Does Bush know what "IS" is?

[gcy]

The New York Times

WASHINGTON -- President Bush confirmed Thursday that he had consulted a private lawyer to see if he needed legal advice to deal with the grand jury investigation into how the identity of an undercover CIA officer was revealed.
Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Wednesday that the president had discussed the case with Jim Sharp, an experienced Washington trial lawyer.
At a brief session with reporters Thursday after a meeting with the Australian prime minister, John Howard, Bush said he had told his administration to cooperate with the grand jury inquiry. "I want to know the truth, and I'm willing to cooperate myself," he said.
At issue is who told the syndicated columnist Robert Novak last summer that Valerie Plame, the wife of the former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, was a CIA officer. Novak attributed the information to two "senior administration officials."
Under federal law, disclosure of the identity of an undercover intelligence officer can be a felony.

 

[conjur]

Already being discussed here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1170280&enterthread=y

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I don't necessarily see this as sinister, but it's certainly interesting.

I doubt President Bush was directly connected to this leak, but whomever did it is guilty of a VERY serious crime against the United States, apparently done out of sheer vindictiveness toward Ambassador Wilson. I imagine President Bush wisely wants to avoid getting himself unnecessarily involved in this mess, and wants advice on how best to protect his own legal interests, while optimizing his effectiveness as President.

The problem, of course, is that the public would presumably find it unpalatable if the President were to "lawyer up" and decline to make statements; it appears this is why President Clinton felt compelled to lie (or at least take liberties with the truth) by saying he "did not have sexual relations with that woman."