Did you know that some of the people being "investigated" at the White House used to work for John Ashcroft? Do you think, perhaps, being consistent with Whitewater, that an independent counsel should be appointed?
The investigation is being handled by career staff, not Ashcroft.
She may be doing a book deal, but revealing her name (and therefore, any of her associates) means she and they could be killed. But of course, a book deal is much worse....
I would say it tends to undercut her credibility and her husband's.
Also,,,,,,if Bush was so enraged by this act.,....why didn't he immediately call his staff into his office and demand, right then and there, for them to tell him if they did or did not do that? Isn't that what any other chief executive would do to people working for them?
I don't think it was immediately clear that she was "undercover" nor that there was any particular harm done...in fact there seemed to be and still is some confusion over her status.....and most unusually if she was undercover, the CIA did not take a more agressive stance with Novak who published the info. I will be interested to see the results of the investigation.....although it may be next to impossible to determin who the culprit is..... |
