A logical conclusion

Judd Legum and Faiz Shakir ask the right question in this piece at Salon. What did Bush know about Valerie Plame and when did he know it?

The MSM ask every other question possible about the growing list of suspects but why do they assume Bush had no prior knowledge of the leak? As the authors note, "It's an irresponsible choice, considering Bush has more experience as a political operative than as president of the United States."

They go on to detail Bush's role in other campaigns including his father's presidential run. He was known for exacting payback for breaches of loyalty.

George W. told another White House staffer, "We have a saying in our family: If a grenade is rolling by the Man, you dive on it first. The guy violated the cardinal rule."

And one is also reminded of the tapes made by Doug Wead back in 1998-2000. Bush was talking about the war in Iraq even then, as you recall, and was revealed as a shrewd political operator who was on top of all the little details of the ongoing campaigns.

As quoted in Salon, "Allan Lichtman, a noted presidential historian, says the 'presumption in presidential politics' should be 'that the president always knows.'" It's no stretch to imagine that Bush would have been briefed on the Plame leak while it was happening. In fact, it's the only thing that makes sense in the whole complicated affair.