"The liberal blogosphere is aflame with animosity toward Karl Rove"
Gee, I wonder why?
Kurtz reproduces an interesting quote.
QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
September 30, 2003
No, what Bush is demonstrating here is not loyalty, but dishonesty. Bush himself said that leaking the name of a CIA agent was a bad thing to have done and that if he found out who did it, then "appropriate action" would be taken. Remember, Bush himself pledged that the leaker would be fired. Now that the culprit has been clearly identified, Bush is completely silent. Rove has not been fired. If Bush meant what he said earllier, Rove would be out the door by now.
Where does this "path of least resistance" come from? Who would Bush be trying to mollify? If Rove confided to Bush a long time ago that he was the leaker, why didn't Bush take action then? Loyalty is all very fine and well, but should loyalty to one's buddy be placed above the safety of the country? As the Plame leak hurt US national security, then obviously Hindraker feels that "loyalty" to a buddy should come above and beyond Bush's loyalty to the United States of America.