Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (9876)	9/29/2003 6:17:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793750

Some good questions by Andrew Sullivan. --------------------------------------------------------------------- WILSON/PLAME: I haven't posted on this subject yet because Karl Rove has told me not to. When he gets back to me and tells me the party line, I'll write something. Seriously, I have two questions that I don't fully understand the answer to. What was the motive of the two "administration officials" who allegedly leaked the name of Wilson's wife? The Washington Post suggests revenge for the trouble Wilson caused Bush. But how is this revenge? Were they hoping to get her killed? That strikes me as far-fetched. Or fired? Why would leaking her name lead to her firing? But was she actually under-cover anyway? And wouldn't Wilson's uxorial connections with the CIA actually buttress his credibility, rather than undermine it? Or am I missing something? My other question is: who is the White House official telling the Washington Post these things? Since the information is damning, what's his/her motive? To get the damaging stuff out there soon? To pre-empt an independent investigation? Hmmm. Bottom line: if some idiot or crook at the White House did this for petty reasons, he/she should be fired and be subject to prosecution. But the details are so murky and so anonymous at this point that I don't think I can say anything more coherent than that. As with the Gilligan-Kelly affair, what we know at the beginning may be unrelated to the full scope of what we find out by the end. But I'm not ignoring it. Oh, hold on ... Karl's on the line ... andrewsullivan.com