Bush Says He Would Fire Any Aides Who 'Committed a Crime'

Gah, I have something to say and should keep my mouth shut.

 

I know the feeling.

 

Who gets to define "crime"?

So scot-free until someone is convicted of a breach of the criminal code, then? That could take years...

 

Should that be "Scott-free"?

 

You let the Scots have a little bit of self determination, and all kinds of terrible things happen!

 

It's nice of the Bush administration to come right out and admit that they have no ethical standards.

 

For the complete story, see other macrumors threads:

America's Ministry of Propaganda
Reporter: Top Cheney Aide Among Sources

 

If past is prologue with this administration, then they've got to follow through on what the say. However, the may have stepped into their own landmine. Their habit of doing axactly and only what they say (very sneakily)
AND their schoolyard bullying politically
AND their 'Protecting their own by rewarding loyalty'

now leaves then to fire SOMEONE. But that won't be Karl Rove.

IMHO, Karl did spill it by implication, not verbosely saying it - ergo 'skirting' the law, but that turned out to be too close and atually broke it. But Bush owes his political life to Karl - so he won't fire hime. So it's scapegoat fallguy time...

 

What I don't understand is how the Bush Administration can sit by and watch the same reliance on legal-speak that they complained so bitterly about with regard to Clinton and his impeachment.

When Clinton said that he had not had sex with Lewinski, there was no shortage of caterwauling about how this was a lie (even though he was talking to a federal prosecutor -- a lawyer -- on the legal record, and every legal definition of "sex" is heterosexual vaginal intercourse).

Now, when Rove says that he "never told reporters her name," where's the outrage that he said "Wilson's wife"? What's the theory -- Wilson's a polygamist, so there's some wiggle room?

Republicans in general have to realize that Bush doesn't represent the values of real, honest small-town America. And Congressional Republicans have to realize that Bush's career is over in 2008, but theirs can go on -- unless they go down with this ship.

Otherwise, we're going to see a sea change in the two elected branches of government.

 

Courtesy of Mike Tidmus:

 

Basically I think this will be spun into a bunch of hot air (make that warm fresh methane) ... with nothing being done to anybody.

 

Do The Ten Commandments count?

 

Next up, debating what the definition of criminal is.

 

Is that like debating what the definition of the word is is ?

 

Heres more Bush Goodness:

Bush Changes Position on Firing Leakers
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jul 19, 2005, 07:00
Email this article
Printer friendly page

President Bush, faced with having to make good on his promise to fire anyone caught leaking information on a CIA operative, instead changed his criteria, promising now to dismiss any White House official if "they committed a crime."
In September 2003, the White House had said anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed. Bush reiterated that promise last June, saying he would fire anyone found to have disclosed the CIA officer's name. MORE....

LINKY

Looks like Bush changed his mind (I do want to find another source confiming this).

edit: Never mind. I have to quit posting so early in the morning.

 

No matter what Bush says, everybody knows that the White House has been sitting on this bombshell for two years (i.e. the fact that the leaks came from the Bush Administration). It was great to see the press secretary squirm last week.

 

While we all know that BuzzFlash is a left wing rag...

There's an interesting post at BuzzFlash that talks about this. It's a bit too conclusory, but the premise is this:

Bush's sudden concern about the difference between "involved with the leak" and "convicted" is not really analagous to parsing "is".

Parsing "is" may be silly, but it wasn't an issue of going back on a promise to the American people.

Bush's 180° (well, maybe 91°) turn on this is more aptly analogized to his father's "Read my lips: no new taxes." This was a specific promise made to the people -- when it came to stand up or slink away from that commitment, he chose to slink.

 

But leaking is bad when someone other than Karl does it.

I wonder if he takes Rove's position seriously.

 

headline from the onion :

"Bush Awaits Orders From Rove On Handling Of Rove Scandal"

 

Larry Johnson to give tomorrow Democratic radio address. Transcript follows:

A registered republican huh...

 

Don't you remember Larry Johnson? He was a frequent talking head during the early days of the Iraq debacle. I saw him on the NewsHour several times. Unlike most talking heads, he could be counted on to make interesting observations. He even had a regular gig on Fox for awhile, but for some reason, he was disinvited after a few appearances.

 

Oh yes I remember him. I was just making the distinction perfectly clear for those who don't know. And prior to this I actually didn't know Larry J. was a registered Republican, just that he was most definetly not a liberal lefty.

Guess it means we can't trust him though, since the standard now is that anyone who has a party affiliation can't be believed.

 

He mentioned it once on the NewsHour -- I guess he considers it one of his bone fides as an administration critic. Not that anyone should have to cite their party affiliation before expressing opinion, but that's what it has come to apparently.

 

Bush is the only one who can do wrong and expect to be "forgiven", everyone else is "SOL"

don't you just love people who are intolerant of intolerance?

a few choice words come to mind here, but I will refrain from going on with that.

but it's just my $.02