Bush and Rove: Big news of the day.

I don't have time to do this justice, but here's a quickie anyway. Today's New York Daily News has Tom DeFrank writing:

An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

Wow. So then all that stuff about Bush wanting to know who the leaker is was kinda like OJ looking for the "real killer". The questions:

1. Has Bush been lying to the American people all along?
2. If so, was he dumb enough to lie to the feds doing the investigation? (and did Rove?)
3. If so, are they smart enough to prove the lie (and also inclined to prove it publically)
4. Who leaked this story to DeFrank? And is it true?
5. If this leak proves not true, will the leak story collapse (ala Rathergate)?

Personally, I always thought Bush was a good person hoodwinked by a bad crowd. Ok, "good" isn't the adjective I want, but at least not a manipulative liar. If he has been lying all this time, well... I'll be a little more impressed, and a lot more ticked off.

This new tidbit has caused quite a fervor about the blogosphere. Poor Josh Marshall actually has 17 posts in today (4 were late posts last night, but still...). My absolute favorite is the letter from Shumer to GWB. I'll write about it in another post if I have time, but it's really hilarious. It's this over-extention that makes me wonder whether there's any truth to DeFrank's column. It would be a great set-up.

On the other hand, there's been a lot of pressure this week, and it may be that some parties have sold others down the river. Say Rove fingered Libby and Cheney. Maybe Scott/Dick decided to play hardball back. It's plausible.