Replies

makes it a crime for a government official to disclose the names of covert operatives like Ms. Wilson.

Except the fact that "Ms. Wilson" wasn't a "covert operative".

Mr. Bush was asked at a news conference whether "you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found" to have leaked the agent's name.

Except the fact that President Bush never said that he would fire anyone. He said that he would take care of it.

In addition to focusing new attention on Mr. Rove and whether he can survive the political fallout, the revelation is sure to create new partisan pressure on Mr. Bush.

By so-called "reporters" at the NYTimes.

Most recently, Mr. Rove has been at the center of the White House's deliberations over the choice of a nominee to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at the Supreme Court.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS CRAP IS ALL ABOUT!!!

"What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC... "

What's new NY Slimes? Any MSM or Print Media that claims she was a "covert" agent at the time of the Novak article is a bold face liar and they know it.

Below is the exchange that the Libs are saying Bush said he would fire the leaker. The excerpt below is from Captain's Quarters (basically pointing out the questioner asked a compound question and interrupting Bush before he answered first question. it sounds picky, but Fox had video of the exchange and it was confusing.)

"Attempting to prove that Bush indeed made some sort of "firing pledge," he notes a press conference on June 10, 2004 in Savannah, GA, in which the following exchange occurred:

Q: 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 --

Q: 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.

The first point that leaps out at me is that the last sentence indicates that Bush's "yes" was in fact answering the first question -- whether it would be difficult to find the source -- not the second about some "pledge" that in fact cannot seem to be located. The referrant of the word "that" in Bush's response cannot possibly be the pledge, unless Bush is suggesting that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should be trying to discover whether any such "firing promise" was made."

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004934.php