Posted on 07/19/2005 7:42:03 PM PDT by StudentsForBush
After originally saying anyone involved in leaking the name of the covert CIA operative would be fired, Bush told reporters: "If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." - Washington Post July 19th, 2005
This seems to be the hot topic, but lets compare what President Bush said a year ago and what he said yesterday ! It's the same policy !
George W. Bush: September 30th, 2003
George W. Bush: July 17th, 2005
"And if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration."
Reject the Liberal Agenda and follow the Truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Heck, it on Bush's behaviors that sticks in the liberals craw. Doing what he says he's going to do.
Just found this via Drudge... I think..
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050720/D8BEQ2CG0.html
Maybe Powell was the leaker.
Finesse, hell, selective amnesia.
Let these writers know they need to re-read the comments....
Their interpretation is totally off. The only thing that is different is that Bush originally said he wanted to know who any leaker was in addition to if they broke the law they would be fired. His policy is exactly the same.
Be nice, but be firm.
allenm@washpost.com
vandeheij@washpost.com
Good post.
See related post:
Was the Narcissistic Joe Wilson a Source in "Outing" His Own Wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA Agent"?
P.S. Hooray for: "Students for Bush!"
This is worth an email to the WAPO ombudsman at: ombudsman@WashPost.com
Mine is here:
The story “Bush Raises Threshold for Firing Aides In Leak Probe
By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen” is a classic example of slanting the news by omission of relevant facts and that’s lowering the threshold of probity so often claimed by the Washington Post..
In fact, when asked about the leak, on Sept. 30, 2003, President Bush said: "If there is a leak out of my administration I want to know who it is, and if that person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."
This quote clearly shows that the President has had a consistent policy on leaks that are in violation of the law—and the headline and substance of the article are contradicted by the facts..
It seems strange that the WAPO would attack the policy implied by the President’s remarks: that leaks not in violation of the law would be handled differently. After all the Post encourages and depends on these off the record leaks all the time to obtain the news.
I’m positive that this was quoted in the Washington Post at the time, and if not, it is widely available so there is no reason for not having it in the article. Its omission shows either amazingly poor reporting or a deliberate slant of the news to correspond with the politics of the reporters.
Sincerely
Is everyone here actually debating semantics to try and excuse revealing a CIA agent? Even if Rove isn't convicted, I think if you weren't just thinking partisan, you would agree that doing anything that might jeopardize our security or endanger a CIA agent is simply against the best interest of this nation. It's traitorous. Period. If Clinton had done it, you would see that clear as a bell. So now, to dispute your hand selected comment, Bush DID in fact, rveal that he considered it a punishable act, and in fact, called it a crime before it was revealed that Rove was the source. He HAS backpedaled. Please, stop the hypocricy! This IS indeed, a very serious matter, just as Bush himself said. Don't you WANT the person responsible for committing this act, this "very serious matter", to be fired? Why are you defending him? From Bush's comments in the Whitehouse archives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-4.html):
"First of all, I'm glad you brought that question up. This is a very serious matter, and our administration takes it seriously. As members of the press corps here know, I have, at times, complained about leaks of security information, whether the leaks be in the legislative branch or in the executive branch. And I take those leaks very seriously.
And, therefore, we will cooperate fully with the Justice Department. I've got all the confidence in the world the Justice Department will do a good, thorough job. And that's exactly what I want them to do, is a good, thorough job. I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find out the leaker.
I have told my staff, I want full cooperation with the Justice Department. And when they ask for information, we expect the information to be delivered on a timely basis. I expect it to be delivered on a timely basis. I want there to be full participation, because, April, I am most interested in finding out the truth.
And, you know, there's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of -- this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth."
The truth is, Karl Rove was the leaker, along with Cheney's chief of staff.
Scott McClellan, the same day (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html):
But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better.
Why anyone would pay attention to the mainstream media is beyond me. As if there hasn't been enough cases in the last half decade of the MSM fabricating stories like this one. Only an idiot would accept clear fabrications as news, or blatant fabricators as journalists.
Now go back to DU and tell them you failed in your mission.
Well to be fair, one would expect that if anyone should be expected to know how serious the privacy of the identity of Valerie Plame was, the President should. Only if he honestly overestimated it in the beginning, would this logic fly.
