A former White House aide under indictment for obstructing a leak probe, I. Lewis Libby, testified to a grand jury that he gave information from a closely-guarded "National Intelligence Estimate" on Iraq to a New York Times reporter in 2003 with the specific permission of President Bush, according to a new court filing from the special prosecutor in the case.
The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule. However, the new disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.
I don't think the sheistiness or the hypocrisy or the implications that W had a hand in the Valerie Plame matter need to be pointed out. (Remember, Plame was the covert CIA operative working on counter-proliferation of WMDs who was outed by Libby as a way of shutting up/visiting revenge upon her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, who spoiled W's "Iraq is seeking uranium from Niger" line in the State of the Union address, essentially undermining W's case for war against Saddam.)
Is anyone really still convinced that W has any claim whatsoever to the slightest hint of honesty?