Bush's Flip-Flops

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daveymark

[Originally posted by: conjur

September 29, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

1. This is McCLellan, not Bush. So don't say "Bush is backpeddling" or "Bush lied" when he never did so. If you want, you can demand that McClellan stick to his word and fire Rove. Too bad McClellan doesn't have the authority to do that.

2. this is, of course, assuming that an undercover CIA operative's name was leaked. We hae yet to know if this is the case as Plame, by definition, has not been proven to be an undercover agent in the 5 years prior.

Might as well wait for the investigation to finish up before the witchhunt begins.


In the meantime, it's best to take a closer look at Wilson.

Apparently, you missed my reply to you:

What's the purpose of a Press Secretary? To relay the thoughts and wishes of the President.

Also, do you suppose "unacceptable behavior" is to be tolerated? Esp. when it involves leaking classified information?

Tell me truthfully, if this were Leon Panetta, wouldn't you be calling for his hide? Were you as easily dismissive of Sandy Berger?

???????

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

Please read Number 14!

"(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating applicable law or the ethical standards in applicable regulations"

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

Please read Number 14!

"(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating applicable law or the ethical standards in applicable regulations"

See bolded portions above. It hasn't been proven that Rove knowingly violated any applicable laws or regulations. It has not been proven that Rove knew that Plame was undercover or anything else about Plame besides the fact that she was Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush never said "no one who leaked sensitive information would be in his administration and then said no one who was convicted of leaking would be in his administration." he, in the beginning, said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

hmmm


Wednesday, October 10, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy...ontentId=A33976-2001Oct9¬Found=true

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

September 29, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

September 30, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/01/national/main575986.shtml

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

Today:
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic...256573_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Hey conjur, you must have inadvertently omitted a Bush quote about the situation. Let me help you out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

But the left keep repeating the mantra that suddenly Bush is taking a new tack with his "crime committed" statement when he stated it long ago. It's typical of their handwaving bullsh!t and consistently revisionist garbage though.

conjur?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daveymark

[Originally posted by: conjur

September 29, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

1. This is McCLellan, not Bush. So don't say "Bush is backpeddling" or "Bush lied" when he never did so. If you want, you can demand that McClellan stick to his word and fire Rove. Too bad McClellan doesn't have the authority to do that.

2. this is, of course, assuming that an undercover CIA operative's name was leaked. We hae yet to know if this is the case as Plame, by definition, has not been proven to be an undercover agent in the 5 years prior.

Might as well wait for the investigation to finish up before the witchhunt begins.


In the meantime, it's best to take a closer look at Wilson.

Apparently, you missed my reply to you:

What's the purpose of a Press Secretary? To relay the thoughts and wishes of the President.

Also, do you suppose "unacceptable behavior" is to be tolerated? Esp. when it involves leaking classified information?

Tell me truthfully, if this were Leon Panetta, wouldn't you be calling for his hide? Were you as easily dismissive of Sandy Berger?

???????

We don't know all the facts. This would never be Panetta because there never would have been an attack on Iraq with clinton in office, and there never would have been any ambassador going to Nigeria to look for yellowcake. If this were Panetta, this wouldn't be all over the media. I probably wouldn't even know about it. If I did know about it, I would be calling for an investigation. I'm all about the whole "innocent till proven guilty" thing. What's to dismiss with Berger? His statements about what he knowingly did?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: daveymark
no, it means don't say "Bush is backpeddling" or "Bush lied" when he never did so.

June 10, 2004

"Question: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case... do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ?
Bush: Yes.
Question. And finally ?
Bush. And that's up to the U.S. attorney - to find the facts.
..."

Just wanted to point out an example where Bush confirmed the firing.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daveymark

[Originally posted by: conjur

September 29, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

1. This is McCLellan, not Bush. So don't say "Bush is backpeddling" or "Bush lied" when he never did so. If you want, you can demand that McClellan stick to his word and fire Rove. Too bad McClellan doesn't have the authority to do that.

