home

The Bush Plan That Flopped: Counting on Reporters' Silence

Digby nails it once again.

  • Sept. 26, 2003...Plame Leak is referred to the Department of Justice for Investigation
  • October 7, 2003...Rove to Bush: "Reporters do a very good job of protecting leakers, Mr President. Don't worry."
  • October 8, 2003...Bush to America: I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."

Go read Digby for the rest of the timeline, and this perceptive comment.

Can there be any doubt that the Bush administration bet the farm on the idea that the press would keep their mouths shut? And can we all see that they were very close to being right? If Fitzgerald hadn't been willing to take it to the mat, they would have gotten off scott free.

< "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain": Cheney | Sunday Only: The 60's Return to San Francisco >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The Bush Plan That Flopped: Counting on Report (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    There is a crack in everything That's how the light gets in... ---Leonard Cohen, from the soundtrack of Natural Born Killers


    Is there any kind of citation for the second quote? Even in the original it isn't sourced.

    So the reporters as clams didn't work now they are trying to possibilities on based on the premise that Wilson and Plame are the real traitors a. Scootie was really burned out from his years of dedicated service and merely had some lapses in judgement (lying) b. No real crime was committed and besides Wilson deserved it for any number of reasons including outing her himself by writing the oped piece. Scootie is a patriot

    c. We don't care about your "quaint" system of justice -- you can all go fk yourselves.

    Oh, what a tangled web Bush has weaved ...

    was Bush suborning perjury, or just intimidating the witnesses?