July 12, 2005
Bush lied to cover for Carl Rove
Letter to the Editor
For the last two years, the Bush White House claimed that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of the female CIA officer's identity. Bush said that whoever leaked it would be fired. We now know Bush was lying because Bush knew all along Rove was involved but concealed it. Now a reporter sits in jail because Bush lied. What kind of a country do we live in where the people who tell the truth go to jail and the ones who lie go free?
Posted by marc at July 12, 2005 02:30 AM
I sent this letter to the Reno Gazette-Journal one week ago:
An article in the July, 25 2005 Washington Post by Dan Froomkin states that while President Bush (and presumably Vice President Cheney) were questioned in 2004 regarding what is now known as the Plame/Rove issue,they were not questioned under oath. I believe that is not true. It seems to me that every President and Vice President take an oath on January 20 of the year they take office.
The question now looms: Did Rove lie to Bush and Cheney, or Bush and Cheney know and subsequently lie to the American people? The whole thing seems so fundamentally wrong to me that the solutions are obvious. Get rid of Rove because he lied, or get rid of Bush and Cheney because they lied. But then, this would not be the first time any of them have lied.
What I find to be the most remarkable about this situation is that the "honor" between these men is apparently a stronger bond than the honor that supposedly should exist between elected, oath-sworn leaders of our country and the country they represent.
I like your site.
I'll watch the bbc docus.
What is with the Reno Gazette-Journal?
Who reads it other than Lay preachers(wedding variety)? The gamblers have to be too busy
What is wrong with the WP these days?
Did the RGJ print it?