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

[zimv20]

link

WASHINGTON, July 18 - President Bush changed his stance today on his close adviser Karl Rove, stopping well short of promising that anyone in his administration who helped to unmask a C.I.A. officer would be fired.

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, "I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts."

For months, Mr. Bush and his spokesmen have said that anyone involved in the disclosure of the C.I.A. officer's identity would be dismissed. The president's apparent raising of the bar for dismissal today, to specific criminal conduct, comes amid mounting evidence that, at the very least, Mr. Rove provided backhanded confirmation of the C.I.A. officer's identity.

(more)

are we to now assume that the fix is in and rove won't be indicted?

 

[mkrishnan]

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

 

[skunk]

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

I know the feeling.

 

[CanadaRAM]

Who gets to define "crime"?

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

 

[skunk]

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

Should that be "Scott-free"?

 

[mkrishnan]

Should that be "Scott-free"?

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

 

[miloblithe]

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

 

[srobert]

For the complete story, see other macrumors threads:

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

 

[patrick0brien]

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...

 

[idea_hamster]

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.

 

[Sayhey]

Courtesy of Mike Tidmus:

 

[Sun Baked]

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

 

[FFTT]

Do The Ten Commandments count?

 

[Xtremehkr]

Next up, debating what the definition of criminal is.

 

[~loserman~]

Next up, debating what the definition of criminal is.

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

 

[Roger1]

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.

 

[tristan]

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.

 

[idea_hamster]

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

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

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.

 

[mactastic]

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

A dispute over the Bush administration's control of information since the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes erupted into an angry exchange between the White House and Congress yesterday after President Bush moved to restrict intelligence shared with lawmakers.

Members from both parties objected strongly to Bush's highly unusual step of ordering that briefings with sensitive information be limited to eight of the 535 members of Congress. The memo cuts off numerous lawmakers cleared to receive classified information; it was signed by Bush on Friday following a report in The Washington Post that intelligence officials told lawmakers there was a "100 percent" likelihood of further terrorist strikes.

"To put out a public document telling the world he doesn't trust the Congress and we leak everything, I'm not sure that helps develop unanimity and comradeship," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who is on the Foreign Relations Committee. Said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.): "We have to have classified briefings if we're going to do our oversight role."

Bush, appearing in the Rose Garden with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, gave Congress a stern lecture. "I understand there may be some heartburn on Capitol Hill," he said. "But I suggest if they want to relieve that heartburn, that they take their positions very seriously and that they take any information they've been given by our government very seriously."

He continued: "I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk."

I wonder if he takes Rove's position seriously.

 

[katchow]

headline from the onion :

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

 

[mactastic]

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

"Good morning. I'm Larry Johnson, an American, a registered Republican, a former intelligence official at the CIA, and a friend of Valerie Plame.

I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 with Valerie. We were members of the Career Trainee Program. Senator Orin Hatch wrote the letter of recommendation for me which I believe that helped open the doors to me at the CIA.

From the first day we walked into the building, all members of my training class were undercover, including Valerie. In other words, we had to lie to our family and friends about where we worked. We could only tell those who had an absolute need to know where we worked. In my case, I told my wife.

I knew the wife of Ambassador Wilson, Valerie, as Valerie P. Even though all of us in the training class held Top Secret Clearances, we were asked to limit our knowledge of our other classmates to the first initial of their last name.

So, Larry J. knew Val P. rather than Valerie Plame. I really didn't realize what her last name was until her cover was betrayed by the Government officials who gave columnist Robert Novak her true name.

I am stunned that government officials at the highest level have such ignorance about a matter so basic to the national security structure of this nation.

Robert Novak's compromise of Valerie led to scrutiny of CIA officers that worked with her. This not only compromised her "cover" company but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her.

We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department.

Val only told those with a need to know about her status in order to safeguard her cover, not compromise it. She was content with being known as an energy consultant married to Ambassador Joe Wilson and the mother of twins.

I voted for George Bush in November of 2000 because I was promised a President who would bring a new tone and a new ethical standard to Washington.

So where are we? The President has flip-flopped on his promise to fire anyone at the White House implicated in a leak. We now know from press reports that at least Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby are implicated in these leaks and may have lied during the investigation.

Instead of a President concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a President who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson.

This is wrong and this is shameful.

We deserve people who work in the White House who are committed to protecting classified information, telling the truth to the American people, and living by example the idea that a country at war with Islamic extremists cannot focus its efforts on attacking other American citizens who simply tried to tell the truth.

I am Larry Johnson.

Thank you for listening.

A registered republican huh...

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

 

[mactastic]

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.

 

[IJ Reilly]

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.

 

[iBlue]

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