Replies

This is what journalism has become. I doubt this person ever read the original quote that President Bush stated in September 2003!

Exactly. Didn't a Freeper point out that

Bush was in the middle of answering a reporter's first question
The same reporter interjected the "all important" second question about what Bush would do about the leaker
Bush continued aswering the first question
With good editting, Bush's answer to the first question was made to look like his answer to the second question.

Sounds like the Dems have been taking lessons in how to time questions to make someone look bad.

Perhaps a linguist or a screenwriter is training them.

First the question to Karl Rove about Wilson was "casually" dropped into a phone conversation about something else.

Then the question about how to treat the leaker was "casually" asked while the President was answering another question.

NathanBookman In a post on FreeRepublic, 7/14 pointed out the following article from the Captain's Quarters Blog.

July 12, 2005 Dafydd: Abbott and Costello Meet "If It's Rove"...

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.
The second point is one that also went unnoticed by the commenter: the rather wide divergence between the "pledge" that Bush is said to have made, to "fire anyone found to have" "leaked the agent's name," and what Sen. Reid claimed yesterday that Bush had pledged: "The White House promised that if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration."

Good point.

Didn't the Democrats in fact consult with some linguist in order to "better express their ideas?" First off, I don't think the Democrats lose because the public doesn't understand their ideas - in fact I think the public understands them all too well! But the "express yourself" rationale would be a good cover story for what you suggest. And isn't Michael Cooper's wife a big Hillary Clinton staffer? (What is it about these Democrats, always having their wives egging them on?)

OK, OK, I don't want to start sounding like a tinfoil hat type. But you raise an interesting point. And a causal consumer of MSM news and nothing else would have a TOTALLY different view of all of this. Is it relevant at all to know about Cooper's wife? More importantly, would it be relevant to the MSM if the shoe were on the other foot, and the wife of a columnist writing about a Democrat were, say, a staffer for Tom Delay or Rick Santorum? The answer jumps out at you immediately. All I ask for is logical consistency - which is a ridiculous expectation in politics, I know.

You know, smearing Billy Dale was OK by them. Making Linda Tripp's life a living hell was A-OK. Really, remember the constant drumbeat of scandal surrounding the Clintons? Is there a Bush administration cabinet member of high level official who has been accused of shady land deals, abusing FBI files, etc.? I don't EVER want to go back to that.

I WAS a lifelong Democrat - that's just the way it was. I voted for Clinton, twice. But at least he finally showed me that the Democrat party of the past is as dead as Zell Miller says it is. So I am in good company as a FORMER Democrat.