2. this is, of course, assuming that an undercover CIA operative's name was leaked. We hae yet to know if this is the case as Plame, by definition, has not been proven to be an undercover agent in the 5 years prior.

Might as well wait for the investigation to finish up before the witchhunt begins.


In the meantime, it's best to take a closer look at Wilson.

Apparently, you missed my reply to you:

What's the purpose of a Press Secretary? To relay the thoughts and wishes of the President.

Also, do you suppose "unacceptable behavior" is to be tolerated? Esp. when it involves leaking classified information?

Tell me truthfully, if this were Leon Panetta, wouldn't you be calling for his hide? Were you as easily dismissive of Sandy Berger?

???????

We don't know all the facts. This would never be Panetta because there never would have been an attack on Iraq with clinton in office, and there never would have been any ambassador going to Nigeria to look for yellowcake. If this were Panetta, this wouldn't be all over the media. I probably wouldn't even know about it. If I did know about it, I would be calling for an investigation. I'm all about the whole "innocent till proven guilty" thing. What's to dismiss with Berger? His statements about what he knowingly did?

Wouldn't be all over the media? You're joking, right? The White House travel office, Monica, Whitewater, etc.? Those ring any bells? The media loves a good scandal. Interesting to see you run into apologist mode, though.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush never said "no one who leaked sensitive information would be in his administration and then said no one who was convicted of leaking would be in his administration." he, in the beginning, said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

hmmm


Wednesday, October 10, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy...ontentId=A33976-2001Oct9¬Found=true

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

September 29, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

September 30, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/01/national/main575986.shtml

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

Today:
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic...256573_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Hey conjur, you must have inadvertently omitted a Bush quote about the situation. Let me help you out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

But the left keep repeating the mantra that suddenly Bush is taking a new tack with his "crime committed" statement when he stated it long ago. It's typical of their handwaving bullsh!t and consistently revisionist garbage though.

conjur?

Yes?


Oh...hmmm

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: daveymark
no, it means don't say "Bush is backpeddling" or "Bush lied" when he never did so.

June 10, 2004

"Question: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case... do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ?
Bush: Yes.
Question. And finally ?
Bush. And that's up to the U.S. attorney - to find the facts.
..."

Just wanted to point out an example where Bush confirmed the firing.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

Please read Number 14!

"(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating applicable law or the ethical standards in applicable regulations"

See bolded portions above. It hasn't been proven that Rove knowingly violated any applicable laws or regulations. It has not been proven that Rove knew that Plame was undercover or anything else about Plame besides the fact that she was Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

APPEARANCE

 

[tommywishbone]

I'm confused... I thought Cheney was president, now it sounds like people are saying McClellan is president?

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush never said "no one who leaked sensitive information would be in his administration and then said no one who was convicted of leaking would be in his administration." he, in the beginning, said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

hmmm


Wednesday, October 10, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy...ontentId=A33976-2001Oct9&notFound=true

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

September 29, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

September 30, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/01/national/main575986.shtml

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

Today:
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic...256573_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

His original statement in September 2003 was that lawbreakers would be dealt with.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

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.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

Please read Number 14!

"(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating applicable law or the ethical standards in applicable regulations"

See bolded portions above. It hasn't been proven that Rove knowingly violated any applicable laws or regulations. It has not been proven that Rove knew that Plame was undercover or anything else about Plame besides the fact that she was Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

APPEARANCE

Yes?

Read again what I wrote previously. How could Rove "endeavor" to avoid creating that appearance if he wasn't aware of breaking any law in the first place?

You're placing the cart before the horse.

Also, can you provide the applicable punishments provided to those that are proven to have violated that memo?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush never said "no one who leaked sensitive information would be in his administration and then said no one who was convicted of leaking would be in his administration." he, in the beginning, said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

hmmm


Wednesday, October 10, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy...ontentId=A33976-2001Oct9&notFound=true

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

September 29, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

September 30, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/01/national/main575986.shtml

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

Today:
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic...256573_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

His original statement in September 2003 was that lawbreakers would be dealt with.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

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.

