Skip to comments.Press Fudges Bush Plamegate Pledge
Posted on 07/18/2005 9:47:48 PM PDT by PresidentFelon
Press Fudges Bush Plamegate Pledge
The press is claiming that President Bush has changed his pledge to fire anyone in his administration involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name - saying he's now added the qualifier, "If someone committed a crime."
But that's exactly what Bush said when he was first asked about the Plame case on Sept. 30, 2003.
Story Continues Below
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," the president told reporters back then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Dozens of news organizations quoted Bush's Sept. 2003 proviso, "if the person has violated law", including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN.
On Monday, Bush made it clear his position hadn't changed one bit. Asked about the Plame case, he explained: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Still, that didn't stop the Associated Press from charging: "On Monday, however,[Bush] added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed."
The AP cited a June 10, 2004, news conference, where according to the wire service, a reporter simply asked if Bush stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name. Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."
But the full June 10, 2004 exchange was somewhat more complicated:
REPORTER: 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, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent's name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts. [End of Excerpt]
Any honest reading of that exchange would acknowledge that when Bush answered, "Yes" - he meant he was standing by his earlier statement, not the reporter's distorted version: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"
Bush hadn't offered any such pledge.
But what he had said several months previous was that if the leaker had "violated the law," he'd be "taken care of."
One minute, they ridicule and mock him for his lapses when speaking, now, they want to parse and dissemble every letter of every word.
That,and just make stuff up to replace the facts they leave out.
But, of course, this could be taken in a number of ways. "Taken care of" could mean that the person would be fired, but it could also mean that he would be promoted, given a boatload of money, or it could mean he would have a sudden accident. Clinton taught me to think this way.
Headline in Tuesdays Pittsburgh Post Gazette claiming that Bush changed his story.
I emailed the author but she's probably at an awards ceremony.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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.