Let’s take two pieces of information, as reported by different people at different times.  Even if you haven’t followed the Plamegate story closely, you can follow this logic:

(1)  Murray Waas in his October 7 article: "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."

(2)  Today’s New York Daily News story:  "Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak."

Now, either or both assertions (in bold above) could be true . . . or false. 

But here’s the thing.  If they are BOTH TRUE  — that is:

(1) if Rove told Bush "I did it"

AND

(2) if Bush testified that Rove denied doing it…

…then Bush deceived the prosecutors and Grand Jury. 

And that’s what we call "obstruction of justice", my friends.

Granted, there is a lot of wiggle room in both these admittedly threadbare accounts, and both are based on unnamed "inside" sources.  But, nevertheless, it should give the White House pause. 

So if I were Bush — even if I believed I was innocent — I would be talking to my personal lawyer right about now.

Too bad she’s busy cramming for her confirmation hearings.  Heh.