Mr. Fitzgerald's filing talks not of an effort to level with Americans but of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." It concludes, "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.' "
With more filings expected from Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor's work has the potential to keep the focus on Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney at a time when the president is struggling with his lowest approval ratings since he took office.
Even on Monday, Mr. Bush found himself in an uncomfortable spot during an appearance at a Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington, when a student asked him to address Mr. Fitzgerald's assertion that the White House was seeking to retaliate against Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Bush stumbled as he began his response before settling on an answer that sidestepped the question.
nytimes.com
It's all very interesting. What the WH was doing to Wilson, it was doing to everyone in the State Department too. The WH did not want to see reports on how Iraq did not pose a threat, or CIA reports that suggested there were no WMDs or nuke capabilities... Anyone in the bureacracy that suggested anything the WH did not want to hear, their careers ended up going nowhere. Same with CIA folks on the ground in Iraq. Dispute the WH's view, wham, you're out... Cyberken, you should The Road to War and the most recent by Risen, State of War... They both agree, if you worked for the government, and had knowledge of something that did not agree with the WH view, then you were better off keeping your mouth shut, than warning of danger. |
