go bug bubble boy....

Seems Robert "no-facts" Novak just made some enemies with his "bug the president" comment. He probably won't be getting any calls with inside info anymore - wonder if his wife works for the CIA and will be outed now? Or some other smear campaign to discredit him, - although I don't know how much more discrediting is necessary....

let's back-track for a moment -- when the Plame leak hit first hit the papers and investigation began -- bush* sat on Unca Dick's knee during a closed door questioning session. The bottom line of that session was bush* and Unca Dick both claimed they did not know who leaked. They weren't under oath - so technically they can not be charged with perjury if it's found out that they did in fact know who leaked at that time. (but - under oath or not - if they did lie then there are serious concerns about their moral values)

Now we have Novak saying bush* does know and Novak would be surprised if bush* doesn't know...

Questions:

1. What did bush* know, when did he know it?

2. What does Novak know that prompted him to say bush* knew?

3. WHO's the leaker and why are the bushies hiding it?

Regarding the "surprised if president doesn't know" comment: If we adhere to the bubble-boy theory - it is possible that bush* doesn't know. When you live in a bubble - the only thing that gets into a bubble is hot air.

After all - bush* didn't know that Bin-Laden was determined to attack. bush* didn't know planes would slam into World Trade Towers and Pentagon. bush* didn't know WMD's WEREN'T in Iraq. bush* didn't know torture was going on or of the secret CIA flights. bush* didn't know about the extent of damage from the Tsunami or Katrina. However - bush* does know that Tom Delay is innocent....

When it comes to being put out by some one we go to our own feeling and that is what they are all doing now. Every one is hoping to keep his job or getting back in office so they let a non-running President fight it out on his own. I think it is sort of fun to watch. See I am old and mean also.

Anyone who goes to Congress to try and get them to grant acceptions to a torture ban isn't exactly moral in my book. Anyone who has authored tax legislation that takes from the poor to give to the rich isn't moral at all. That they would lie to a prosecutor would be nothing to them.

They were being interviewed has part of a Grand Jury investigation. It doesn't not matter whether or not they were under oath when you are being interviewed for a GJ. That was what got Marhta Stewart in trouble, she lied to investigators in the course of an investigation.