Thursday, July 14, 2005
Hardly a disinterested party, I'd say.
The Dems are having a field day with this story, primarily because they have selective hearing. I can't count the number of Dem politicians, spokespersons and consultants who have been on TV in recent days claiming that Bush said he'd "fire anyone who disclosed" the name of a CIA covert operative.
What Bush actually said, according to CNN, is, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."
You don't have to be a lawyer to see the substantive difference between what Bush said and what the Dems claim he said. I'm sure that Bush will in fact fire Rove if in fact it is determined that he broke the law, or even if he's indicted. But so far, nothing of the sort has occurred. What's really going on here, IMHO, is that the Dems are desperate for anything that will make them look better vis a vis Bush, and they're jumping the gun on Rove. They may live to regret being so quick on the trigger.
The real mystery to me is, why is New York Times reporter Judith Miller willing to sit in jail to protect her source? I don't think she's protecting Rove. The Times is certainly no friend of the Bush administration, and it makes no sense that she'd go to jail to protect Rove, who evidently has waived any pledge of confidentiality, at least as regards Time reporter Matthew Cooper. See this story in Newsweek (another publication not exactly known for its friendliness to Bush) for background and details. So, if not Rove, who? Maybe she's claiming First Amendment privilege when she should be citing the Fifth.
UPDATE: National Review Online's Byron York has posted an informative piece on this matter here.