And he reiterated what was said before after that:

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: daveymark
no, it means don't say "Bush is backpeddling" or "Bush lied" when he never did so.

June 10, 2004

"Question: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case... do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ?
Bush: Yes.
Question. And finally ?
Bush. And that's up to the U.S. attorney - to find the facts.
..."

Just wanted to point out an example where Bush confirmed the firing.

[/quote]

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush never said "no one who leaked sensitive information would be in his administration and then said no one who was convicted of leaking would be in his administration." he, in the beginning, said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

hmmm


Wednesday, October 10, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy...ontentId=A33976-2001Oct9&notFound=true

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

September 29, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

September 30, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/01/national/main575986.shtml

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

Today:
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic...256573_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

His original statement in September 2003 was that lawbreakers would be dealt with.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

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.

And he reiterated what was said before after that:

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: daveymark
no, it means don't say "Bush is backpeddling" or "Bush lied" when he never did so.

June 10, 2004

"Question: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case... do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ?
Bush: Yes.
Question. And finally ?
Bush. And that's up to the U.S. attorney - to find the facts.
..."

Just wanted to point out an example where Bush confirmed the firing.

[/quote]

The fact that Bush answered "Yes" to the question in June 2004 (which probably wasn't intentionally misleading) doesn't change what Bush said in 2003 or the fact that he was answering "Yes" as to whether he stood by that.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush never said "no one who leaked sensitive information would be in his administration and then said no one who was convicted of leaking would be in his administration." he, in the beginning, said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

hmmm


Wednesday, October 10, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy...ontentId=A33976-2001Oct9¬Found=true

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

September 29, 2003:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

September 30, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/01/national/main575986.shtml

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

Today:
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArtic...256573_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

His original statement in September 2003 was that lawbreakers would be dealt with.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

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.

And he reiterated what was said before after that:

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: daveymark
no, it means don't say "Bush is backpeddling" or "Bush lied" when he never did so.

June 10, 2004

"Question: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case... do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ?
Bush: Yes.
Question. And finally ?
Bush. And that's up to the U.S. attorney - to find the facts.
..."

Just wanted to point out an example where Bush confirmed the firing.

[/quote]
Thanks for proving the left is once again out of line with their "policy shift" claim. Bush already stated long ago that the person had to "violate the law" (i.e - commit a crime), so there is no "policy shift."

 

[conjur]

Let's repeat as TLC just isn't getting it:

"Question: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case... do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ?
Bush: Yes.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Hey conjur, you must have inadvertently omitted a Bush quote about the situation. Let me help you out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

But the left keep repeating the mantra that suddenly Bush is taking a new tack with his "crime committed" statement when he stated it long ago. It's typical of their handwaving bullsh!t and consistently revisionist garbage though.

Hey, TastesLikeChicken, you must have ADVERTANTLY overlooked the time sequence of Bush's ever-changing quotes about the situation. Let me help you out:

On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, Bush uttered the quote you site:

If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

Previously, on Sept. 30, 2003, Bush said:

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

A week later, on Oct. 7, 2003, McClellan went farther:

If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates.

But you keep repeating the talking point mantra that Bush hasn't taken a new tack with his "crime committed" statement. Your statements are typical of your manic denial, and it still SmellsLikeBullsh8 and consistently revisionist garbage.

You may want to go out to your yard and rewind your sundial. :roll:

Bush obviously believes "appropriate action" means coddling those who leaked the identity of a CIA agent, lying and denying his own previous statements, regardless of recorded history and attempting to shift the blame to Joseph Wilson for being the messenger who disclosed his original lies about starting a war costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. :|

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: conjur
Let's repeat as TLC just isn't getting it:

"Question: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case... do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ?
Bush: Yes.

You obviously dont get it.

