Dubber, Come back, Come Back 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?

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.

July 19, 2005
President Bush: Not a Flip-Flopper

Oliver Willis writes:  If somebody did leak classified information, I d like [...]

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.

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**

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?

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.

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.

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

It seems that you are another disciple of Rev Sun Yung Moon, the owner of the Washington Times. How was your mass wedding?

…

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.’

And, BTW, by referring to reasonable commenters as “chirrens”, you’re just being an ass.