Let’s see the direct quote, not a press paraphrase. I already showed a quote 6 posts earlier from Sept. 20, 2003, that clearly says “if the person violated the law.”
Bush said lots of things at different times. Here’s one of his quotes:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Listen, I know of nobody - I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. |
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Bush Threatened Criminal Action If CIA Leak Came From His Administration. When asked about the severity of the CIA Leak George Bush Said,“this is a serious charge, by the way. We’re talking about a criminal action.” |
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| You tell me. How many sources have you had that’s leaked information that you’ve exposed or had been exposed? Probably none… And I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official… I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we’ll find out."[/qoute] It was later that Bush qualified his statement with criminal activity. McCellan also said this: [QUOTE]'There’s been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement [in the CIA Leak],' |
Rove is certainly invovled - wouldn’t you say?
At this point, Rove is involved in repeating information given to him by a journalist (Novak). But, it’s under investigation, so if a criminal action is found to have taken place concerning Karl Rove and should he not be fired, then you will have something to get excited about.
That’s based on a leak from the grand jury. I would say that we don’t know all the facts just yet. Don’t bet that Rove isn’t behind all of this leak.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| …we don’t know all the facts just yet. Don’t bet that Rove isn’t behind all of this leak. |
talk about contradictions!!
… i still love ya, mike… although i must admit that i have little interest in this case…isaac
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Let’s see the direct quote, not a press paraphrase. I already showed a quote 6 posts earlier from Sept. 20, 2003, that clearly says “if the person violated the law.” |
Don’t bother asking for one - we all know he’s just going to copy+paste something from another website, and claim it as proof that dolphins actually are from outer space because he knows we wcan’t be stuffed reading whatever crap he’s posted.
Don’t reply if you have little interest 
There’s nothing contradictory about my statement. The first part was addressing ksdb’s source of his post. The 2nd part was speculation on my part, based on what I know about Karl Rove.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Don’t bet that Rove isn’t behind all of this leak. |
double negative… translates to “Bet that Rove is behind all of this leak”…
welcome all ye suckers to nerdville,
isaac
Sorry - this is confusing. There are actually two different leaks I’m referring to. The sentence about Rove should have been in a new paragraph.
i’m just pickin’!..
ick - a pun in a music forum… kill me…
isaac
ksdb - this is what the press is talking about when they say Bush changed his position. So you are wrong about the press lying or making something up, because Bush has said different things. Bush may be more careful now, qualifying that he won’t fire anyone unless they break the law but he did NOT say that earlier.
From the July 13 New York Times:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Mr. Bush was asked in June 2004 whether he would fire anyone who leaked Ms. Wilson’s name. Without hesitation, he said “yes.” But if Ms. Wilson was discussed – but not named – current and former White House officials say Mr. Bush may not feel he is violating his pledge by keeping the political engineer who, as deputy chief of staff, is now formulating much of the domestic policy agenda of Mr. Bush’s second term. |
From June 10, 2004
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| 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. |
From
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| MR. McCLELLAN: – that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. |
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| “…if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that’s why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better.” |
Watch the video. Bush affirms that he heard the question, but it’s not clear that he’s agreeing to the question, because he resumed answering the previous question about the actual leaking of the name (whoever did so is not confirmed), therefore Bush has NOT changed his position. The other problem is that the premise behind the reporter’s second question was vague:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? |
To have done what?? Leak the name?? Even Cooper says Rove did not leak the name. Leak classified information?? We don’t know if Plame’s role at the CIA was classified. Wilson has said on CNN that she was not a clandestine operative at the time the Novak article was published. Violate the law?? Again, this determination has not been made.
Regarding McClellan: he was responding at length to a question about whether this was criminal activity. He followed saying there was no evidence of criminal activity, but if someone was found to be involved in it (criminal activity), then that person would no longer be with the administration. McClellan firmly explained that it would be up to the Justice Department to make such a determination.
If you mean this statement:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts. |
The yes was the affirmative that he would fire someone & the rest was answering the beginngin of the question. This is very easy to see because Bush talks soooo sllllowwwwlllllyyyyy.
Come on - what’s more clear than this statement:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| “…if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. |
Bush & McCellan made more than one statement about it. Now they’re backtracking, trying to say that they never meant these things. I heard Bush originally make the statement about the leak & the impression he gave (the one he intended to give) was that he would take action on this (deal with it).
If this had been a liberal or Democrat, you’d be all over them & you know it.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Wilson has said on CNN that she was not a clandestine operative at the time the Novak article was published. Violate the law?? |
I read an article in the LA Times on Plame. She indeed was an operative with non-official cover (NOC), even though she worked at the main headquarters, so I don’t know where you got your sources. If she wasn’t uncover, there would be no investigation - use common sense. The CIA recommended this to be investigated - they wouldn’t have done so if there was nothing to investigate. Leaking a CIA’s cover is a BAD.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove’s conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power … certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House." But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak’s column first identified her. “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” he said. |
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” he said. |
So whats all the hub-bub bub?
TG
PS I think I’ll go home and see if the wifey is up for some “undercover” work…
Joe Wilson to David Corn:
"I’m not saying she is a CIA agent. I’m not saying she’s not. I’m not saying she’s undercover. I’m not saying she’s not. But, if she was an undercover CIA agent … wink, wink, nudge, nudge … then what the leaker did was really, really bad … wink,wink, nudge, nudge … because she couldn’t be an undercover agent anymore … not that I’m saying she was, but if she was, she couldn’t … wink, wink, nudge, nudge … so this needs to be investigated … btw, now that it’s out, we’re thinking about a book deal and a few magazine covers … "
| Quote (ksdb @ July 19 2005,00:24) |
| Joe Wilson to David Corn: "I'm not saying she is a CIA agent. I'm not saying she's not. I'm not saying she's undercover. I'm not saying she's not. But, if she was an undercover CIA agent ... wink, wink, nudge, nudge ... then what the leaker did was really, really bad ... wink,wink, nudge, nudge ... because she couldn't be an undercover agent anymore ... not that I'm saying she was, but if she was, she couldn't ... wink, wink, nudge, nudge ... so this needs to be investigated ... btw, now that it's out, we're thinking about a book deal and a few magazine covers ... " |
NOW I believe we are VERY close to the TRUTH of the matter!
TG
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said. |
You are pretty good at figuring out what people really mean, so why can’t you here? Wilson is saying that his wife is not a clandestine officer in the purest sense because she was working at headquarters (they have 5-year old twins), but that’s independent of her cover which she DID HAVE. The LA Times article talked all about how cover works in the CIA, etc.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ July 19 2005,12:03) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
You are pretty good at figuring out what people really mean, so why can’t you here? Wilson is saying that his wife is not a clandestine officer in the purest sense because she was working at headquarters (they have 5-year old twins), but that’s independent of her cover which she DID HAVE. The LA Times article talked all about how cover works in the CIA, etc. |
Why didn’t you post the reporter’s explanation before Wilson’s quote:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak’s column first identified her. |
I don’t have time to chase down everything that Wilson says, particularly to an ultra-liberal David Corn.
Use common sense - if Plame wasn’t uncover, there would be NO investigation. It doesn’t matter what Wilson said. Plame has refused to speak to the press & she’s the one who knows.