First of all, I didn't insult you. If you only like the sound of your own voice and a singular opinion, then don't post in a dialogue format newsgroup. Are you saying that Bush's own comments that outing Plame, his comments AFTER 1994, stating that this was a a criminal action and a very serious matter, were inaccurate? Are you saying that Scott McClellan asserted that whoever leaked her identity would no longer be working for the administration because it was no big deal? Talk about a flip-flop.
Incidentally, I don't follow straight down any party line. When someone leaks a CIA agents name in my country, particularly in retaliation, I don't defend them. I really think those of you who try to defend this will lose the respect of those in the party who see a spade for a spade and actually care when someone betrays us and doesn't desparately try to find a way out of it. Standing up and admitting we have a traitor in our midst is far more patriotic and respectable to the Republican party, in my opinion. I cannot believe what I am hearing here.
There are many, who work for the CIA, in non-covert positions, who are OUT/KNOWN, so your stating that naming anyone in the CIA, is something terrible and criminal, is spurious and DNC talking points. The law regarding outing any NOC, is detailed, specific, and was put into law ( with many Dems such as Schumer, voting against it! )because a spy had outed some of them; Plame being one of them, more than a decade ago.
The law states that the NOC has to be covert and working overseas within the last five years. Neither of these things are or were two years ago, true of Valerie Plame.
And just HOW do you know, as a fact, that Plame's name was "leaked in retaliation", by Rove and Libby ? That's a DNC TALKING POINT, not an established fact, and WHY doesn't it bother you at all, that Plame, on her own, asked the CIA to send her husband on a "fishing trip" , that was NOT asked for, nor sanctioned by the president, the Vice President, the Vice President's office, or the head of the CIA? Not only that, but WHY was his subsequent report NOT sent up the ladder and was NOT seen by any of the above named out of the loop people?
Yes, we have many TRAITORS in our midst, two of whom share the last name Wilson!
You can't believe what you're hearing here, because you are a TROLL, not a Conservative, abjectly uninformed on this matter, and are filled with lefty propaganda.
It is you, who only want to see your own pathetic words on FR and are incapable of accepting other points of view. Elsewise, you wouldn't have gotten so snippy. LOL
Valerie made a political contribution, prior to any of this, outing her "covert" cover job. Since political donations are public record, anyone could have looked up the company and found out that it did not exist.
Before Rove or Libby or Novak or Cooper or ANYONE ELSE had talked and/or written a word...JOE WILSON WROTE A BOOK, WHEREIN HE NAMES HIS WIFE AND SPILLED THE BEANS AS TO WHAT SHE DID FOR A LIVING! Yes, the books were held up a few weeks, but everyone involved with publishing the book knew who she was and what she did. Once the plan to go after Rove was cooked up, the book's outing was revised.
You talk about "retribution", yet do so without substantiating facts. OTOH, Wilson was working for KERRY, when he launched his anti-Republican vendetta.
And to WHOM, exactly, did Rove "leak" that Valerie was a NOC ? If you claim it was Cooper, you are dead wrong.
1) It was no "secret" that Plame worked for the CIA.
2) Plame was not a covert agent.
3) Rove did not "reveal" an unknown name. He confirmed that he had heard the same statements that were made to him.
4)He has signed a release absolving people from keeping conversations with him private (as pertains to this subject).
5) One reporter remains in jail, she is not protecting Rove, therefore someone else must be involved.
6) Democrats are out to get Rove, not for what he said regarding Plame, but for what he has done in helping to defeat them.
In response, the strong evidence there is that Rove did this in retaliation is that he leaked her name (and don't start arguing semantics here, because saying "Wilson's wife" amounts to the same thing) on the VERY DAY that Joe Wilson published his article stating that there was no evidence substantiating the White House claim that Iraq got uranium from Africa. In your apologist world, that may be a collossal coincidence, but not in the rational world.
Incidentally, what is the name and author of the book you cite where Wilson stated that his wife was a covert agent?
