Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Promise did President Bush Make About Wilson? (Vanity)
Free Republic ^ | July 11, 2005 | Self

Posted on 07/11/2005 9:23:14 PM PDT by Piranha

When allegations were made that someone in the White House had "leaked" the information that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent, President Bush agreed to launch an investigation into the alleged leak. He also made comments about what he would do with any leaker who was found.

On Fox News this evening, Brit Hume showed a clip in which President Bush vowed that if anyone in the White House had "broken the law", that person would be taken care of.

This is extremely significant, since it appears that Karl Rove may have shared with Time correspondent Matt Cooper the information that Plame worked for the CIA, but that he may have done so only in order to steer Cooper away from Joe Wilson's bogus and inflammatory allegations.

If President Bush said that he would fire anyone who was involved in the leak, then he may have to fire Karl Rove in order to keep his reputation as someone who says what he means and means what he says.

On the other hand, if the President's vow was only that he would fire the "leaker" if that person person broke the law, then it may be that President Bush would not have to fire Karl Rove under that standard, since it appears likely that Karl Rove's comments did not break any laws.

Does anyone have any links to President's comments at the time, regarding his vow as to how he would address the possibility that someone in his administration had leaked information about Valerie Plame?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bush; cialeak; plame; rove; wilson

1 posted on 07/11/2005 9:23:15 PM PDT by Piranha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Piranha

You seem to have answered your own question. You referred to a video clip in which the President says if anyone on his team broke the law, he'd fire them.

I agree with you that it's an important distinction.


2 posted on 07/11/2005 9:25:34 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alnick

My clumsily-phrased question is whether the statement that Fox showed was President Bush's only statement on the subject, or whether President Bush also made another statement (whether on that date or another time) in which he said that he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Plame's name.


3 posted on 07/11/2005 9:28:01 PM PDT by Piranha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

liberal witch hunt, he didn't use her name, didn't break the law, they need to get over it already. She is a blond female like she was going infiltrate a terrorist cell. Wonder if the liberals would be after Rove if he lied under oath or stole documents from the national archives?


4 posted on 07/11/2005 9:28:48 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

Sorry. I can certainly identify with making clumsy statements. :-)


5 posted on 07/11/2005 9:29:19 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

The Anti-American Lefties wanted their witch hunt and circus and by God that's exactly what they want. Now apart from the entertaining irony in that the only actual law breaker uncovered happens to be a member of the New York Times reporting staff, well that's what I would call justice.

Rove rides again!


6 posted on 07/11/2005 9:29:20 PM PDT by markedman (Lay me down to a watery grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markedman

I refuse to believe that Karl Rove, would be guilty of this leak. He is too loyal, and too intelligent.


7 posted on 07/11/2005 9:32:53 PM PDT by sarasotarepublican (Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Piranha
Let's see... The Left demanded the resignation of Powell. That didn't work. They demanded the resignation of Ashcroft. That didn't work. They demanded the resignation of Ridge. That didn't work. They demanded the resignation of Delay. That didn't work.

Why? Because, in each instance, the charges were trumped-up garbage. And now? Well! Now they're demanding Rove's head, and it's supposed to be, well, different. How?

Well, we know that Rove talked to a reporter. We don't know what was said. But the Leftist lunatics are convinced *they* know. Somehow. By osmosis.

8 posted on 07/11/2005 9:35:46 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piranha
On Fox News this evening, Brit Hume showed a clip in which President Bush vowed that if anyone in the White House had "broken the law", that person would be taken care of.

Keyword here is broke the law ..

Rove did not break any laws

9 posted on 07/11/2005 9:35:57 PM PDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarasotarepublican
I refuse to believe that Karl Rove, would be guilty of this leak. He is too loyal, and too intelligent.

Rove didn't break any laws

And I highly doubt that Rove was Cooper's "Super Duper Top Secret Source"

Cooper, an ultra lib would not go to jail to cover for Karl Rove

10 posted on 07/11/2005 9:40:17 PM PDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

If Rove did not break the law....then wasn't he just doing his job? :) Why would he get fired for doing his job?


11 posted on 07/11/2005 9:41:16 PM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

Here you go:

"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/

Not "fired" but "taken care of". Plenty of wiggle room.


12 posted on 07/11/2005 9:41:27 PM PDT by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

LMBO!!! Bush will fire Rove? Of course not. Sheesh.
Echo Talon already nailed it: "Liberal witch hunt". And I say, let the scumbag Democrats have their silly witch hunt - - maybe it'll keep them out of real mischief for a little while.


