home

Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a Crime'

President Bush breaks his silence today. He says he'll fire anyone in his administration "who committed a crime." [Via HuffPost.]

Is he saying an indictment won't be enough, he'll insist on a conviction? That would be the American way, after all, a charge is not proof of guilt.

Prediction: Bush will announce his Supreme Court pick earlier than scheduled - within the next few days - to deflect attention from this scandal. Will the furor erupting over RoveGate make him play nice and give us a mainstream moderate to placate us?

Update: Buzzflash Editorial today.

Update: Arianna weighs in here.

< Open Thread on Judith Miller | Columnist Blames '60's Liberals for Gangs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#1)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    Now the qualifier? Before, it was anyone who leaked would be fired. "All animals are equal............ All pigs are equal" Orwell would be impressed

    That's the thing about Bush, you know where you stand. When he says he'll do something, you know he'll weasel out of it things don't go well.

    I don't understand what all the confusion is all about. It has already been proven that Rove knew that the information was classified at the time of his conversation with Cooper. That's why he said it would be declassified soon. Leaking classified info. is a crime! Just in case anyone wants to argue that he didn't know...he still committed a crime, because according to that handbook he gets, if he is unsure about whether info. is classified or not, he's supposed to check with another official. Either way, he committed a crime. Whether he was the first to leak the info. or not, he leaked it. Any way you look at it, he committed a crime! So, what's all the confusion about? Am I missing something?

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#4)
    by stoic on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    No, but proof of a crime is proof of a crime. It is a logical falacy that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It is an admonishion to juries to weigh evidence presented to them against an accused "as if they were innocent". Being unconvicted doesn't mean you didn't do it. If three guys walk into a convenience store. Call them Jim, Joe and Bob. Joe and Bob are engaged in a heated argument. Joe suddenly reaches out and assaults Bob by punching him in the face. Jim sees Joe punch Bob in the face. In fact, the video cameras record Joe punching Bob in the face. Is Joe innocent of assault? Surely, Jim knows Joe is guilty of assault and anyone who views the video tape can see the act of assault. Joe may or may not be convicted in a court of law of assault but even if he is not convicted he still punched Bob in the face.

    Stoic, Joe may not be guilty of assault. It might be self-defense. Maybe the camera and Jim didn't see the knife Bob was holding an inch from Joe's stomach or hear Bob's threats to stab Joe right before Joe punched him.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#6)
    by DonS on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    This is no surprise. The low bar is in keeping with Bush's absolute hypocrisy in restoring decency to the WH as he pledged. It also pretty much guarantees he's been told Rove, at least, is certain to be indicted. Who's knows how long the prosecution of the case against Rove would last? Certainly long enough for Bush to come up with more distractions.

    McClellan at one point said they weren't "involved" in this. So it seems to me that anybody involved ought to be disciplined. Anybody else think about the fact that the Supremes read the briefs on the Miller/Cooper appeal including the "secret" stuff and may have a good sense of what is about to fall on the administration? Maybe O'Connor wanted to give Bush a chance to name her replacement before this whole thing explodes and Bush becomes much less able to secure the confirmation of his ideal candidate. Finally, regarding the discussion above, someone pointed out that Federal code requires violations of the agreement not to disclose classified information be investigated by the executive and appropriate action taken, regardless of any criminal investigation. That kind of blows the I'm just gonna wait and see what the Prosecutor says line out of the water.

    They never play nice. When they're cornered, they just fight dirtier. Expect a wingnut nominee to energize the base and distract us with another battle in the Culture War so that we remember that above all we must hate each other. That keeps us looking down amongst ourselves for enemies instead of up, where they've always been. One guarantee: they'll send up someone who is unrecognized by the general public - but that only narrows the field by a few people.

    Will the furor erupting over RoveGate make him play nice and give us a mainstream moderate to placate us?
    I fear the opposite: an extremist nominee to distract us.

    Darn you, eRobin. You're too quick.

    Huh. You know, this sounds like one of those FLIP-FLOPS we heard so much about from every single Republican for about a year. Dirt bags. Stalinist dirt bags.

