Sometimes we give people too much credit by overestimating their intelligence, motivation or sense of responsibility. For example, take George W. Bush and the issue of intelligence leaks. Mr. Bush's vice president, Dick Cheney, long known to function as a lone ranger - recently manifested by his failure to alert the president after he shot a man- now has been accused by his assistant, Scooter Libby, of directing Mr. Libby to leak intelligence. Mr. Libby further testifed that Mr. Cheney told him it was the president who ordered the leak. Well, it seems we are all so hopeful that Mr. Bush is so profoundly involved in directing the important issues of his administration that just about everyone has concluded that indeed it was Mr. Bush who directed Cheney to leak the intelligence through his staff.
However, if we read the history of this administration it is more likely that Bush was once again surprised by Cheney's actions. After all, it was Bush who years earlier had exclaimed " we'll catch the leaker and punish him". Of course, he can't admit he was surprised again by events because that would only confirm that he superficially presides over this government while Cheney and his boys run amok. So, Bush cannot plead his usual "I didn't know" which we all have become accustomed to following Katrina, the Dubai Ports deal, etc, etc. If he did admit to ignorance as he usually does then Cheney would be exposed as having violated the law. Bush would then have to fire Cheney and then go it alone until 2008.
Voila, la problem-----Some people call Bush's allegiance to his staff---loyalty. But, would we call a spouse's allegiance to an abusive, alcoholic partner loyalty --------or dependency! Clearly, people put up with a lot when they don't feel capable of functioning on their own. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush had his own Brokeback moment with Cheney over all of this.
Cheney--"Yes, Mr. President, I authorized the leaks"
Bush---"Dick, I wish I knew how to quit you".