Bush moves the goal posts to protect his Brain...

[jAZ]

First it was "shown to have leaked information " now it's officially, "committed a crime in the CIA-leak case"...

Gotta protect that power, at all costs.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...S&SECTION=HOME

Bush: Any criminals in leak to be fired

By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." At the same time, Bush yet again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter.

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here and it's being played out in the press," Bush said at an East Room news conference.

Bush, appearing at a news conference with visiting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, spoke a day after Time magazine's Matthew Cooper said that a 2003 phone call with Rove was the first he heard about the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson apparently working for the CIA.

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

Asked at a June 10, 2004 news conference if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

A tempest has swirled around the leak of the CIA agent's name, apparently by Bush administration officials, in July 2003.

Some Democrats have called for Rove, whose title is deputy chief of staff, to be fired. They have suggested that he violated a 1982 federal law that prohibits the deliberate exposure of the name of a CIA agent.

"It's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts," Bush said Monday. "I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

It was the second time that Bush, when asked specifically about Rove's involvement in the matter, passed up an opportunity to come to his adviser's defense.

Bush has appeared with Rove at his side several times over the past week, however. And White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said Rove - as well anyone who works now at the White House - continues to have the president's confidence.

The president did not respond directly to a reporter's question on whether he disapproved of Rove's telling a reporter that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues.

Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency. But he has insisted through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name, nor did he intend to "out" her.

[Simplex3]

Four words:

Sandy, Berger, National, Archives.

Think about it.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Four words:

Sandy, Berger, National, Archives.

Think about it.

Bush moved the goal posts to protect power that Sandy Berger provided/provides to him???? Weird.

[Michael Michigan]

...And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...

From 9/30/03


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030930-9.html


Let me answer a couple of questions, then we've got to go to Cincinnati. Deb.

Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks.

And 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.

Also later:

...If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Carry on.

[Duck Dog]

Must you start a new thread with every feebel thought or article?

This thread is totally unnecessary.

[patteeu]

Nice try jAZ. Well, not really.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by jAZ

Bush moved the goal posts to protect power that Sandy Berger provided/provides to him???? Weird.

You're so worried that Rove MIGHT have said a CIA employee's name (note: NOT a covert agent) yet you aren't all bent that someone DID remove and destroy confidential documents pertaining to 9/11 from the National Archives.

[RINGLEADER]

And the Dems have been constantly moving the goal posts in this story as well. If you remember we were originally being told that Karl Rove was actively peddling a story in which he deliberately dropped Ms. Plame's name in an effort to smear Joe Wilson as retribution for his POV on Iraq. Then, as more facts came out, the Dems' story changed as did their claims.

It turns out that Karl Rove wasn't peddling the story (he was responding to questions from reporters - and setting the story straight - prompted by Joe Wilson's fantasy-filled editorial days before), that he didn't drop Valerie Plame's name (mainly, it turns out, because he didn't know it), and that he was trying to get a story to NOT be written because it was factually inaccurate (something supported by the bi-partisan report on Iraq) and wasn't pimping a story to smear anyone. At least if you want to believe the reporter that he was supposedly trying to "plant" the story with.

To that the Dems now laughingly refer to Valerie Plame as Valerie Wilson since they can't connect Rove with actually saying her name (with the media in some circles blissfully going along for the ride), they now downplay Joe Wilson's admission that her cover doesn't fit the definition of a covert agent under the applicable statute (it turns out she wasn't working out of country within the necessary five-year window and, consequently, wasn't the covert agent that Joe Wilson likes to believe), and making the fine distinction that it no longer matters if any kind of law was broken or even if Rove was trying to smear a dissenting voice on the Iraq War (which had been their whole contention from the beginning).

Anyway, I'm sure at the end of the day this whole episode will make a great chapter in Michael Moore's next Democratic circle-jerk.

[Electric]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

You're so worried that Rove MIGHT have said a CIA employee's name (note: NOT a covert agent) yet you aren't all bent that someone DID remove and destroy confidential documents pertaining to 9/11 from the National Archives.

That's because nobody has "posted" Bush did it. If jaz felt like he could get an argument going with false information, he would. He must work for the libby media in his "real" job?

[Electric]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

And the Dems have been constantly moving the goal posts in this story. If you remember we were originally being told that Karl Rove was actively peddling a story in which he deliberately dropped Ms. Plame's name in an effort to smear Joe Wilson as retribution to his POV on Iraq. Then, as more facts came out, the Dems' story changed as did their claims.

It turns out that Karl Rove wasn't peddling the story (he was responding to questions from reporters that were prompted by Joe Wilson's fantasy-filled editorial days before), that he didn't drop Valerie Plame's name (mainly, it turns out, because he didn't know it), and that he was trying to get a story to NOT be written because it was factually inaccurate (something supported by the bi-partisan report on Iraq) and wasn't pimping a story to smear anyone. At least if you want to believe the reporter that he was supposedly trying to "plant" the story with.

To that the Dems now laughingly refer to Valerie Plame as Valerie Wilson (with the media in some circles blissfully going along for the ride), downplaying Joe Wilson's admission that her cover doesn't fit the definition of a covert agent under the applicable statute, and making the fine distinction that it no longer matters if any kind of law was broken or even if Rove was trying to smear a dissenting voice on the Iraq War (which had been their whole contention from the beginning).

Anyway, I'm sure at the end of the day this whole episode will make a great chapter in Michael Moore's next Democratic circle-jerk.

What I find funny is that Michael Moore or Less is always his own pivot man in the circle jerk. Is it really a circle jerk if the only circle is your waist line?

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Electric

What I find funny is that Michael Moore or Less is always his own pivot man in the circle jerk. Is it really a circle jerk if the only circle is your waist line?

Now that's funny.

But I have no doubt MM will look beyond the facts of this whole episode to arrive at his own mistaken conclusions.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by Electric

That's because nobody has "posted" Bush did it. If jaz felt like he could get an argument going with false information, he would. He must work for the libby media in his "real" job?

He does or used to run a board dedicated to Air America Radio, can't remember the name of it. It's basically a miniature DU.

[Duck Dog]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Now that's funny.

But I have no doubt MM, along with every other pacifist, will look beyond the facts of this whole episode to arrive at his own mistaken conclusions.

I felt compelled to re-write your post.

Hope you don't mind.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Michael Michigan

...And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...

From 9/30/03


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030930-9.html


Let me answer a couple of questions, then we've got to go to Cincinnati. Deb.

Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn't a special counsel be better?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks.

And 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.

Also later:

...If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Carry on.

Yeah, this is pretty much another example of the far-left Dems ignoring facts so that they can perpetuate their own beliefs. It's funny that Joe Wilson is pimping himself all over the airwaves making believe Bush said something he didn't while simultaneously finding it impossible to bring himself to admit (as he did in his own book) that his wife's status with the CIA doesn't fall under the definition of a "covert agent" and, consequently, naming her wouldn't have been a crime even if Rove had actually done that. Which even Wilson now admits he didn't do.

Somewhere Lawrence O'Donnell weeps...

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by Duck Dog

I felt compelled to re-write your post.

Hope you don't mind.

BTW, where'd Jaz go? I can't wait to hear what secret document or conversation he's pinning this one on...