    I challenge all our right-wing commenters to explain how Bush's two statements ("I will fire the leaker" vs "I will fire whoever's convicted of a crime") are internally consistent. And, no, "Dear Leader has gotta help Saint Turd Blossom" doesn't cut it. Somehow I doubt we'll ever hear an explanation about how this fits in with our fearless leader's straight-shootin', means what he says and says what he means, stays the course, looks you in the eye when he shakes his hand, levelin' with the common man, restoring honor and dignity to the white house mythology that they all seem to otherwise have absolute faith in.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#13)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    qt writes:
    So, what's all the confusion about? Am I missing something?
    Well, for starts you might understand that it is not a crime to discuss a CIA employee who is not a covert agent. And Plame was about as covert as the Washington Monument. American Dreamer - Would you have been satisfied had Bush came out in 8/03 and said, "I have investigated this. There is no crime. There is no need for a Special Prosecutor." If Bush had done that, and then appointed a SP, he would have asked so many questions with so many answers that later obstruction/perjury charges would not have been possible. Hmmmmm? ;-) BTW - And did you complain when Clinton didn't investigate FileGate? He didn't and he shouldn't have. That's the job of a SP.

    PPJ, where have you been? Last I checked, she was "covert." There wouldn't be an investigation if she wasn't.

    A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove responded: "He's a Democrat." Innocent "discussion", huh, Jim.

    Also, does anyone else find it funny how Jim's position is simply "it could have been worse"? No discussion of actual damage done, no admission of the malice involved. It's like stealing money from someone and saying "Well, they didn't really need it" as a defense. That wouldn't hold up in court and it definitely won't work in the court of public opinion. If that's all the right has to say, pass out the cigars. Although we should be celebrating already, since Bush just announced he's holding into Radioactive Karl come hell or high water.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#17)
    by jarober on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    TL should read this brief filed by the media early on. Starting on page 28, the NYT (and NBC, et. al.) assert that there was almost certainly no crime committed, because Plame was not covert. Bear in mind that this isn't White House spin - it's the media itself, to a court.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#18)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    Nothing new here! but bush will do what a bush will do. scarshapedstar said it best, go,go scarshapedstar!

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    Jim, Why are you anti CIA?

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#20)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    And so the Left finally realizes that, indeed, there is no there, there. There was no leak, as the info in q had been out for some time beforehand. Plame, a covert agent? Please. So was Libby maybe the source even before Rove spoke? Can you get to Bush that way instead (we ask breathlessly)? Nope, not that either, all Libby did was confirm that he had heard a rumor, too. This whole thing is the biggest non-issue in years, and, as James Robertson kindly reminds us, even the media orgs involved are filing briefs that say as much. Sorry gang, you won't get to Bush on this one. He'll continue with his agenda, and to stop him you'll have to win elections. Screaming (yes, screaming) almost incoherently about non-issues like Plame, and insulting everyone who disagrees w/you, actually works against that, btw, which is why it never really bothers the conservative commenters here. We know who it helps. Louder, please.

    Plame had been out of the field for more than five years. By definition of the relevant law, she was no longer covert. The CIA was not making positive efforts to keep her position secret. By definition of the relevant law, she wasn't covert. No covert, no crime. The other stuff, like did Cooper tell Rove, or did Novak, or, or, or, is irrelevant. No covert, no crime.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#22)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    Does this make sense or not.
    An October 1, 2003, Washington Post article also quoted intelligence officials confirming Plame's undercover status with the CIA: Plame currently is an analyst at the CIA. But, intelligence officials said, she previously served overseas in a clandestine capacity, which means her name is kept classified to protect her previous contacts and operations, and her ability to work again undercover overseas. The Post article discussed the CIA's request that the Justice Department investigate the leak, reporting that the classified status of Plame's identity was part of the criteria weighed in the decision to move forward with the investigation:


    Now that Rove's in trouble Bush is trying to move up the annoucement of the Supreme Court nomination in order to direct attention away from his right hand man. I found this website that seems really informative,

