[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".)