wiegie Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) If revealing Plame's identity was no bid deal, why didn't President Bush himself just come out and say that from the get-go? Edited March 6, 2007 by wiegie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 If revealing Plame's identity was no bid deal, why didn't President Bush himself just come out and say that from the get-go? could you imagine the uproar if he did come forward and offer that unsolicited legal opinion? it would have been totally inappropriate for any president to do so. at the beginning of the investigation, nobody really knew which laws (if any) were broken by leaking plame's identity. that's why libby (and possibly rove) lied to cover their asses. it's probably safe to say that at the outset, most people just assumed that laws were broken. now, the investigation is over, and no charges have been brought for leaking plame's identity even though the investigation revealed in detail who told which reporters about plame and when. any other thoughts on why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 could you imagine the uproar if he did come forward and offer that unsolicited legal opinion? Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Bush made it a policy to offer his unsolicited opinions concerning the bills he is signing into law. But the main point of my post was not about whether or not the leak was legal, but rather that Bush knew upfront that what happened was wrong (legal or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 7, 2007 Share Posted March 7, 2007 Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't Bush made it a policy to offer his unsolicited opinions concerning the bills he is signing into law. correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems you are faulting bush for not coming forward at the onset of the investigation and saying "no crime was committed here". do you really think that would be appropriate? do you not think that would undermine the authority of the special prosecutor who still, ultimately, works for him? But the main point of my post was not about whether or not the leak was legal, but rather that Bush knew upfront that what happened was wrong (legal or not). what do you want him to do, execute libbby by regal fiat? he stood back, respected the integrity of the investigative process, and didn't comment. which is the only acceptable way for him to have behaved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts