“If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it. And we’ll take the appropriate action.” – George W. Bush, 10/30/03
“If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration” – George W. Bush, 7/18/05
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Sorry, Oliver, that isn’t a flip flop. You see, “appropriate action” means ignore it and hope it goes away, but if it is investigated, blame everyone and their mother, everyone except the perpetrator, that is.
LOL, OYE.
This is an administration which took us from
“Mushroom clouds” to “We know where the WMD’s are” to “WMD related programs” to “we found nada, but isn’t it better that Iraq is free”.
How about this old chestnut.
“We will smoke them out of their holes”
“We will confront any country that harbors terrorists”
“I don’t spend much time thinking about him”
“If someone is convicted of selling nuclear secrets to the North Koreans while raping a penguin on top of the Washington Monument, and that act is recorded on an HDTV camera, they will no longer work in my administration.”
No surprise to hear the “we’re not as bad as al-Qaeda” brigade proposing the strict, dramatic moral principle that there shouldn’t be felons in the White House. Surely I’m not the only one thinking of Moses on the mountaintop?
Just another wonderful example of conservatives lowering the bar for the United States of America. Honest conservatives will be rightly ashamed. Unprincipled ones, however, will make excuses. I wonder which category our resident trolls fall under?
Funny thing, Tomy, they can’t even hurdle that low bar. Aren’t many of the people in the Bush administration left over felons from Bush 1’s Iran-Contra? Limbo a little lower now!
Not to mention that Bush and Cheney have 5 DWI’s between them? Oh, that’s right, it wasn’t a felony THEN, so it’s ok.
After the indictments are handed down, I can’t wait to see the bar lowered to this:
If someone committed a crime, was convicted, was given a punishment of more than 10 years in prison and more than $500,000 in fines, and has thoroughly exhausted all of his appeals, and, AND, AND…was directly responsible for the deaths of at least 100 other covert operatives, I might consider taking some sort of action. – George W. Bush, sometime in the next 6 months
neoconsrloopy, technically, no. See, they were all pardoned by Bush I. In fact, Lewis Libby was convicted for his misdeeds in Iran-Contra, but was pardoned by Bush I.
Pionar, I thought I might have heard something about it, so thanks for the clarification. To me, they are still convicted felons who got a free ride so they wouldn’t implicate Poppy.
“Where is Dugger or Frank_D for this one? ”
Sigh. Time for the grown-ups to ’splain things.
Quote 1: W says if someone leaked classified info, he would take appropriate action.
Quote 2: W says: If someone commits a crime, they won’t work for him.
Now, where is their a flip flop in those statements? No inherent flip-floppery and nor flip-floppery re genius Rove, who has committed no crime and has leaked no classified information. Unless we consider Oliver’s finding of “guilty” all that is necessary.
Now, I want you children in bed early tonight. This staying up late is messing up your reasoning ability.
Papa Dugger
Here’s a helpful transcription that will enable people to see Bush’s lack of integrity for themselves.
Q 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 –
Q 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.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html
Where is Dugger or Frank_D for this one?
Oh, and Oliver, you need to add the clarification that Bush gave when a reporter asked for one. I don’t seem to be able to find the quote but it basically was a “will the leaker, if found, be fired” and Bush’s answer was “Yes”.
You can quibble about the quote you used, and I just want the conservatives to understand exactly where we’re coming from on the whole flipity-floppety.
Dugger was too busy relocating goalposts to read the thread.
So…it seems that the operative question missing from the menu is:
“Mr. President, if somebody leaks classified info, what is the appropriate action?”
Would Dugger care to explain what he thinks this should be? I’m curious.
Thank you TomY, I had a heck of a time finding that.
So Dugger, did you actually read TomY’s reply? Bush stated that Yes, he would fire the leaker.
There’s no inconsistency? Fine. I’m glad to see that you agree with Bush and McClellan that anyone who was “involved” in the leaking should be fired.
If someone leaked classified information in Bushe’s purviewand/or a crime is established likewise, then one could reasonably expect Senor Bush to fire same said individuals. But, chirrens, no crime has been established and no leaker of classified established. Did I not explain it well enough first time? Again, I’m assuming that O is not Kng and they – Rove, Scotty, Scooter, whoever- are not deemed guilty via executive fiat.
Dugger, Glad to take the Time
But, Dugger, Bush didn’t say “if they’re convicted of a crime” until this speech. before, it was if anyone was involved in the leaking of Plame’s name. By your statement, even if Rove didn’t commit a crime, but was still involved in the leak, wouldn’t that necessitate his surrender?
And, BTW, by referring to reasonable commenters as “chirrens”, you’re just being an ass.
wow, I guess that was a Freudian slip. I meant “firing”, not surrender.
)
(sound of Dugger struggling to move goalposts again)
If somebody did leak classified information, I d like to know it. And we ll take the appropriate action. – George W. Bush, 10/30/03
…
Published in the Washington Times July 22, 2004, written by Bill Gertz:
“Mrs. Plame’s identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
“… In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.
“The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said.”
In today’s National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy mentions these leaks and notes that an amicus brief filed on behalf of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper argues that no one in the media is guilty of blowing Plame’s cover because these two leaks prove that Plame had been outed long before Robert Novak’s story.
Funny isn’t it, that with all of the details provided by major newspapers about this story, they would forget to mention the details of their own legal brief.
Unfortunately Bush doesn’t wield a lot of power over Russian spies. But if your side is really interested in canning leakers, why not demand an investigation into which CIA agents were responsible for letting Plame’s identity fall into the hands of the Cubans?
Sorry, I forgot – you’re not interested unless their name is ‘Karl Rove.’
Mike, come back when you have real sources, the Washington Times and National Review have a little less truth than the National Enquirer.
It seems that you are another disciple of Rev Sun Yung Moon, the owner of the Washington Times. How was your mass wedding?
So wait, is your talking point “wait until the investigation is done” or is it “I believe that the amicus brief exonerates everyone in the White House”?
pionar,
First of all the two statements are not contradictory. Second of all, did you read what he said originally:
“If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.”
Und now, ze second statement: If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration
As Jacque Chirac would say: Zut alors! Mon dieu! Zer ees no contradiction here. Zer neffer has been!
Dugger, Willing to take the Time to Help Sensitive Progressive Chirrens Get it Right
The “committed a crime” defense is a pithy out. At the very least, Rove is guilty of gross negligence. He admitted as much when he told Cooper he’d “already said too much.”
In almost any other job, under any other superior, it would be grounds for dismissal, or at the very least reprimand. I expect nothing of the sort from this White House.
So Dugger is willing to allow all manner of incompetence, negligence, and bad work as long as no laws are violated?
If a copy editor allows a book to go to press with spelling errors on every page, that copy editor gets fired. No laws are broken, but they still get fired.
An administration official leaks the name of a covert CIA operative, thereby exposing a network being used to research WMDs. One would think the standard should be similar.
Normally their security clearance is revoked, regardless of whether there are any criminal charges. Why do Republicans want to compromise our CIA *and* White House security procedures during a time of war? Oh, right, because they are partisan bastards.
BD,
Sort it out. Bush would still have the option of firing for incompetence. He’s not committing rigidly to that more drastic position until he knows what has happened. That makes sense to me. Waiting for details rather than marching around the Bastille with a few heads on pikes.
“Why do Republicans want to compromise our CIA *and* White House security procedures during a time of war?”
Can’t speak for everybody else here TomY, but personally I want to compromise our CIA and White House security procedures to -lets see- facilitate the establishment of a rigid theocracy and to create “a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids…”
Dugger, We seek him here, we seek him there, Those Frenchies seek him everywhere. Is he in heaven? – Is he in hell? That damned, elusive Pimpernel?
