Can We Really Trust This Investigation?
Oh, what a twisted web they weave when the Bush's practice to deceive.
Well, maybe not deceive, but one has to question what was behind their motivation to leak the name of the wife of former diplomat Joseph Wilson?
Yes, it may be too early to jump to the conclusion that it was someone from the White House, but with this crew do we really expect to find out the truth?
So, let's ask, "Were they trying to discredit her with her superiors at the Central Intelligence Agency?" or, "Were they hoping that by releasing her name that someone involved in a case she may be working (undercover), might now learn of her identity and harm her?"
Who knows, it may be a simple matter of "let's try to get her in trouble," or "ruin her chances to work again because her cover is blown." But no matter the potential real or imagined rationale for the leak and its origin, identifying an undercover CIA agent's identity is illegal and someone, potentially connected to the White House, broke the law.
There are calls for an independent counsel to investigate the matter, but Republicans and Attorney General John Ashcroft are content taking matters into their own hands and are launching a criminal investigation into the matter.
The Justice Department has gone so far as to inform, as White House counsel informed staff, "to preserve all relevant records and files."
President Bush declared that the investigation is a "good thing" and that "There are just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." He continued: "If the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of. And so I welcome the investigation."
Well, doesn't that all sound good on the nightly news and read well in the daily papers?
But come on, can we really trust Attorney General Ashcroft, the man who is in large part responsible for bringing us the very unpatriotic "Patriot Act," and who wants us to rally behind the even more invasive "Victory Act," to actually investigate thoroughly any part of the administration which he so vehemently supports?
But, again, some of those pesky Democrats are calling for an independent counsel to look into the matter claiming that Mr. Ashcroft, the President, et al, may have too much of an interest in hushing up the name of the real culprit.
Both proposals seem legitimate.
Yet, while Mr. Ashcroft has said that "no legal options are closed," when referring to the idea of a special counsel (whom he would appoint anyway), it just seems that Republicans love to call for special counsels for investigations when there is a Democratic president, but can't muster the scrutiny of one when one of their own occupies the Oval Office.
Eventually, there actually may be someone held accountable for the leak.
Could it be, however, that the person held accountable will only be a patsy, similar to Lt. Col. Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal?
Does anyone not believe that while evidence seemed to indicate many higher ups on the administrative ladder knew about Iran-Contra that it was convenient to find fault found with someone on a much lower rung?
Wasn't George Bush the elder involved in some way with that?
When it comes to investigating anyone or anything surrounding the Bushs, similar results may not fall from the shrub.
Oh, wait, that's tree.