Saturday, July 16, 2005
In today's New York Times columnist John Tierney suggests Nadagate as a title for the scandal I discuss bellow. A label for "a scandal that's not scandalous" he says. If he's correct, than we have on our hands the most scandalous non-scandalous-scandal ever (I sound like Rumsfeld here). If the courts have gone so far as to send someone to jail for contempt in refusing to break sworn confidentiality when the case involves no real crimes, I think that's sort of scandalous. When the Whitehouse declares that its ridiculous to say Karl Rove had anything to do with the leaking of a CIA agents name and then its later discovered that he had been discussing that very subject with various members of the press, then that might qualify as scandalous. When a country is led to war on false pretenses, misleading statements and outright lies, then that's certainly scandalous. I think that is the larger issue that is being lost sight of in all the questions about the investigation. I really hope that peoples' attentions are once again being drawn to the presidents preverications about the war.