Quote:
|
Originally Posted by albed
Awe, you missed a key part again knife. You really need to read articles more carefully. There's the real offense. But since Novak isn't in the republican administration the liberals hardly acknowledge his existance.
|
obvious, isn't it? because Novak couldn't have been his own source.
we can all go round and round on this whole subject, debating the daily talking points, but a couple of things are glaringly obvious:
nobody in the administration has told the truth about this story - not the Prez, who said he wanted to get to the bottom of it and fire whomever was involved, not Rove and Libby, who ostensibly told McClellan they were not involved, not McClellan, who told the press no one was involved (unless everyone lied to McClellan). to this day, neither the Prez nor Cheney nor any of their spokespeople can explain any of it. why? if it's all so innocuous, what are they afraid of?
one of my oldest friends is a police captain in a medium-sized East Coast city - he told me something once about illegal /unethical behaviour that i never forgot: it's usually exactly what it looks like. and i think that's the case here: it's about a campaign to smear and discredit a war critic, orchestrated by the VP's office. was it illegal? probably not (but if Libby or anyone lied to investigators or the grand jury, those are certainly felonies and deserving of prosecution).
but clearly, the White House doesn't have much confidence in the ethical behaviour of it's staff if they are unable to offer a word of explanation or justification for the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity to the press.
it's also clear that they didn't have much confidence in the validity of the pre-war intel, if critics had to be answered with smear campaigns instead of facts....which is whole 'nother can of worms that will be opened by this case.