I'm not talking about the book written a couple years ago by John Dean about the Bush presidency (yes, that John Dean). I'm talking about a story written a couple days ago by Arianna Huffington.
Worse than Watergate (By Arianna Huffington, HuffingtonPost.com. Posted October 26, 2005.)
It's a very revealing look at the list of lies made by the Administration top dogs, all the way to GW Bush.
Potential Bonus Presidential Lie: In June 2004, when asked whether he stood by his promise to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's identity, President Bush (taking a cue from Rove) answered with an unambiguous "Yes." But the New York Daily News reports that Bush knew that Rove was involved in the leak two years ago. So why, a year later, was he still acting like he had no idea who'd been involved?
Her first example comes from this snippet from a Presidential press conference on June 10, 2004:
QUESTION: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
While the second part comes from this NY Daily News article from October 19, 2005. Generally Rove and other aides were up to their eyeballs trying to bash, discredit, and destory Wilson and his claims, and revealing his wife's identity was part of the game. So Bush had to know his Aides, including Rove, had done the deed. So why is he, a year later, denying knowledge? Further, isn't he lying?
At least, this is what Huffington wants us to believe.