--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Let's say the White House DID want to get revenge on Wilson; *Why* would
> it
> > choose outing his wife as the way to do it?� Wouldn't there be countless
> > better, more direct, more subtle, less *traitorous* ways to do so?� You
> know,
> > get him tax audited, get a friendly journalist to write a character
> > assasination article,� or something?� Is the White House so powerless
> that it would need
> > to resort to compromising national security to get a petty revenge, and
> so
> > uncaring about national security that it would actually do so?
> >
> Sounds about right to me. I'm not saying this was the best way to get back
> at
> Wilson or even a good way. My opinion of the Bush II White House is that
> they
> are so arrogant and convinced of their own sanctity (and the timid press
> and
> toothless Democrats) that they figure they can do pretty much anything and
> get
> away with it.
>
> You're probably right that incompetence plays a big part in this. But I
> think
> you're discounting malice too quickly. They did something very stupid for
> very malicious reasons.
>
> > How do you know he hasn't ordered his staff to 'fess up?� What if the
> > person(s) who did it (intentionally or through error/stupidity) acted
> alone,
> > and won't confess?
> >
> If that's the case, then Bush is not running his own shop. If he really and
>
> truly wanted to get to the bottom of this (rather than just get credit for
> appearing to be trying to do so) he could and would put the fear of God
> into his
> staff and make damn sure the guilty party was found and punished.
> Otherwise,
> all the jokes about how he's a figurehead would turn out to be true.
>
> > My question is: don't a bunch of journalists *know* who told them the
> > leak?�
> > Why don't they spill the beans and put an end to this whole thing?� This
> > isn't a case of them protecting some confidential informant
> whistleblower,�
> > it's a traitorous leaker who *used* them.
> >
> True, but that's putting the onus where it strongly does not belong. Also,
> without evidence, anyone they name will simply deny it.
>
> Someone in the White House committed a crime. If the press wants to out the
>
> miscreant, fine. But everyone should be angry and pressing the White House
> to
> come clean. I repeat: Either Bush knows, and is lying; or he doesn't know,
> and
> is incompetent at managing his own underlings. Neither should fill anyone,
> even - especially - a Bush supporter, with confidence in the man supposedly
> in
> charge.
I support actions, not people. As such I have supported many actions that
this administration has taken. However, there comes a point when the actions
of a person are such that one can no longer maintain trust. While I may still
support many of the actions of this administration, until this is resolved I
can no-longer trust it enough to support it for re-election.
Has anyone noticed the timeing of General Powel's anouncement that he would
not continue with the current administration beyond this term? You have to
respect him for not walking away compleatly and allowing the situation to
possibly become worse.
If the Democrats had any amount of sence at all they would end inner party
polotics now, and get behind the only primary canadit who could win, Clark.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
