of many a smutch'd deed reminiscent - That CIA Agent Thing [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Stochastes Bug

[ website | Insights from Lost & Found ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

That CIA Agent Thing [Jul. 14th, 2005|07:38 am]
Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry
[Current Mood |curiouscurious]

The press is abuzz with revelations that Bush's most senior advisor, Karl Rove, was behind the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity, a leak designed to discredit and intimidate CIA employees who were brave enough to disagree with Bush in public about his war against Iraq.

I haven't seen a single reporter ask whether President Bush himself authorized the leak. Why not?

If the President's most senior advisor was the culprit, isn't it possible that the President knew about it, condoned it, or verbally authorized it?

Shouldn't the President himself have to answer to the Grand Jury on this matter?
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: [info]rzrxtion
2005-07-14 01:22 pm (UTC)

(Link)

i wholeheartedly agree with you...

but...

you know as well as i do that he will either

(A) not answer the question at all and get all pissy that we would even think to ask him

or

(B) throw so much shit and doublespeak that we'll never be able to decipher his answer

or

(C) just utter the phrase "weapons of mass distraction destruction or something about 9/11 and everything will magically be OK

the repugnicans can sure put a democrat in front of a grand jury for even the most dumb-assed of reasons but when it comes down to themselves they're more slippery that a greased eel
[User Picture]From: [info]fritterfae
2005-07-14 01:53 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I don't think that option "C" is the magic answer any longer. I feel like people have had it with that answer and know it for the BS it is. Options A or B are quite likely though.

I think you've got a good point MaiNeh, and one that I hadn't considered until you mentioned it. Why not ask that question of a Post staffer?
[User Picture]From: [info]catnash
2005-07-14 02:26 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Yes, he should, but, probably in all honesty, Bubba and Ethel sitting here in rural Tennessee wouldn't want to know. All they care about is that Bush is trying his hardest to keep us safe. They bought into the rhetoric (i.e., brainwashing), so accountability for Bush will probably never be an issue for the general public.

Good observation, though. I liked msnbc's take on it too: why did GWB (and his press secretary) suddenly clam up about it and say he wouldn't discuss anything during the investigation when he's already spoken a great deal about it?
[User Picture]From: [info]krimon
2005-07-14 04:16 pm (UTC)

(Link)

You'll likely just run into another 18.5 minutes of silence.

Hooray for second term scandals!
[User Picture]From: [info]jeimz
2005-07-14 04:56 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I have some doubts that Bush actually authorized it; but he definitely ought to answer questions about it.
[User Picture]From: [info]spiritquest
2005-07-14 05:59 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Even if I had any influence, I wouldn't go after Bush. I honestly think he's honest and that he wouldn't sanction or condone such a thing. He's very good with turning a blind eye to the facts, and I don't think this fact is any different. He didn't know.

I think calling for Rove's dismissal is the right thing to do.
[User Picture]From: [info]bluedepth
2005-07-14 07:04 pm (UTC)

(Link)

People in the Bush administration fall on their swords and actually collapse upwards. George Tenet, Condi Rice, and now Karl Rove... screwing up royally is punishable by promotion.

Why not? :) Like anything else Bush does makes sense to any literate educated person... :)