13 posted on 07/11/2005 9:41:51 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
Agreed. A dizzy blond who is on a the front cover of the Vanity Fair recommends to her Democratic CIA boss her Democratic Hack of a Husband to go to Nigeria and ascertain whether Nigeria sold yellow cake to Saddam while drinking tea. Democratic Dizzy Hack fails to file a report, fails to confirm the yellow cake incident and then complains about Bush's remarks in the SOTU. What really scares the heck out of me is that the CIA depended on a dizzy blond cover girl's partisan recommendation for a serious undercover job that may have had serious repercussions. This incident tells us that the CIA is incompetent at best or a partisan political hack agency at worst. In either case, the CIA is not serving the people of the United States well.
14 posted on 07/11/2005 9:42:06 PM PDT by Chgogal (Egyptian Jihadist, "Psssst....we're running out of virgins. Spread the word.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Mo1, that's exactly why I am asking the question. If Karl Rove broke was only trying to help a reporter who was following a story based on Joe Wilson's lies, then not only did Rove break no laws, but he should be praised instead of punished.

The only exception would be if President Bush promised to fire anyone who was involved in the leak, rather than take care of anyone who broke the law. If President Bush never made such a statement, then Rove was a hero for the White House.

I hope that President Bush never made such a rash vow. If, in fact, he never did say such a thing then we should all know about this fact, because this will be a widely-discussed point in the days ahead.


15 posted on 07/11/2005 9:43:39 PM PDT by Piranha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

It looks to me like this was not a "leak." To me a "leak" is something said with the intention of passing info that the "leaker" wanted to put out without anyone else knowing who put it out, with the intent to backstab somebody or to deceive the reporter.

It looks like an intentional statement, made on background by Rove and perhaps someone else, to steer the reporter to the truth - which is that Joseph Wilson is not telling the truth. From Rove's attorney's statement, and the Time email, Rove's main point to Matt Cooper was that Wilson should not be trusted. I think that Rovbe wanted Cooper to dig into Wilson's statements and expose their falsity.

If there is no law broken, then there should be no firing, no matter how the MSM play it. I think Bush should call on the MSM to play this one fairly - put Rove out to answer questions, and call them on it if it is not reported fairly. If Rove is above reproach, then it should not be a problem.

It would be real helpful to get confirmation that Rove is not the target of Fitzgerald's investigation.


16 posted on 07/11/2005 9:45:31 PM PDT by RandyRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal

Exactly! Clinton really screwed America didn't he?


17 posted on 07/11/2005 9:45:49 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
Well, we know that Rove talked to a reporter. We don't know what was said. But the Leftist lunatics are convinced *they* know. Somehow. By osmosis.

Maybe they think they are channeling ghosts in the grand jury room.;)

18 posted on 07/11/2005 9:46:15 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary

Good job - I only would add to your list that they've demanded the resignation of Rummey numerous times, and thank the Lord, that hasn't worked.


19 posted on 07/11/2005 9:46:44 PM PDT by Seattle Conservative (God Bless and protect our troops and their CIC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
Yup! And the Clinton nightmare may resume come 2008.
20 posted on 07/11/2005 9:48:29 PM PDT by Chgogal (Egyptian Jihadist, "Psssst....we're running out of virgins. Spread the word.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sarasotarepublican
I don't think Karl Rove is guilty of anything but trying to set the record straight of a CIA that appears to have blatantly engaged in trying to bring down the President of The United States of America.

What I simply meant in my post is that the Criminal Left demanded a circus and the President gave it to them; just like they ordered. Unfortunately it appears that the only criminal was the NY Times, and the CIA.

I think the President Bush has known all along the Rove spoke to reporters as Newsweek points out in an effort to do nothing more than prevent the press from making fools of themselves as they did over the CIA leaked documents to the UN right before the election.

What _TRULY_ amazes me is that there has been no call for a special prosecutor to investigate how it is that Plame was able to get her husband appointed for the job, which ostensibly was a state secret, and then how Wilson was able to write all about that secret on the Op-Ed pages of the NY Times.

When I wrote the Karl Rove rides again, I meant that quite literally in that he has once again ridden circles around the intellectually challenged Demoncrats intent on bringing down the government at all costs. Just by out maneuvering them with truth, justice and the American Way, Rove makes them look foolish - and will continue to do so.
21 posted on 07/11/2005 9:49:16 PM PDT by markedman (Lay me down to a watery grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
"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."

It will never happen...but I'd die laughing if President Bush just said with a straight face..."Ya all know, it just depends on the meaning of "it"...."

