Ahhh -- good point.
All day we've been discussing Tom DeFrank's article in today's Daily News
which reports that President Bush has known about Karl Rove's role in the Plame leak for two years.
But this site points out
that this sure seems to contradict what Murray Waas reported
not long ago over at National Journal
In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president's interview. Bush said that Rove never mentioned the conversation with Cooper.
Now, don't lose sight of the fact that we're stacking a lot of 'ifs' on top of each other here. But we do have two articles from well-credentialed journalists pointing to two alleged facts -- one, that President Bush knew in late 2003 that Rove was involved and that Rove had told
him he was involved; two, that a year later President Bush denied Rove had told him he was involved in an interview with the special prosecutor.
If both those 'facts' bear out, someone's in a lot of trouble, no?