Uh...first of all, I thought the Scooter Libby decision was a fair and balanced decision.
Did he just say "fair and balanced?"
Bush was responding to a question posing whether he was discouraged that a member of his administration had intentionally leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent. It's worth watching his response...take a look: (courtesy of Talking Points Memo)
So, clearly he has acknowledged that somebody in his administration did, in face, leak Valerie Plame's identity. Makes you wonder if he forgot about the time when he said this:
I don't know if anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
...or the time that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said this:
The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in [the Plame leaking], they would no longer be in this administration.
When Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence, there was a large portion of the media that cheered the decision. They said that there was "no underlying crime" and that, because Libby wasn't the original leaker, he shouldn't have to go to prison. Both of those assertions are very dishonest. The people saying that stuff must believe that, because the general public doesn't really know what's going on, they can just sweep this under the rug and get back to pretty missing white girl stories that bring in their ratings.
Let's review the Plame scandal from the beginning:
1) In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said that Saddam Hussein had been trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger. That discovery, Bush said, was one of the main reasons that he wanted to invade Iraq. Problem was, it wasn't true. Further, Bush knew it wasn't true when he said it -- or at least the State Department knew, and had known for 6 months. The CIA had determined that the documents upon which the President's statement was based were "obvious forgeries."
2) The man who lead the CIA investigation to Niger to investigate the alleged yellowcake purchase was Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Upon hearing the State of the Union speech, Wilson wrote an Op-Ed piece that was published in the New York Times. Wilson, apparently, didn't approve of the President telling bald-face lies in his State of the Union address.
Robert Novak,
Douchebag of Liberty
3) Shortly thereafter, Douchebag of Liberty Robert Novak published an article that, among other things, revealed the fact that Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson was a (now formerly) covert CIA agent. Turns out, someone in the Bush administration leaked her name to Novak and to a few other journalists.
So, in retribution for daring to point out a major flaw in the State of the Union speech, the Bush administration responded by ruining the career of Wilson's wife, revealing classified information to the public, and destroying all of the connections and contacts she had made while acting as an undercover agent. So, again...no underlying crime. I wonder what George H. W. Bush thinks about this whole mess...
I could go on ... and I will later, but you (all both of you) probably aren't still reading. To be continued.