22 posted on 07/11/2005 9:51:52 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Hillary's heart is darker than the devil's riding boots..................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: markedman
When somebody can actually credibly point to an actual crime then W's words will be put into effect. As of this point, there is not even the allegation of a crime by anybody but the kook fringe. Even the special prosecutor isn't alleging a crime by anybody. At what point do we just say, where's the beef?

The only person who we know to have lied at this point is Joe Wilson!

23 posted on 07/11/2005 9:53:13 PM PDT by bpjam (Now accepting liberal apologies.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Piranha
* January 2004 Magazine Vanity Fair publishes "Double Exposure," an article about Wilson and Plame.

* January 22, 2004: Justice Department subpoenas phone records from Air Force One.

* 11 February 2004 George W. Bush insists, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is...If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth...Leaks of classified information are bad things."

here

24 posted on 07/11/2005 9:54:16 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piranha
I hope that President Bush never made such a rash vow.

Some in the press are changing his words .. which is not the first time

The President said if any laws were broken then that person would no longer be working for his administration

Remember back to what Novak said .. his source was a FORMER official that worked for the WH

One it rules out Rove and Second .. that could be anyone in the WH, the State Department, The CIA, the FBI ..etc.

And I'll say it again .. Matthew Cooper would not go to jail to cover for Karl Rove .. he would have outted Rove a long time ago

25 posted on 07/11/2005 9:55:40 PM PDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: markedman
What _TRULY_ amazes me is that there has been no call for a special prosecutor to investigate how it is that Plame was able to get her husband appointed for the job, which ostensibly was a state secret, and then how Wilson was able to write all about that secret on the Op-Ed pages of the NY Times.

Anyone remember how Starr got to expand his investigations to other issues. Was it a judge that gave him the ok? Couldn't Fitzgerald do the same?

26 posted on 07/11/2005 9:56:59 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bpjam

"The only person who we know to have lied at this point is Joe Wilson!"

Well, you left out Mata Hari Plame and who ever her boss was and The New York Times.

Don't you find it interesting that Novak has not had any problems?

This was a circus pure and simple which did not work out exactly how the Seditious Left intended. They could not have worked any harder at looking stupid and that's how the Newsweek article reads to me.


27 posted on 07/11/2005 9:58:05 PM PDT by markedman (Lay me down to a watery grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Cooper has never said that Rove 'outed' her. I have yet to see one news org say this. Only Larry O'Doodle. If they cant produce that fact they need to lay off the story making it as if Rove gave Cooper the name.


28 posted on 07/11/2005 9:59:18 PM PDT by Cougar66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
And I'll say it again .. Matthew Cooper would not go to jail to cover for Karl Rove .. he would have outted Rove a long time ago

Right if Rove done what the left said he did Cooper would have burned him a long time ago.

29 posted on 07/11/2005 10:00:07 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead
"Was it a judge that gave him the ok? Couldn't Fitzgerald do the same?"

I sure hope so, because apart from Novak's column every other story written about Wilson's intellectually ill-equipped safari to Africa makes it appear that it was The White House that sancioned it.
30 posted on 07/11/2005 10:01:09 PM PDT by markedman (Lay me down to a watery grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cougar66
If they cant produce that fact they need to lay off the story making it as if Rove gave Cooper the name

They won't back off and they will continue to have a melt down

IMO .. some in the media are trying to side step this story and cover for Cooper's "Super Duper Top Secret Source" and more

31 posted on 07/11/2005 10:03:34 PM PDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

If Rove was the leaker, as all of the Rats and MSM are claiming, why hasn't he been indicted by the Grand Jury? Novak spoke to the Grand Jury, so has Rove. If they did not commit perjury, and I'm positive they didn't, the actual leaker is not Rove. The Cooper memo is a red herring. Cooper got less information from Rove than was Washington elite dinner party knowledge at the time.


32 posted on 07/11/2005 10:06:28 PM PDT by pieces of time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markedman

Didn't Wilson first claim he was sent by Cheney?


33 posted on 07/11/2005 10:09:12 PM PDT by pieces of time
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pieces of time

"Didn't Wilson first claim he was sent by Cheney?"

That is my recollection.


34 posted on 07/11/2005 10:16:12 PM PDT by markedman (Lay me down to a watery grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pieces of time
I think you may be reading this curcus wrong. Valerie Plame was quite a woman about town in Washinton. I have no doubt that Rove had no idea she was undercover as apparently Plame and Wilson didn't either.

