I was rather intrigued this morning during the President’s press conference when he was asked whether or not he had authorized the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity. President Bush steadfastly—and rather petulantly—refused to answer the question. Why not? If the President is as opposed to leaks as he claimed while condemning the leak about the financial tracking of suspected terrorist agents, why not deny any involvement and publically condemn the leak? Does he have something to hide? Is there some unexplained double-standard when it comes to leaks? “Leaks that may potentially threaten the lives of operatives and punish opponents of the administration are okay, but leaks that expose questionable government operations are disgraceful.” What does the President’s testy response say about his integrity?
I’m not Going to Talk About It
Advertisements
February 14, 2007 at 1:26 pm |
Isn’t there a trial going on right now for “Scooter” Libby? Can/Should the President comment on an ongoing case?
February 14, 2007 at 4:56 pm |
The case is not about whether or not Libby leaked the name, but whether or not Libby committed perjury. Responding to a question as to whether or not authorized the leak by two others has nothing to do with the case against Libby.
February 14, 2007 at 8:35 pm |
Thanks for the clarification Derek. That was a helpful response, and I agree. “It’s about the perjury, stupid!” Looks like someone’s trying to hide something.