sense for Bush to have his own investigation? Would it be more suspicious or less if Bush took control of the investigation? Would it be more of a conflict of interest, or less? Would it look more equitable and result in diminished squealing from the Left, or less? I’m going to pick more, for each of those questions. You don’t run an investigation on your own people. It’s why the police have Internal Affairs.
Yeah, I think Clinton’s pardoning of various criminals was awful, but I don’t see what it has to do with the current situation. Oh, you meant Bush. I haven’t seen the “exonerating” part. Please cite. Keep in mind, please, that there’s a distinct legal difference between a blanket denial of wrongdoing and some sort of blanket pardon. If Bush said something like “no one on my staff did it”, and it turns out that that was an untrue statement, do you think his declaration absolves that person of culpability? I’m thinking not.
David Perron
Oh, besides which, Bush isn’t an investigator. To some, he’s not even President. To way too many people, he’s less smart than a circus monkey. It’s a little unclear as to why he suddenly ought to be some sort of chief investigator.
Kimmitt
I think that’s the idea — to highlight how much more closely he hews to the liberal interpretation of his actions than to the conservative interpretation.