Friday, April 07, 2006
More Bush Lies
The quote below frustrates me. I had been repeated by many critics of Bush that, reports of his intentional leak of classified information to attack Joe Wilson include no evidence that he knew about the leak of Valerie Plame. Baloney! Haven't they ever heard of "circumstantial evidence"? Sure, it may not be dispositive in a court of law, but circumstantial evidence can still be very persuasive.
In this case, we're supposed to believe that Bush and Cheney talked about how to discredit Joe Wilson without discussing his wife's supposed role in sending him to Niger. We know Cheney knew about it. We know he discussed it with Libby. We know they were all obsessed with trashing Wilson. But yet, there's "no evidence" that Bush knew that Valerie Plame's employment was going to be part of the messaging in the "Attack Wilson" campaign.
On the left, to believe that canard is naivete in the extreme. On the right, to believe it is cynicism.
Playing Hardball With Secrets - New York Times: "We have seen no evidence that Mr. Bush authorized the outing of Mrs. Wilson. But at the least, revealing selected bits of intelligence, including information that officials may well have known to be false, seems like a serious abuse of power. It's not even clear that Mr. Bush can legally declassify intelligence at whim. "