Meanwhile GOP apologists are trying to imply that there was no crime involved and that it was just a single inadvertent leak -- which is contrary to the stated facts (confirmed both by other reporters and a third senior WH staffer--apparently the real target of any WH inquiry):
Two senior admin folks actively disseminated information designed to end Plame's career, as "punishment" for Wilson blowing the cover on false nuclear allegations. -- lots to unpack here:
1) attacking someone's wife,
2)attacking their career,
3) outing a CIA officer, criminal felony that puts lives at risk and weakens natl security, in this instance with regard to WMD no less
4) attempting to spread falsehoods to promote a war, and
5) attempting to silence a frank discussion of fact related to whether or not to go to war -- the essence of democracy
and all of it deliberate and calculated -- quite the opposite of "inadvertent."
But "what can the pres do?" apologists ask...
1) Well, he could actually have addressed the issue before six weeks had elapsed for one thing -- shows his true feelings on the matter. Coverups need time to cover the tracks and he has given them a huge head start.
2) he could ask his senior officials -- no more than a handful would have access to info.
3) the pres could ask the press outside the confines of any legal proceeding -- isn't Novak a big fan of his?
4) and regarding the assertion that they just won't fess up: are apologists really admitting that the Pres has 2 traitorous senior staff that would lie to the Pres own face?
5) If #4 is correct then I say give the entire senior staff a "leave of absence" until this is straightened out. Would we do any less if we found out that a senior staffer were passing CIA secrets to the Soviets -- oops that is just what THEY DID DO: pass CIA secrets to EVERY enemy of the US who has aims of employing WMD against the "homeland"
6) any staffer who puts more priority on political revenge in order to promote a partisan cover-up of bogus info (the fake Niger document) over preventing a nuclear bomb going off in NYC should be fired!
7) the fact that the pres doesn't seem to care whether such an individual is removed from govt shows me that the pres also shares the twisted values that places scoring political revenge in order to promote a cover up of embarrassing prewar lies over defense of the nation from attack by WMD is violating his oath of office to defend the United States.
They have a word for this behavior in France -- Collaborationists: the Vichy govt chose to side with German Nazis in order to pursue political grudges against the French liberals rather than fight the Germans themselves. They have another word for it in Norway: Quislings. And the universally accepted term: fifth-columnists. Any Bushies responsible for this or covering up for it are de facto fifth-columnists for bin Laden.
On this issue the Bushies are in reality working with the terrorists against the CIA and the rest of the US -- all in order to pursue their political vendettas. I agree with Poppy -- these are the worst type of traitors -- they wrap themselves in the flag and then betray their countrymen to death all in order to advance their "cause" -- their political power.
then comes the argument that this is all just politics and the Dems are trying to "pile on." Are GOP apologists trying to imply that the CIA is a bastion of the Democratic party? After all, that is where the request for investigation originated... Is Novak is a Democratic party mole?
After 40 years faithful service to the GOP all of a sudden this "reporter" has decided to sell out his buddies and concoct a story about "two senior admin officials" outing a CIA agent?
And what about the CIA agent, was the fact that she is in the CIA and the fact that she was outed was because an "election year is looming"?
When such apologists attempt to defend the senior administration traitors by questioning the alleged motives of those who seek an inquiry, all it means is that they can't defend the traitor on the basis of facts and so has to turn it into a name-calling game: "you're partisan, no fair; therefore you can never be right."
The same reasoning is behind the fact that there was never a proper inquiry into 9/11 (although we were able to have one into the shuttle disaster that occurred a year after).
Very strange twist on reality when traitors (Poppy agrees) are embraced because an "election year is looming."
I guess it goes along with the same logic that now allows the GOP to embrace an admirer of Hitler but to declare the heirs of FDR guilty of "treason" (title of Ann Coulter's latest "book").