I think based only on the INNOCENT "background information" that Novak was able to put the story together because Novak knows Washington like Rove does not. Novak knows everybody. So does Cooper and Miller. I think the real reason that their publications did not run with the story is that it would have naturally outed Mata Hari Plame and made her ne'er do well husband look like even more of a rube than he is - and lets face it, that's not very supportive of the MSM attempts to make Bush et al look incompetent.

Sometimes the greatest lies are told in silence.
35 posted on 07/11/2005 10:22:07 PM PDT by markedman (Lay me down to a watery grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pieces of time
Didn't Wilson first claim he was sent by Cheney?

I believe he said the VP's or his office

And has been proven to be a lie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

36 posted on 07/11/2005 11:21:58 PM PDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Cooper, an ultra lib would not go to jail to cover for Karl Rove

How right you are. This is another setup to tarnish the Bush administration. The democrats are cornered rats. They'll do anything to smear Bush and gain back the White House and Congress.

37 posted on 07/12/2005 11:44:25 AM PDT by sarasotarepublican (Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Piranha
It was pretty funny watching the tube tonight.

Matthews and the smirking puppethead Gregory think this is Watergate.

G.Gordon Liddy and Hanity got Colmes and the silly Bill Press all worked up.

Then I saw the first few minutes of O'Reilly on the rerun, and in five minutes Newt Gingrich impersonated the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, with the Dems and Media (same thing) being the black knight who gets his limbs hacked off.

Gingrich pointed out how Wilson lied. Then the reporter called Rove. Then Rove said "He was lying about Cheney sending him to Niger, that was his wife, who works for the CIA." Which she does, and not undercover--she'd been removed from undercover work years ago. She even had her photo taken at White House events--not something an undercover operative does.

I don't always agree with Gingrich, but if the RNC were smart they'd distribute copies of that interview. Game, set and match.

38 posted on 07/12/2005 8:33:19 PM PDT by Dr.Hilarious (If Al Qaeda took over the judiciary and mainstream media, would we know the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

Well the libs are trumpeting a G8 press conference from last year http://tinyurl.com/aek5b (State Department site - it figures!!!) where the President is asked if he would "stand by [his] pledge to fire anyone found to [have leaked the agent's name]" And he answers yes. Now a couple of things, first he doesn't actually state in so many words that he would fire that person. I think his answer of yes is really related to a finding of illegality since he immediately follows with a reference to the US attorney's investigation. I also think it depends on how you define "leak" but I'm not a lawyer. I really wish he had been more careful with how he responded but in any event I think it can be argued that it's not a definitive statement.


39 posted on 07/12/2005 8:57:58 PM PDT by desertconserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: desertconserv

I'm not troubled by that exchange, which the NY Times included in its article today. The key to me is that they asked whether he would "stand by [his] pledge". Since President Bush's pledge apparently was only to take care of anyone who had violated the law, I don't think that this exchange can be read fairly to go beyond that. I do think, though, that he probably was inartful in accepting the question without insisting on precision.


40 posted on 07/12/2005 9:39:33 PM PDT by Piranha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Piranha

I guess what also worries me is this prosecutor who seems pretty determined not to let this whole thing drop. Wasn't he chosen by John Ashcroft? Surely, they would have made sure the prosecutor wasn't some loose cannon that would turn on the Administration. Maybe as others have said, this is all just windowdressing to show that the investigation has been thorough and above board. So when it ends with no charges, the Libs won't be able to claim foul.


41 posted on 07/12/2005 11:01:51 PM PDT by desertconserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Theres a bigger story here than Rove for sure. This is all to petty as far as evidence goes for Rove to be the actual target in all this. He's done nothing wrong. Im sure when the smoke clears the liberals are going to cry foul once more, but thats only to hide their guilt.


42 posted on 07/14/2005 10:23:53 PM PDT by Cougar66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead

I believe that he has...expanded the search, which is WHY Miller went to jail. IMO, Miller did NOT go to jail because of keeping mum about Rove.


43 posted on 07/14/2005 10:30:54 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: markedman
Wilson has stated that on their third date, in the midst of a HOT&HEAVY make-out session, in his car, old Valerie pulled away, and breathlessly told him that she was a SUPER SPY and then they went back to whatever.

Sooooooooooooo, since she was then, supposed a covert agent of the CIA, she outed herself to a civilian, who had NO need to know this.

44 posted on 07/14/2005 10:35:57 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
He said he was sent by Cheney, FIRST, then by his office; two lies right there. He's also denied that his wife had anything at all to do with sending him, but that too is a lie; since there is A MEMO, written by her, stating that fact. Okay, that's now three consecutive lies in a row and there are more.
45 posted on 07/14/2005 10:38:38 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson