Questions about Leakgate in Minneapolis Star Tribune LTTE

[Eric J in MN]

Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune

Beyond recusal


It was proper of Attorney General John Ashcroft to recuse himself from investigating the White House's exposure of an undercover CIA agent. However, five important questions remain unanswered:

? Why did two months pass between the revelation of an undercover agent's identity and the start of an investigation?

? Why was the White House given two days' warning that an order was coming to preserve evidence?

? Since it was known from the start that the attorney general's personal friend Karl Rove is a prime suspect, why did Ashcroft wait until the investigation had been going three months before recusing himself?

? Why didn't President Bush insist from the beginning that his attorney general recuse himself?

? Finally, what has Bush himself done to discover the identity of the leaker?

Eric Ferguson, Minneapolis.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Hmm this is good

hte more questions asked the more this stinks like Watergate

[MinnFats]

2. yep, very much so.

denial, then a coverup that keeps growing until the coverup itself is more damaging than the original misdeed.
Bush did not learn from his antecedents. Anyone surprised?

I wonder, though...if it came to it, would Bush do as Nixon did...accept the counsel of his colleagues in the Senate (Goldwater, Hugh Scott) and resign for the good of the party and the country?
I find it not-so-difficult to evision Bush trumping up some national security threat, suspending the functions of government, surrounding the White House with troops....and saying something like 'Bring 'em on!'

No, no, that's ridiculous. That could never happen. What a silly nightmare!

[Wickerman]

3. Odd that this article has to come from Minnesota

instead of DC, where the money reporters are housed. Thanks, ST, for not letting this issue die on the vine as the Bush* misadministration would prefer.