You guys are all stating with absolute certainty that she was not a covert agent, but I beg your pardon, how would you know that? The whole idea of a covert agent is that they are covert. Hence, you would not know it if she was undercover. Undercover agents can also have desk jobs at the CIA. The fact that when Novak revealed Plame the CIA filed a CRIME report is very strong evidence that she was, indeed, undercover, since, correct me if I am wrong with evidence to the contrary, the CIA does not file a crime report unless a crime has been committed. By definition, the CIA would not have filed a crime report unless the name of an UNDERCOVER agent had been leaked.
Further, I still don't understand why you are being apologists. Regardless of Wilson's actions, which is not what is being debated here, why would it ever be an OK thing to reveal a CIA agent's name? What good can it serve? It can only harm someone, and it can only jeopardize our security, because she was working on WMD issues. Destroying her career, which was arguable covert or not covert, according to you, destroys much of her work.
You are trying to paint Wilson as a die hard Democrat, but that isn't the case.Joe Wilson served under Republicans and Democrats, by the way, and was called a hero by Bush Sr. He did not have an anti-Republican vendetta: (from Amazon) "Like many traditional conservatives, Wilson mourns the rise of the ideological "neo-conservatives" who shaped foreign policy." (As an aside: those of you who fall into this category, take note, your party has been hijacked, which is why it upsets me to see you defend these guys who are running your party into the ground. They aren't even conservatives!) Joe Wilson supported and voted for Bush in 2000 (Google it, it's well documented), but when he realized that they weren't interested in the facts that it was his job to provide, but were only looking for some premise to be able to go into Iraq, he began to have the clarity about this administration that many of you, due to your party devotion, would be too heartbroken to really look at. Wilson is/was a conservative, not a neocon. Big difference.
Joe Wilson did his job and discovered that the document claiming that Iraq sought uranium from Niger was forged and unsubstantiated. This FACT is now even one of the only things this administration has copped to, even though they only admitted it after we attacked Iraq and everyone was committed, instead of before, when Wilson reported it to them. So take a step back and at least consider the possibility that the vendetta was the other way around. I mean, Karl Rove isn't exactly know for playing nice. Don't tell me you think he wouldn't slap a hand or two.
Rove NEVER called a single reporter to "leak" Valerie Plame Wilson's name.
Wilson actually PROVED, clumsily and he lied about it, that Saddam had indeed sought to buy YELLOW CAKE in Africa.
Is Matt Cooper, Mandy Grunwald's husband, a REPUBLICAN leaning reporter? NO, he isn't! Did Cooper call Rove to talk about an entirely DIFFERENT matter and then slipped in a question about Wilson's trip, on the sly? Why, YES, he most certainly did! Was it the same day that Joe Wilson published an article? I don't know, but I know that it was long after Wilson published his N.Y.Times Times op=ed hatchet piece!
As far as I know, Joe Wilson has only one book to his credit in recent years. GO LOOK IT UP,TROLL.
If you would read ALL of the threads about this topic, you too would KNOW, with absolute certainty, that she was NOT A covert agent when Novak published her name. VALERIE PLAME WILLSON'S BOSS HAS SAID PUBLICLY, ON AT LEAST TWO RADIO SHOWS AND ON AT LEAST THREE T.V. SHOWS, THAT SHE WAS NOT A NOC AT THAT TIME!
I saw and heard her ex-boss say that. I also read those same words, on many threads on FRF, which were published transcripts of some of the shows and articles written about what he had said.
Her career was NOT "ruined" and she was a damned DESK JOCKEY and still is. So there goes your DNC talking points, blown to smithereens! LOL
The "forged memo" thing is a red herring. The Brits have repeatedly said that they KNOWN that Saddam was trying to buy YELLOW CAKE and there is new evidence that the forged memo was a setup, so to discredit the Brits.
I really don't care WHAT you claim to have found on Amazon.com! Joe Wilson, from the PUBLIC RECORDS, donated to both the Gore and Kerry campaigns; as did his wife. He was NEVER a Republican, let alone a Conservative and it is a FACT that DEms have served in GOP administrations, in some positions, just as Republicans have severed in Dem ones.
You aren't a conservative, you don't know the facts about this, you are Wilson apologist, a Bushbashesr, a Rove hater, and a lunatic. Go back to DU...mission NOT accomplished.
you are a banned troll now...
lol!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.