But even if we were going to buy into this nonsense, who's to "blame" for poor Ms. Taylor's ordeal?
Said friend and former White House communications director Nicolle Wallace: "I just feel like it's incredibly unfair that she's being caught in what's really a struggle between Congress and the White House."
The obvious question to ask Ms. Wallace, Ms. Taylor and the Washington Post is this, why didn't the White House seek a court order quashing the subpoena of Ms. Taylor? The White House could have helped Ms. Taylor avoid yesterday's ordeal by filing a motion to quash the subpoena on the grounds of a claim of executive privilege. Why doesn't the Washington Post report that?
Why doesn't the Washington Post understand the implications of this statement?
Her new role meant constant contact with Rove, whose relationship with Taylor evolved from first "a teacher and leader to almost more of a partner," said Wallace.
This would point to Ms.Wallace having a deep involvement in the firings, given the evidence that Rove was up to his eyeballs in the scandal.
The WaPo reporter does not even consider the import of this statement:
But now she's on several hooks. This week she found out the insurance will not cover her legal costs. Moreover, she's restrained from fully telling her side of things, from moving on.
"It's a very difficult position to be in," she said. "The president has exerted executive privilege and I have great respect for the president. The problem for you as an individual is that this comes at a huge personal cost financially. "But this is a bigger issue than me. I understand the president is doing what he believes is right."
President Bush could make this easy for everyone, by testing his claim of executive privilege in a motion to quash the various subpoenas. Why is President Bush afraid to do so?
