I had to read every newspaper from east to west to find something new for you, so, all the way from San Diego, today’s installment in the Daily Plame Flame War:
Among the many questions surrounding the investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer is whether President Bush’s top political adviser told his boss the truth about his connection to the case.
Two years ago, the White House denied that Karl Rove played any role, but revelations in the past month have shown that Rove spoke with two journalists about the operative, Valerie Plame. Whether Bush knew the truth while the White House was issuing its denials is not publicly known.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan was so adamant in his denials in September 2003 that he told reporters the president knew that Rove wasn’t involved in the leak.
“How does he know that?” a reporter asked, referring to the president.
“I’m not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff,” McClellan replied.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald questioned Bush a year ago and the prosecutor’s office has questioned Rove repeatedly, so presumably investigators know the answer to what, if anything, Rove told Bush.
Whether Rove shaded the truth with Bush two years ago is a potential political problem. The president so far has stood by Rove’s side, even raising the bar for dismissing subordinates. Two years ago, Bush pledged to fire any leakers, but now he says he would fire anyone who committed a crime.
There ya go. Have at it. And if you don’t like my editing of this post, or you don’t think I have included the ‘right parts’ of the story, or if you think I have selectively edited it, you can just kiss my ass. Or drop ten bucks in the tip jar every time you want to accuse me of something.
I have insomnia, I am exhausted, I am cranky, and this is the flame war thread, after all.
rt
FLAME ON!!!
Frank
Actually, I hope I am not offending by saying, that I thought you did a good job.
What I wonder about is: what kind of boss would let an employee keep his job after lying about something like this?
Contrarywise if Bush lied to the American public about this, how does that make conservatives feel?
DougJ
“What I wonder about is: what kind of boss would let an employee keep his job after lying about something like this?”
Karl Rove did not lie. Didn’t lie to Bush, didn’t lie to Fitzgerald, didn’t lie to anyone. The one who lied was Joe Wilson. If there was any justice in the world, he’d be the one being investigated right now.
Joe Albanese
DougJ said,
Now, that is truly a remarkable statement. The KOOL-AID in your neck of the woods must be particularly potent. As we dont’ know what anyone has said to the Fitzgerald investigation, I guess no one knows for certain at this point who lied to whom, but it is clear that someone is lying. When Scotty said that it was “ridiculous” to think that either Rove or Libby had ANYTHING to do with this CIA leak and that he spoke to them about it you have to conclude SOMEBODY is lying. Is Scotty lying? Is Rove lying? Is Liddy lying? It can be all of the above but it certainly can’t be none of the above.
It has also been reported that Rove failed to mention that he talked to Cooper in his initial interviews with the FBI. Now, do you suspect the BOY GENIUS just plum forgot that he spoke to him? And isn’t it curious that Cooper’s name is missing from Rove’s phone logs? Hmmmm…. I’m sure its all very innocent stuff right?
Oh, and wasn’t it reported that Libby said he first heard about Ms. Wilson’s CIA connection from Tim Russett? And wasn’t it also reported that Tim said he didnn’t know that information at the time of his talking to Libby? Another lapse of memory?
Hey, have some more KOOL-AID its got to be tough deceiving oneself continually.
DougJ
“It has also been reported that Rove failed to mention that he talked to Cooper in his initial interviews with the FBI.”
How do you know they asked him about it? Was he supposed to just VOLUNTEER information that could hurt him in the court of public opinion? Leaving something out is not the same as lying. At least, Karl Rove knows what the definition of “is” is.
Aeromondo
“Leaving something out is not the same as lying.”
Yes it is the same as lying.
tBone
No, he was supposed to volunteer information that could help him in a court of law – by, say, preventing a charge of perjury or obstruction of justice.
Are you fake DougJ or real DougJ, btw? It’s almost impossible to tell these days.
Marcos
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO KARL!
THEY SET US UP THE LEAK!
YOU HAVE NO CHANCE, MAKE YOUR TIME!
HA! HA! HA!
Buckaroo
Ya know, this is kinda funny if you read it while visualizing a campy dubbed martial arts film….
Joe Albanese
the KOOL-AID kid adds this:
Well…. one would suppose the FBI, when investigating a leak to reporters, would ask Rove who he may have talked to with regards to Mrs. Wilson. Period. The FBI likes to do that. Open ended questions. And its hard to imagine the FBI didn’t ask him that isn’t it? I mean that is the whole reason for the investigation, to see who talked to whom about Ms. Wilson. And if Rove failed to mention the tiny fact that he talked to Cooper about Ms. Wilson (in the belief that Cooper would not reveal his identity) then that is going to be a problem for the Rovester. And that IS lying. Lying by omission. And in legal terms, its called Obstruction of Justice. Does Martha Stewart ring a bell?
Bob
What’s the count up to now? 21 people in the Administration who are touched by the waters of Rovegate?
It goes beyond impossible that Rove didn’t ever mention to Bush what had happened regarding the Plame leak, that is, if Bush wasn’t in on the planning of the leak.
I think Fitzgerald is waiting for everyone to get back from vacation.