The fact that Bush answered "Yes" to the question in June 2004 (which probably wasn't intentionally misleading) doesn't change what Bush said in 2003 or the fact that he was answering "Yes" as to whether he stood by that.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Hey conjur, you must have inadvertently omitted a Bush quote about the situation. Let me help you out:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

But the left keep repeating the mantra that suddenly Bush is taking a new tack with his "crime committed" statement when he stated it long ago. It's typical of their handwaving bullsh!t and consistently revisionist garbage though.

Hey, TastesLikeChicken, you must have ADVERTANTLY overlooked the time sequence of Bush's ever-changing quotes about the situation. Let me help you out:

On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, Bush uttered the quote you site:

If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

On Sept. 30, 2003, Bush said:

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

A week later, on Oct. 7, 2003, McClellan went farther:

If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates.

But you keep repeating the talking point mantra that Bush hasn't taken a new tack with his "crime committed" statement. Your statements are typical of your manic denial, and it still SmellsLikeBullsh8 and consistently revisionist garbage.

Bush obviously believes "appropriate action" means coddling those who leaked the identity of a CIA agent, lying and denying his own previous statements, regardless of recorded history and attempting to shift the blame to Joseph Wilson for being the messenger who disclosed his original lies about starting a war costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. :|

On Sept. 30th Bush said:

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.

Stop trying to misrepresent the facts

 

[conjur]

Go ahead and keep apologizing. I can't believe ANYONE (right, left, middle, outer space, etc.) would even consider keeping someone that was part of a concerted efforted to leak classified information in order to try and discredit a whistleblower.

Look at what the gov't has done to Sibel Edmonds to keep her quiet. This administration is filled with bastard traitors that are loyal to one thing only: $$$



On Sept. 30, 2003, Bush said:

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


What do you call "appropriate action"? Tell them "Stop that!"?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Krk3561
Stop trying to misrepresent the facts

But on Sept 29, that "violated the law" part wasn't in the white house press release. Then on Sept 30 it was. That is the difference here. There was an addtional clause added on Sept 30. Why fight so hard about this fact?

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: chambersc
are you retarded? bush said that no one who has committed a crime with the leak of the information would be in his admin.

i'm far left and even i can't believe your ignorance and partisan hackery.

Please read Number 14!

"(14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating applicable law or the ethical standards in applicable regulations"

See bolded portions above. It hasn't been proven that Rove knowingly violated any applicable laws or regulations. It has not been proven that Rove knew that Plame was undercover or anything else about Plame besides the fact that she was Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

I listened to one of the news/talk shows last night with attorneys for the Wilson's and Matt Cooper. The Wison's attorney made some very good points one of which was that in Washington, inside the Beltway, there are charges brought for mis-handling classified information almost on a daily basis. A wide range of charges. Anyone who believes that Prosecutor Fitzgerald is sticking to their narrow version of this investigation has a very unhappy surprise coming. KKKarl.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: conjur
Let's repeat as TLC just isn't getting it:

"Question: Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case... do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And ?
Bush: Yes.

You obviously dont get it.

The fact that Bush answered "Yes" to the question in June 2004 (which probably wasn't intentionally misleading) doesn't change what Bush said in 2003 or the fact that he was answering "Yes" as to whether he stood by that.

Yes, conjur won't get it and will refuse to get it.

Then Harvey speaks up:

Hey, TastesLikeChicken, you must have ADVERTANTLY overlooked the time sequence of Bush's ever-changing quotes about the situation. Let me help you out:

Hey Harvey. You must have missed the fact that the loopers are NOW claiming Bush is changing policy. I stated that it has been his policy for quite some time and proved it as well. Please follow along with the context. K?

Besides that, why should Bush fire someone if they haven't committed a crime? For moral reasons? Hah, morals in politics. If morals are a reason to fire politicians that we better clean out the entire damn government, left, right, and center.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Krk3561
Stop trying to misrepresent the facts

But on Sept 29, that "violated the law" part wasn't in the white house press release. Then on Sept 30 it was. That is the difference here. There was an addtional clause added on Sept 30. Why fight so hard about this fact?

Its called a clarification. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: conjur

The media loves a good scandal.

Which is Why the NYT gave up their source. Oh wait...