Evidence that WH knew

[aTm_exrugger]

Read the http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor&u=/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation">Yahoo! Story:
Specifically this paragraph:
"In September 2003, the White House had said anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed. Bush reiterated that promise last June, saying he would fire anyone found to have disclosed the CIA officer's name."

Sept 2003: Fire Leaker
June 2004: Fire Leaker who disclosed NAME
Last Week: Name defense debunked
Yesterday: Fire Convicted Leaker

This tells me that they thought last june that Roves name will come up, but since Rove didn't leak the name then he would be off the hook, now since that excuse isn't enough they had to 'move the goal posts'.

But my question is: Why did they move the goal posts in June? How come they had to add the caveat that Rove was proclaiming last week?

This tells me that someone in the WH knew.

Matt

[Fire Walk With Me]

1. Come on everybody, let's do the twist!

You'd think that with all of the energy they spend upon twisting and turning everything away from them, that they could actually do something constructive and truthful. Oh well.

[jaxx]

2. Truthful? It'll never happen from dubya.

Truth is so far out of the realm, I doubt they even remember what it looks like. Whatever the lie of the week happens to be is the truth for them.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. I know! Don't you love juxtaposing human characteristics with Bush and

friends? :-D

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. Didn't Ashcroft's recusal also indicate that they knew Rove was involved?

Rove on three occasions worked on Ashcroft election campaigns and it would have been a conflict of interest for the attorney general to investigate his former private consultant. Are there any other reasons known as to why Ashcroft recused himself, other than his pre-existing relationship as Rove's client?