I too wonder how “incompetence” is a more drastic judgment than “criminal.” Maybe I’m misreading your statement, Dugger of the Shining Seas.
Anyone who describes the generic position of firing people who leak classifed information as “drastic” is an idiot and is indeed compromising our national security procedures during wartime. But maybe if you put a bad joke or a french accent in there, you’ll manage to cloak the way you place partisanship over national security, there Duggsy!
Every White House has a policy against leaking classified information, regardless of whether those leaks rise to the level of a criminal inquiry. This policy is neither “rigid” nor “drastic;” it is simply “clear.”
Fortunately, the Republicans who haven t traded their principles away for partisanship still understand that.
**Dugger the raccoon looks up from the trash can with interest, then resumes rooting desperately for an excuse**
TomY,
We talk at cross purposes. I am generally fine with someone like Sen Leahy or others who have leaked classified info being fired – if that is proven. Likewise my paymaster, Genius Rove. But first, say I, you must establish someone has leaked classified and then determine who it was. And Bushe’s two statements are simply not contradictory – at all, IMO.
BD, You actually are misreading me. My point is that Bush should not commit the drastic action of firing someone until he knows there has been a fireable offense, and whodunnit. All in all, I fail to understand the huge amount of attention concerning nuanced interpretations that one COULD make of Bush’s wording concerning an issue that is not at all resolved and one that against which no guilt has been established. Wouldn’t it be better to find out if a crime has been committed and if so, who did it, first – prior to arguing about fine points of the potential punishment?
Dugger, Dugger. Dugger of the BD, Dugger of the BD, Dugger of the BDAaaa.
[...] “_blank”>
July 19, 2005
President Bush: Not a Flip-Flopper
Oliver Willis writes: If somebody did leak classified information, I d like [...]
“Wouldn t it be better to find out if a crime has been committed and if so, who did it, first – prior to arguing about fine points of the potential punishment?”
That’s not how rules work. First you establish what constitutes breaking the rules, then you establish penalties. I understand it’s not certain *whether* Rove broke the rules, but the idea that Bush or McClellan can’t be believed when they make simple statements on what would happen *if* Rove broke the rules is “drastic” or “rigid” is idiotic.
Dugger -
But it has in fact been established that information was leaked. Whether that leak constitutes a crime is the focus of the “ongoing investigation,” but it doesn’t change the fact that Rove and Libby were involved in the leak, which is something they claimed not to be earlier. Both men spoke to reporters and both discussed “Ambassador Wilson’s wife,”–which for the last time, is even thinner and more ridiculous a defense than “it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
In the best case scenario, they lied to the President and ultimately left him vulnerable on the Plame affair, which distracts from his agenda. They threw McClellan to the sharks in the press pool. That’s the best-case scenario. (The worst case is that Bush and McClellan lied to the American public.) Even in this scenario, a resolute chief executive who promised to restore honor and dignity to the White House would be demanding answers, and if he wasn’t getting them, demanding resignations.
Helen Thomas asked the blunt question: why hasn’t George asked Karl for the truth?
“No, no, no…I said if anyone takes a leak while commiting treason after having they’re way with my daughters, THEN they will be fired !
BD, Your first sentence is passive voice – devoid of an active subject – meaning, as I stated, we don’t know who (and actually we don’t if it was leaked as alleged by the left – merely that the information was out there – some, like her ex boss, are alleging that it was common knowledge) leaked what. I agree that it sure appears that Scooter and Rove were at some point close to the issue, but if no crime was committed and they weren’t the leakers (meaning the originators), as Pres., I would have to review the circumstances before I judged anything about individuals. Even if he’s not the leaker, it sure looks as if Rove did something unwise if not illegal – but I don’t know that for a fact. My advice: put the rope down, go back in the Long Branch, have a drink and pat Ms. Kitty on the tush, and wait for the facts.
Dubber, Come back, Come Back Dugger