Josh Marshall: Bush is not "cooperating" with the investigation

[diplomats]

This is a great post:

"Look at all the chatter swirling around the Wilson/Plame scandal: the pros and cons of leaks, the difficulty of unearthing and prosecuting leakers, attacks on Joe Wilson, Novak's never-ending-story, back and forth about this, that and the other. Bill Safire has 701 words in Monday's Times all devoted to churning these points and covering for his friends with artful zingers and disinformation.
All of it is beside the point.
For the last ten days we've known that two senior administration officials blew the cover of an undercover CIA employee for some mix of retribution and political gamesmanship.
It's next to certain that the president --- like the rest of those who read Novak's original column or heard about it --- knew this in mid-July. But it's absolutely certain he's known about it since September 27th.
And what has he done about it? Nothing.
All mumbo-jumbo to the contrary, the universe of possible culprits is quite small. I suspect the identity of the two is already well-known in the White House. But even if that's not the case, the president could quickly figure out who they are --- probably by demanding that they come forward, and certainly by reviewing phone logs and emails. Yet he has done neither.
The president has said he wants to get to the bottom of this. Yet he has done nothing to get to the bottom of it. The only credible explanation is the obvious one: that he doesn't want to get to the bottom of it.
In the end, I strongly suspect that Bush will rue the day he didn't do the right thing on day one.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

[MountainLaurel]

1. Anyone surprised?

Especially considering Cheney's refusal to name his energy policy advisors, the stonewalling regarding who knew what and when prior to 9-11, the fact that they admin is LYING through its teeth everytime the word Iraq is muttered?

What has the administration been forthright and truthful about over the past 2-1/2 years?

[diplomats]

3. As you say, this is typical behavior for them

[glarius]

2. All that needs to be done is to have Rove and Cheney state before the

cameras that they did not have anything to do with it or do not know who did....It's as simple as that....Never mind all the nonsense about checking emails etc....IMO

[elfin]

6. Rove already was on camera

saying he didn't do it. Reporter caught him going to car fromhis house one early AM. didn't ask if he told somebody ELSE to do it, or knew who did - car door slam.

[glarius]

7. I saw that but that's hardly making a statement before the camera

All they have to do (Rove and Cheney) is go before the Washington Press Corps and make their statements and take questions....If they are innocent what is the problem?

[grytpype]

4. Bush could also require the leakers to waive confidentiality...

so the reporters could come forward and tell what they know. I think the Justice Department should request the White House to do that. Then we'll see how cooperative Bush is willing to be.

[Bandit]

5. Do we expect to hear "Executive Privilege"?

I do. Won't be long now and we should also hear that to even ask is supporting terrorism.

[Octafish]

8. Traitorgate is all about supporting terrorism.

The White House leaked the name of a CIA operative in order to silence political opponents. In so doing, they have hurt the national security interests of the United States. BOTH events are offenses that can be prosecuted as treason.

And who benefits? The terrorists — because now they know who was helping the US frustrate their efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and those who know more than the White House get silenced.

[peacetalksforall]

9. Let's take a count...

. the CIA is a secret sub-government.
. journalists have a policy not to reveal sources
. Cheney doesn't believe he owes anyone an explanation about anything
. the 'administration' had two plus months to cleanse the records
. Miss Rice can claim it is a matter of national security
. Sec Powell has zipped lips about everything
. Ashcroft can always say that it is a matter of giving the terrorists 'what they need' if they reveal what happened
. Ashcroft can say they found nothing - just like with the put-options where there are statistics, common sense, and logistical evidence
. Pres Worst can choke again
. Pres Worst can claim EP (exec priv) as already mentioned
. and the sheeple supporters can say 'just get over it' and 'move-on'

[Eloriel]

10. Oh, the ghost of Watergate past

The president has said he wants to get to the bottom of this. Yet he has done nothing to get to the bottom of it. The only credible explanation is the obvious one: that he doesn't want to get to the bottom of it.

In the end, I strongly suspect that Bush will rue the day he didn't do the right thing on day one.


I don't think it's possible for Bush to rue anything, actually. It's always someone else's fault with narcissists.

Eloriel