    Will the furor erupting over RoveGate make him play nice and give us a mainstream moderate to placate us? Quaker is right. It will be a highly controversial name that will build support among the base while generating a firestorm of press leaving no room in the news hour for Treasongate.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    Why has not one Republican Senator, Congressperson or member of the administration said publicly that Valerie Plame was not undercover or covert? Why will they not go on record? Why are they disseminating talking points about an issue that they themselves refuse to discuss? When I hear the Director of the CIA or the President or VP say that she was not covert or undercover I will sit back and watch the debate happen. But when it comes from talking heads and shills I give it as much credibility as I would the former Iraqi Information Minister who promised that the Americans would be crushed like cumquats or something as terribly frightening. Why discuss a talking point when those elected refuse to broach it? It is a very clever diversion tactic by the administration to get people comfortable with her "status" that is allowed to permeate unchallenged. MSM is once again failing the American people. How hard is it to ask the President, McClellan or any of the Republican leaders the question: "There is a lot of speculation and a specific allegation that Valerie Plame was not a covert or undercover agent at the time of the release. Was she an undercover agent and if not why are we spending millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate a crime that has not been committed?"

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    I say we should wait for conclusion of the investigation before anyone gets fired. I don't know if Rove lied to Bush or not when McClellan denied any involvement whatsoever by Rove (rove may have come clean and Bush might have said it will blow over.) But they clearly misunderestimated Mr. Fitzgerald who is an excellent prosecutor, did some great work in Illinois.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    Wow, he'll fire anyone convicted. What a high standard. What an absurd slice of American Pie. Bush oughtta open a fertilzer company. Next it'll be anyone who commits a crime, is released on appeal, then, and ONLY THEN, is jailed after the appeals are exhausted. Because he has to be fair.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    By the way, if she weren't still covert, why wouldn't her friends and neighbors know her real job? They believed her to be an energy analyst slash consultant. Anyone on the right?

    I love the talking point that all the wrong wingers are following here on this thread. The whole "Plame wasn't covert" holds about as much water as a seive. I remember once accusing PPJerk of using talking points to make his arguements, as well as Dick Aubrey, and he became offended and wrote something along the lines of "I think for myself". Yeah, sure you do, Jim. And the pope doesn't wear a funny hat. We will find out after the Grand Jury is finished with it's investigation whether or not a crime was committed. For all intents and purposes it does appear that a crime and subsequent cover up occurred, but we don't know for sure. RA, PPJ, Jim(pat)Robertson, and all the other fascist friendly wingers are making crap up. They have no more concrete evidence to show Plame wasn't a NOC during the relevant time frame than intelligent design proponents do for the assertions of their pseudo-science. They are assuming the "facts" spewed by WorldNutdaily and the Vulgar Pigboy Junkie are correct. And we all know what assuming does.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#31)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    Dadler et al, Please Read.With.Comprehension. Bush said he would fire anyone who committed a crime. He made no mention of anyone having to be convicted. That phrasing was TL's, who, I thought, also made it clear that she herself was speculating as to whether or not Bush meant a conviction would be necessary, or an indictment, or something else. You're frustrated cuz the issue here really has nothing at all to do w/Plame, who is just an excuse - it's that you wanna "get" to Bush so bad you can taste it, but you never seem to be able to pull it off. It's no coincidence. You're swinging with all your might at any and every pitch, regardless. Plame is not a hit for you, and never will be. "And now the air is shattered by the force of TalkLeft's Blow!"

    Richard Aubrey writes: "The other stuff, like did Cooper tell Rove, or did Novak, or, or, or, is irrelevant. No covert, no crime." Unfortunately, your premise is wrong. Plame *was* covert, which is why the CIA *asked* for the investigation to begin with. A better take might be: "No CIA request for investigation, no crime." But since there was one, better luck with the next talking point.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#33)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    The wingers miss one important fact: just like for Martha Stewart, or for Bill Clinton, obstruction usually arises from a situation that may not have begun as a crime. It may not matter if VP was covert, I'll leave that to the pros. If Rove, or anyone else, lied to the feds over it, it is a crime. Also, I would refer the wingers to post #1. Originally, W did not require that a crime be committed. He lied. Are you going to defend that? (probably-sad and pathetic) Ras- go back on your meds. Please!

