Washington Post: Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry. At CIA Director George J. Tenet’s request, the Justice Department is looking into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.
Anyone really believe that John Ashcroft’s ‘Justice’ Department will find anything, or wants to. I didn’t think so.
I’d be happier if the Post had used some named sources to confirm the story that White House officials were behind what looks like a fairly evil attempt to smear the man who went to investigate Iraq weapons-dealing charges but came up with nothing, despite the Bush administration’s zeal that something be found. But this looks solid, as such things go.
If Karl Rove did the leaking, as has been suggested, he should be put on trial. But if he’s the one, nothing of the sort will happen, because he’s too powerful in an administration that worships secrecy — including inside the ‘Justice’ Department, where Ashcroft even stiffs Congressional oversight — and is fond of telling the ever-spinless Congress to drop dead.
Bush is lucky in so many ways. One of his most fortunate situations is not having an independent-counsel law like the one that the right wing used to persecute the Clinton White House. Given the sleaze in this one, there would be quite a few special prosecutors working already — and Rove might well be the target of a new one.
Comments
Posted by: steve on September 28, 2003 04:53 PM
What’s wrong with America is as simple as A B C”
Ashcroft
Bush
Cheney
Posted by: fisher on September 28, 2003 06:13 PM
Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo
site–http://talkingpointsmemo.com/–
raises any number of pertinent,
not to mention impertinent, questions
that will have to be answered before
this is all over.
For the record, although Mike Allen/
Dana Priest’s WP piece advances the story
by a magnitude, it’s worth noting that
it was NBC that broke the news that the
CIA had asked DoJ to investigate the
White House in regard to Joseph Wilson’s
wife’s blown cover, and the story has
been widely reported today.
Call me naive, but I don’t think recklessly
exposing a CIA agent and her contacts is
an event can be swept under the rug as
easily as most of what the media give this
White House a pass on. Anybody want to form
a pool on when we’ll first hear that reportage
on the inquiry imperils national security
and gives aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein?
Posted by: degustibus on September 28, 2003 07:08 PM
reportage
on the inquiry imperils national security
and gives aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein
=====================
dang took the words right outa my mouf
Posted by: paul on September 29, 2003 07:17 AM
Well, gosh, I can’t imagine why the “Justice” Department’s name is in quotes. After all, they did such a professional and vigorous job of investigating various and sundry unsavory events under the preceding administration: Travelgate, the Weaver shootings at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzalez… no doubt there are others.
Sniff if you like, but remember that to some extent, the Attorney General is a figurehead. It’s the career Justice Department bureaucrats who, IMO, are the real reason why this scandal probably won’t be investigated as fully as it should.
Posted by: Ted Feuerbach on September 29, 2003 05:29 PM
*WHY* has a felony, that jeopardizes national
security and committed for political gain, that
was alleged by a journalist who is highly
respected in the conservative community, gone
uninvestigated for two months? This *DOES* fall
into the category of high crimes (forget the
misdemeanors). This leak may have caused the
deaths of field agents. It has almost certainly
destroyed vital, hard won intelligence assets in
the search for WMD’s. But we’ll never know
because releasing that information could cause
even more damage. It has also done irreparable
harm to our ability to recruit new operatives,
just when we need them the most.
Don’t try to tell me that John Ashcroft doesn’t
read Robert Novak’s column. Mr. Ashcroft has been
screaming that prosecutors go for the maximum
penalties in all of their criminal cases and he
ignores this one?
This Administration doesn’t care what it destroys
in furthering its agenda. Not the economy, the
environment, our relationships with other nations
or even the safety of our citizens.
Note to Degustibus: Reportage is a real word and
is used in correct context in Fisher’s post.
Posted by: UncleBob on September 29, 2003 06:02 PM
Well, Bush has admitted that he skims headlines and lets Condi Rice do his world affairs reading for him. John Ashcroft probably only reads the Bible – mostly the Old Testament.
Can someone answer me this question: Which is more serious, blowing the cover of a covert operative to get revenge on her husband, or sneaking into the back room for a knobjob from someone to whom you aren’t married?
I agree with fisher – Josh Marshall has been doing a great job connecting dots. He also dug up an old Esquire piece showing the Karl Rova got in trouble before for selective leaking to Robert Novack.
Coincidence?
Posted by: Stan Krute on September 29, 2003 09:13 PM
Rush Limbaugh hit this story hard today.
This, and the Wes Clark candidacy, have his
jammies all clenched.
Posted by: George LoBuono on October 7, 2003 04:30 PM
The above was the second time I’ve read that Bush said he rarely reads newspapers; he just skims the headlines then lets advisors fill him in. Having taught in school, when students don’t read, it is often due to a disability. Question: Is Bush dyslexic? His C average in high school may be the result of same. Coming from his family, unless there was a strong undercurrent that said you don’t have to work, his parents would have pushed him to get good grades. So, what happened? Some in the US will try to say a strong leader need not be burdened by details because he needs to make decisions based on his gut instinct. Equally as many will be appalled to read a quote that helps to explain why he is so out of touch with basic issues, why he ridiculed Gore’s good statistics
as “fuzzy math,” almost as though Bush can’t keep up with others’ reading.
Posted by: drinkof on October 4, 2003 10:37 AM
Here’s an analogy, and an inquiry regarding normal investigative procedure. NPR (via Nina Totenberg) reported that the Dept of Justice, at the request of the White House, delayed the delivery (and thus effective date) of the ‘save all your documents’ letter to the WH by 24 hours. I’ve never heard of, actually, any similar situation in an investigation, has anyone else? Seems to violate Investigation 101, doesn’t it?
If true, won’t the identity of the person who asked and the person who said yes be interesting? And potentially embarrassing? There doesn’t seem to be a defensible motive I can think of that would even make sense, is there?