I can't help but wonder how different the White House will be if Bush is forced to fire his "brain"?
For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.If Karl was involved, how can Bush duck out of his promise to fire whomever was responsible? More importtantly, does Bush have any plausiable denial that he didn't know the truth all along?
But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.
Rove described the woman to a reporter as someone who ''apparently works'' at the CIA, according to an e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to discuss the matter at two news briefings Monday. He said he would not comment because the leak is the focus of a federal criminal investigation.
''The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium,'' McClellan said in response to a barrage of questions about Rove and the previous White House denials.
''I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said,'' McClellan said. ''And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time.'' He said the appropriate time would be when the investigation is completed.
Gazing into my crystal ball I forsee the possibility that the Supreme Court nominee battle may be fighting with the Rove leak scandal for the above-the-fold headline.
It's too bad I'm not really a psychic.