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#34)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    Ras, Did Dubya ALSO say who would be the final judge of whether a crime was committed? Since, in our free democracy, we're supposed to have legally committed a crime only when we're convicted, who decides if conviction isn't the standard? Could it be the usual standard is more ethical than legal, and that Dubya is stretching the standard for his own, supposed, benefit? Talking tough and then acting on that tough talk is always, well, tougher when involves punishing your own inner circle.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#35)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    Dadler, Actually, Bush's phrasing allows him to be more stringent, not less, in his definition of "crime." He did not say it would require a conviction, meaning he could also choose to fire someone for what he himself considers a crime, even if they had not been convicted. This is kinda redundant, of course - the pres. can fire any of his staff at any time for any reason, and they know it. But it does hilite that you are reading the phrase backwards. Roger, You might also wish to review this little bit of background/analysis (quick read). Basically, the words you quote Bush as saying never passed his lips. Fake but accurate, yet again, sigh?

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#36)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    scar writes:
    Innocent "discussion", huh, Jim.
    And your proof is? qt - Been right here. Evidently you haven't. Roger writes:
    obstruction usually arises from a situation that may not have begun as a crime.
    How can you obstruct justice when there is no crime?

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#37)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    ShermBuck writes:
    I remember once accusing PPJerk of using talking points to make his arguements,
    What an as* you are. We have a nice thread, no profanity, no real attacks and you come along. From now on you will be ShermPuke. As to your claim, you must be outside the US for 5 years to be in covert status. She wasn't. Dadler writes:
    They believed her to be an energy analyst slash consultant.
    Who just happened to go to work every day at CIA headquarters.

    'Fired' traitors will be immediately reemployed by the various branches of the RNC and thinktanks. Firing and NOT prosecuting to the fullest -- that's Bush's Amerika. Presidential pardons to co-conspirators like Weinberger, about to go off the scale. Nice threads, Jim? Go have a doughnut -- you deserve it. Sit up and beg! Fetch. Good puppy.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#39)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Jim, A BJ is not a crime, but Clinton was dishonest during depo. M Stewert lied to investigators. The truth would not be a crime. It is actually criminal to lie to a federal investigator. Hope these two examples help clear that up

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#40)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Ras, Nice try, but I'm not buying it. Too much of a stretch. "Wouldn't be prudent"

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#41)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Although often cast in binary terms an operative is either undercover or not there are distinct categories of cover that CIA operatives use, and an almost endless list of components. Some cover is tissue-thin and disposable. Other arrangements are so layered and deep that they anticipate hostile probing of every facet of a person's life. Plame's cover in which she posed as a private energy consultant while actually working for a CIA department tracking weapons proliferation was somewhere in the middle of those extremes.
    link

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Is he saying an indictment won't be enough, he'll insist on a conviction? That would be the American way, after all, a charge is not proof of guilt. Not in the new amerika; no charges, no access to lawyers, and indefinite secret detention. The reason? wesayso. And it is completely at odds with bush's previous statements:
    Bush warned that he expected his White House staff to meet the highest ethical standards, avoiding not only violations of law, but even the appearance of impropriety.


