Saturday, December 17, 2005

So His Silence Means... Guilt?

President Bush is famously tight-lipped about the criminal acts of his underlings. Even when it seems obvious that he knows or could easily determine the culprit's identity, has promised to take strong action against the culprit, and an inictment has been issued, he insists that we must reserve judgment.

Except, as it seems, where he believes the suspect is innocent.

On Wednesday, Bush was asked on Fox News Channel whether he believed DeLay was innocent, and he replied, "Yes, I do."

Spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday that Bush was exercising his "presidential prerogative" in commenting on the case.
Yesterday, Wilson delivered a speech in which he said Rove should lose his job regardless of whether he knowingly used Plame's name or revealed her CIA connection. "This is a firing offense," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected that idea and said Rove was at work, engaged in meetings and enjoying Bush's full confidence. McClellan said the White House will not comment on the leak because the investigation is ongoing and it does not want to prejudice the Libby case.
Oh, no... They certainly wouldn't want to do that....


  1. Everybody knew.

    Any difference between London and New York?

  2. You mean... everybody knew what the Rove smear machine put out for public consumption, after it was put out for consumption? Well, duh.

    And if "everybody knew" Plame's covert status, why, pray tell, do you believe that it is easier for Bush to proclaim DeLay's innocence than to proclaim the innocence of participants in the Plame affair?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.