[StudentsForBush]

President Bush said yesterday that he will fire anyone in the administration found to have committed a crime in the leaking of a CIA operative's name, creating a higher threshold than he did one year ago for holding aides accountable in the unmasking of Valerie Plame.

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."

[NordP]

This is so good, I'm pinging myself!

[Echo Talon]

Liberals have been trying to put words in his mouth for 2 years now.

[Nachum]

Rush played the audio of the comments this morning. Nice to see the libs squirm on this one.

[Darkwolf377]

The thing is, when he was asked about this in 2004, I believe it was, the reporter said "Will you fire the leaker?" and Bush said he would. It's kind of a trick question, though, because of the phrasing, but...it's not this cut and dried, I'm afraid.

[ex-Texan]

I listened to Rush today. He was playing sound bites from GWB two years ago responding to questions. GWB's policy has not changed one iota. He has not waivered or zigged or zagged. The AP reporter was trying to make it seem like Bush had changed his position by the terms of his question. Rush was saying that the White House media corps are desperate to regain their 'relevance' to the political mainstream.

It's all about over-hyped, manufactured or bogus news reports.

[advance_copy]

Bush Raises Threshold for Firing Aides In Leak Probe

Baloney. The left wants Bush to fire people for setting the record straight. Plame conspired with her husband to send him on an African junket so he could drink "sweet mint tea" and come back to write "Bush lied" in the New York Times.

[muawiyah]

The WarshPost was advocating that we turn all the Gitmo terrorists loose in an editorial the other day.

Why should we credit them with any more sense when it comes to QUOTES.

[Chode]

[goldstategop]

Raising threshold, huh? The MSM has lost it! I defy any one to tell me where Bush changed his views. Its the MSM that's moved the goalposts!

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[federal]

letters@washpost.com

Let them know you have emailed everyone you know with the truth because newspapers refuse to be truthful.

Then ask them how their circulation is BWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[mmercier]

Just found this via Drudge... I think..

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050720/D8BEQ2CG0.html

Maybe Powell was the leaker.

[FReethesheeples]

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!"

[wildbill]

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

[j.cam]

I can't believe that the Washington Post had the balls to lie so blatantly with incorrect paraphrases. The partisan liberal media and Democrats are still claiming that Bush changed his position when he never did. Here is the email I sent to the Ombudsman. I suggest you do the same:

Dear Ombudsman,

Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen base their article “Bush
Raises Threshold for Firing Aides In Leak Probe,”
which appears in the July 19, 2005 issue of the
Washington Post, on an incorrect paraphrase and a
misrepresentation of a conversation between President
Bush and a reporter.

Your reporters incorrectly paraphrase Bush:

“After originally saying that 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.’”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071800157.html

It is a strange choice for your reporters to
paraphrase Bush’s original statement and quote Bush’s
new statement when both statements are just as
important to the article. Upon further research, it
is clear Bush’s original statement does not say what
your reporters claim it says, and it does not
contradict Bush’s new statement. Here is Bush’s
original statement as quoted by CNN:

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

Then your reporters mischaracterize a conversation
Bush had with a reporter:

“In June 2004, Bush was asked if he would ‘fire anyone
found to’ have leaked the agent's name. ‘Yes,’ he
replied.”

This is a disgusting and biased mischaracterization of
the conversation between Bush and the reporter. It is
a common rhetorical trick to weave direct quotes of
phrases with misleading paraphrases to misrepresent
what was actually said. According to your reporters,
the journalist who spoke to Bush was clear about what
he was saying. In fact, not only was the journalist
not clear, his question was incorrect, and because it
was incorrect, it was unclear and misleading. Here is
the original exchange:

“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.”
http://usembassy-australia.state.gov/hyper/2004/0614/epf116.htm

As I pointed out, Bush’s pledge was to fire anyone who
was found to have broken the law, not anyone who
leaked. The journalist in the above conversation was
clearly referring to Bush’s pledge. It is hard to
believe that your reporters at the Washington Post
expect Bush to ignore the part of the sentence about
his original pledge and realize “to have done so” was
referring to the reporter’s previous question, and not
Bush’s original pledge. For your reporters to claim
that Bush changed his story and didn’t misunderstand
an unclear and incorrect question is editorializing,
and it is also a silly position.

Bush did not change his position as your reporters
wrongly claim, and it seems to me you owe Bush an
apology and your readers a retraction.

Thank you

[Let's Roll]

"if that person has violated law,"

"And if someone committed a crime"

How are these two statements different? How is this raising the bar?

Remarkably consistent - given the passage of almost two years.

And up is down and black is white, yada, yada, blathering libs are us ...