    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#43)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Scarshapedstar has challenged all of right-wing commentators to explain how Bush's two statements ("I will fire the leaker" vs "I will fire whoever's convicted of a crime") are internally consistent. I notice that not one of you has taken him up on the challenge.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#44)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Scar, I think you make a very important point. What does it say about Bush that he announces a standard ("I will fire the leaker") and then when it turns out that his best buddy violated the standard, he changes the standard. He gave his word that the leaker would be fired. Period. When he said that he didn't mention any exceptions. One test of character is that you stick by your word even if you have to pay a personal cost to do so. It is when the going gets tough that the real character of a person is often revealed.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#45)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Roger, Nice try? Sorry, but it's more than that, even if you were just referrring to a rugby game. I repeat: you can check transcripts & stories. Bush did not speak the words that you have placed in quote marks. Man, that's so frustrating, ain't it? Perhaps a new form of punctuation might help? Let's call them wannaquotes, within which the Left can place all the false statements never uttered by their political opponents, while still pretending that they were actually spoken. The presence of the wannaquotes would allow this, letting the Left report about what was, er , "said" by the person, while still accurately informing the reader of its provenance. Huzzaba we use a minus sign and two quotes together? Watch: "-"I promise to fire Karl Rove if anyone on the Left so much as accuses him of improper conduct"-" said Bush. Well, there you have it. Who can argue? ["-"I certainly can't,"-", said ras] And the Left's latest scandal du jour sinks into a fake but accurate sunset.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#46)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Ras, A series of rabies shots now takes only 3 injections. You might want to look into it.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#47)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    SSS, Btw, my prev comment is also a reply to your challenge. Sorry, I forgot to mention that. I look forward to your reply. Don't forget to follow the link I provided in an even earlier coment to this thread, as it provides the details you'll need. Thx. Roger, Got you on the run, eh, when that's all you got left? Good for me! Keep dodgin', buddy; you make me proud.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#48)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Via Kos, McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration." (September 29, 2003) Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." (September 30, 2003) Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." (Today) OK ras. Now you can't hide behind the exact words that Bush used. The gist of scar's challenge remains. What Bush and McClellan said then is not consistent with what Bush said today.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#49)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Further clarification on what Bush said. Press conference July 10, 2004 QUESTION: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? THE PRESIDENT: That's up to -- QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#50)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    John Horse, Scar and I, (among others) can provide links for our assertions; These links consisit mainly of gov't and cia statements. In the absence of links from the other viewpoint, I offer this article which proves wilson ordered the yellowcake for valerie's birthday.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#51)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Wouldn't "did leak classified information," be committing a crime? I think it's a bit of hair splitting no?

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#52)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    Roger writes:
    Jim, A BJ is not a crime, but Clinton was dishonest during depo.
    Try telling that to any wife.....or husband.... ;-) Thanks - I also just heard it explained on (gasp!) FNC. Based on this, why would anyone ever talk to an investigator? I mean, make a mistake based on faulty memory and go to jail?

    What a bold comment by Bush... If anyone commits a crime, they can't work in the White House. Gee, if they commit a crime, aren't they supposed to go to the "Big House"? It'd be hard to be Deputy Chief of Staff to the President from a Federal Penitentiary... Unless George is saying that Rove would be pardoned... After all, his exact quote is that they "would be taken care of"...that's got a peculiar double meaning. I haven't heard anyone else parse that phrase. In fact, that might be an argument for the White House to have Rove convicted sooner than later, so he can be pardoned in time to run Jeb's 2008 Presidential campaign. If he's convicted too late, a Democrat could be President and goodbye Get Out Of Jail Free card...

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#54)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Hi John Horse, Now you can't hide behind the exact words that Bush used. John, my friend, the entire thread, in fact, including the plaints from the Left, is based upon the exact wording of Bush's various comments. You might not have known that, tho. Suggest you review the preceding comments. Regardless, I repeat: Bush never said the words you attribute to him, which never passed his lips. Who the hell cares how the second-string phrased it; they ain't in the big chair, is they? And surely them reporters can stop mangling previous quotes and thereby contributing to the confusion, right? Right? SSS, I already know your politics. At this pt, I'm more curious to see your reaction. Will it be to the facts or to the frustration? We'll see, I guess.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#55)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Jim- why would anyone talk to a fed?-- Exactly! That's what we try to tell people! Ras- "who ...cares what the second- string phrased it"-- you mean the official spokesperson?

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#56)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    ras, Actually the quote that was used in the link that you provided was misleading. Here is the interview. One thing that is clear from the interview is that Bush is careful to distinguish between leaking information and violating the law ("And if there is a leak..." "And if the person violated law...") When Bush is talking about "taking appropriate action" he is not referring to a violation of the law but to the leaking of information. Note that the "taking appropriate action" quote is taken from a different question than the "if the person violated law" quote. What does Bush mean by "taking appropriate action"? This is where McClellan's press briefing comes in. "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration." Its not surprising that ras's link does not use what McClellan said because it completely blows that interpretation out of the water. However, lets ignore this for the moment. How do you account for what Bush said during the July 10, 2004 press conference which seems to confirm my interpretation. Its very simple for Bush apologists. He was tricked by the reporter into giving an answer that he didn't mean. Being a Bush apologist means judging Bush not on the basis of what he said but what you wish he had said.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#57)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    JH, You cant argue reality in this faith-based administration, didn't you get the talking points?

