Fiat Lux

I voted against Ronald Reagan. I vigorously disagreed with many of his philosophies and was disgusted by Iran-Contra. But I did respect him and his passing lessens America.

Rest in peace, Mr President.

John Dean, of all people, ought to know a thing or two about Presidents who break the law. So when he writes an article about the serious implications of President Bush’s consultation with a criminal defense attorney, it’s time to sit up and take notice.

Here’s the money quote:

Undoubtedly, those from the White House have been asked if they spoke with the president about the leak. It appears that one or more of them may indeed have done so.

Dean’s take on the situation is that if the President did not know anything about the leak, he wouldn’t need to call in outside counsel. The fact that he did so strongly suggests that he knew about the leak (emphasis added).

On this subject, I spoke with an experienced former federal prosecutor who works in Washington, specializing in white collar criminal defense (but who does not know Sharp). That attorney told me that he is baffled by Bush’s move – unless Bush has knowledge of the leak. “It would not seem that the President needs to consult personal counsel, thereby preserving the attorney-client privilege, if he has no knowledge about the leak,” he told me.

The question that remains to be answered is, in those immortal words: “What did he know and when did he know it?”.

The other important question that needs an answer: is the Plame investigation going to get anywhere significant before November?

Courtesy of Kevin Drum:

CLANCY ON WOLFOWITZ….From … Deborah Norville’s segment with Anthony Zinni and Tom Clancy last night:

Deborah Norville: What’s your impression of Paul Wolfowitz?

Tom Clancy: Is he working for our side?

As they say, ouch.

Update: Further reading of the Washington Monthly commentary on this item brought out that lovely (not!) meme, the “Jews Have Dual Loyalty” canard. Now I do not particularly like Wolfowitz, but I really hate it when people suggest that because someone is a Jew that their loyalties are questionable.

Despite this, I still think the original comment was funny in a snarky kind of way.

I didn’t have much to add to the noise about George Tenet’s retirement, but the news that a second senior CIA official is leaving makes you wonder what the heck is really going on…

James Pavitt, deputy director for operations, has announced his retirement. Apparently he was the guy in charge of human intelligence (AKA spies).

The repor insists that there’s no coincidences here, that this was all planned in advance, but I have got to wonder – why these two? Why now? What’s really going on here?