Update [2005-10-19 12:26:35 by gfactor]: Josh Marshall has today's gaggle on the subject - it ain't pretty.
AMERICABlog:
It was June 10 of 2004 that Bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak. This was AFTER he already knew that Karl was the leaker, Bush knew that in 2003. So Bush lied when he told the public in June of 2004 that he would fire the leaker because he already knew who the leaker was, and clearly hadn't fire him.
...
Bush's comments border on obstruction of justice. He went public and made clear that he didn't know who the leaker was - he said he'd fire anyone found to have been involved, he hadn't yet fired Karl, so clearly he was saying that he had no evidence that Karl was involved. Bush was trying to cover up the fact that Karl was the guy. That's obstruction.
The main focus this past week was whether Fitzgerald would indict Cheney along with Libby & Rove. Now, thanks to this article, we can suggest that PlameGate no longer just goes to Rove & Libby, but possibly now directly to Bush himself!
More after the flip on why this article should be taken seriously and what we can do now.
Josh Marshall discusses why
this article in the NY Daily News carries a lot of weight and should be regarded as legit (emphasis mine):
DeFrank's the byline and he's the Daily News DC Bureau Chief. DeFrank has a unique relationship to the Bush world, particularly to the older generation. He cowrote James Baker's diplomatic autobiography The Politics of Diplomacy, for instance. Back in the summer of 2001, The Weekly Standard suggested he'd actually been in the running to be chief Pentagon spokesman, before the job went to Tori Clarke.
I'm not including this background information to suggest that DeFrank is in the tank for the Bush crowd. Indeed, I have the sense that the relationship has become more strained or perhaps attenuated over the last few years. I add these details because the nature of DeFrank's access is unique in Washington. And this article carries more weight than it would with another byline.
This isn't some big shot reporter wanting to make a name for himself - this is the bureau chief for Washington DC for the NY Daily News. Not only that, he has been a reporter working closely with many other Republican politicians and consultants. There is no liberal bias here, which makes this article that much more damning than it would be say if it came from the Washington Monthly (nothing against them).
So what can we do? AMERICAblog in the above article suggests the following:
Now that we know that Bush knew Karl was the leaker in 2003, I want folks to scour the Web for any White House comments, from Bush, McClellan, Mehlman, anybody from 2004 until today who says that we don't have all the facts, that Karl is innocent, etc. Remember, the quotes must be dated 2004 or 2005. This is obstruction of justice territory - let's prove that they intentionally misled the public when they already knew that Karl was the leaker.
It's time we become investigators. We need to dive into every quote possible to show that the President and/or his spokesperson, McClellan, knowingly lied to the American public and possibly obstructed justice. Billmon, for example, is already jumping on the case. Time for the rest of us to do, too!