PrintFitzgerald attacks Bush in closing argument
Update: Byron York has an excellent piece in National Review Online this morning, more extensively covering this subject.
« Investor's Business Daily editorials have a new home | Edwards campaign contests report of anti-Israel remarks »
February 21, 2007
Why did Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutor in the Libby Trial, attack President Bush in his summation yesterday? Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun wrote:
Broadening his attack on the White House, Mr. Fitzgerald took a shot at President Bush, indirectly criticizing him for not firing officials implicated in the leaks about the CIA officer, Valerie Plame. The prosecutor noted that in 2003 the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said Mr. Bush would immediately dismiss anyone involved in leaking Ms. Plame's identity.
"Any sane person would think, based on what McClellan said in October 2003, that any person involved in this would be fired," Mr. Fitzgerald said.
The prosecutor's clear implication was that Mr. Bush failed to keep his word. Mr. Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, is still working at the White House despite having served as a source for two press accounts about Ms. Plame. A State Department official who leaked Ms. Plame's identity at least twice, Richard Armitage, resigned at the end of 2004. Mr. Libby, who quit after being indicted, has conceded discussing the CIA staffer with a Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper.
This assertion has nothing to do with the legal case against Libby. It look slike Fitzgerald is attempting to capitalize on the President's personal unpopularity. Otherwise known as pandering to political passions.
