Press Fudges Bush Plamegate Pledge

NewsMax.com ^ | 7/18/05 | Carl Limbacher

[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."

[PresidentFelon]

Please raise hell about this. Find a the story from AP or other disreputable media outlet and e-mail or snail-mail them this quote compared to their own edited quote. Then ask them to explain themselves. This is outrageous and just the kind of ammunition the press has no defense for. Please do your part to get an answer from these lying creeps.

[T Lady]

'Find a the story from AP or other disreputable media outlet and e-mail or snail-mail them this quote compared to their own edited quote. Then ask them to explain themselves.'

The AP/MSM will do either of the following:

a)Print the correction somewhere in the back of the 'A' section of the newspaper long after they hope Rove has been let go.

OR

b)Swallow razor blades and shards of glass before admitting they were wrong.

I'd hedge my bets on choice B if I were a gambler.

[digger48]

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.

[Fresh Wind]

But what he had said several months previous was that if the leaker had "violated the law," he'd be "taken care of."

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.

[Ramcat]

Headline in Tuesdays Pittsburgh Post Gazette claiming that Bush changed his story.
I emailed the author but she's probably at an awards ceremony.

[rabair]

[I posted this in another Rove/Plame controversy thread, but it seems to fit better here so I'm reposting... Although, the NewsMax story here seems to blow away the new media spin anyway]

I don't know if anyone else has pointed this out yet but...
You know how all the Dims are whining that Bush changed from saying he'd fire anyone "involved" to now anyone who committed a "crime"?(specifically I saw a clip of Reid yesterday, in which btw, he seemed really stoned, don't know what was wrong with him)
Well we could just as usual write it off as their normal idiocy and partisan crap.. But I see it differently.

Yes the President changed the wording. But my question is, if no one ends up being convicted of a "crime" is there really a "leak" for someone to have been "involved" in? I mean we already know she wasn't a covert operative within 5 years of her "outing." So we basically no that there was no crime committed. So why should Rove still be fired for "involvement" in a "leak." If the facts stand, as they seem to today, I don't think it was a "leak" was it?

Let me know if this makes sense to anyone.

[goldstategop]

The President's position on firing a leaker hasn't changed. Liberals are trying to create the dishonest impression Bush is being fast and loose with the truth to save his close aide's political hide. The truth is the opposite: the media is fudging Bush's pledge to obscure the fact the so-called Rove-gate is a dud.

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