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#58)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Roger, The problem with the talking points is that it keeps shifting. I guess thats why its based on faith.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#59)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Roger, Maybe I'm a little PO'd because I just lost some of my support staff. They were fired because of inappropriate behavior (downloading porn at work). However, they didn't commit any crime. If only they had worked for the White House.

    Ras, Your defence of your pin-up chimp George W doesn't hold water, old chap. Let's say I steal a car. The cops come by my house and ask: "Did you steal that car?". If I reply "yes", I won't get very far in court by claiming that my affirmation of the accusation doesn't count because the words "I stole the car" never passed my lips. See? Bush said that he would fire anyone who leaked the name of the agent. Whether he used those exact words, or whether he said "yes" when asked "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?" amounts to the same thing. (Unless you want to start getting into a Clintonesque "what the definition of 'is' is" debate).

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#61)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Standard form 312 (which Rove signed) Requires the pRez tyo fire Rove. Rove's form also states that there is no difference between leaking and confirming. Check ot www.liberaloasis.com for more on this

    Ras. Please. McClellan said the leaker would be fired, and Bush made it clear that was his position as well (even though that should have been unnecessary for him to do since McClellan's kinda sorta Bush's spokesman). The obviousness of the fact that Bush changed his position is why every major news network felt comfortable saying that Bush was changing his position. I also like the breathless assertions that the scandal is dying down. Maybe if you say it enough times and click your heels it'll come true. But according to polls, the American people are interested in the story and think it a serious matter. Not to mention an ABC news poll that shows only 25% of Americans think the administration is cooperating fully with the investigation. Frankly I'm suprised it's so high. In any case, that's a fairly bad credibility issue--only one quarter of Americans (so a lot of cons are on the other side of the fence here) think that the administration is cooperating with a criminal investigation involving the leak of a CIA agent's identity. You cannot possibly argue that if this were a Dem administration neocons wouldn't be apoplectic. The fact that they aren't just shows that they don't care about the rule of law, or national security, or being honest, but power. Just power.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Still waiting for ANY active republican politician or current member of the administration to come out and say Valerie Plame was not covert or undercover. How come only the pundits are making the claims? This is pure cowardice. Leaking a claim and not having one member of your party stand up and say it. Cowardice on the MSM also, simple question really, "Mr. President, was she or was she not covert?, and if not, why all the fuss?" I swear, the MSM IQ has dropped at least 30 points in the last 10 years.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    PPJ wrote, about what Plame's neighbors knew about her occupation as energy analyst/consultant: Who just happened to go to work every day at CIA headquarters. And how did they know THIS? Did they follow her to work? The RNC spin machine has been working overtime since the moment this story broke to create the perception that her occupation at the CIA was known to all, blah blah blah. That's their job when some powerful party members implicated in potentially serious crimes. So they started early and have kept up the spin. And I know you think Wilson and his wife concocted this whole trip, for their own personal political reasons, willing to ruin their reputations here and abroad -- and that there is no way Wilson actually was a professional who went to do an important job and did it and reported back to his superiors. Though I think it's reactionary at best to believe such a story, I have trouble believing you don't find it difficult to hold such belief in the face of a Republican prosecutor, Fitzgerald, going so hard and strong after the people he believes were behind it. Especially when you don't think the IT has any merit. A judge who's reviewed the case has already stated he believed the underlying crime in this case is far more serious than the journalistic shield issues, and that he believes ther was indeed a "plot" against Wilson and his wife. Too clear to ignore for this skeptical boy. But just how much sh*t is gonna hit the legal fan, or how many officials are going to be fitted for prison jumpsuits, it's anyone's guess at this point. The art of plausible deniability is one they've been honing for decades.

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#66)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Add Jim, And on a completely unrelated topic, lemme ask you this: Astros or Rangers?

    Re: Bush Speaks: Will Fire Anyone 'Who Committed a (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    still waiting Mr. Sartorum, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. McClellan.