Bush Did What He Said He Would Do - Plamegate

wuli | September 14, 2006 | Wuli

[Wuli]

Bush did what he said he would do. He said he would fire the Plame "leaker".

Armitage was the primary leaker, Armitage told Powell about his "leak" in October 2003. They both kept silent.

In November 2004, Powell announced his departure from the Bush administration. Armitage went with him.

Their mutual voluntary departure fulfilled the requirements for what Bush said he would do about the "leaker".

[newconhere]

Perfect!

[frogjerk]

And the democrats are doing what they promised as well.

[Coldwater Creek]

Heh heh heh heh!!!!!

[adorno]

Wait a minute here!

You're saying that Bush knew. Which means that if Bush knew, somebody below him knew and told him. Was that somebody below Bush investigated?

Careful with your implications.

[IamConservative]

I have been thinking Powell and Armitage created this crisis forthe WH to derail their Iraw and Foriegn Policy initiatives. I am willing to bet Powell was ask to pack his bags. Once Powell was gone, Armitage was swining in the breeze, so he packed up too. My $.02 anyway. That, and another $1.97 will buy you a gallon of gas in these parts!

[Grendel9]

But let us not forget how much
fun the Democrats had trying
to nail Rove all those months.
IMO, Armitage, Powell, and
especially Prosecutor Fitzgerald
were guilty as hell and should
be raked over the coals themselves.

[rightinthemiddle]

I have been thinking Powell and Armitage created this crisis forthe WH to derail their Iraw and Foriegn Policy initiatives.

____________

There was no crisis until the media and the Dims created it.

[ozzymandus]

I saw some RAT whining that Bush had said the leaker would be fired, but he hadn't fired anybody. If powell and armitage had already left, how could he fire them?

[Lancey Howard]

Yep. Bush kept his word, as always.
I'm sure the scumbag New York Times will note this in its next editorial.

[stm]

I had a great amount of respect for GEN Powell when he CJCS during Desert Storm. Once he got into politics his warrior spirit was gone and he was just another politician. Very disappointing.

[Chunga]

If you could read with comprehension you'd know Wuli isn't here saying or implying that Bush knew anything.

Like your namesake you seem to be wont to leaping to absurdist conclusions.

[Antoninus]

Wow, excellent point.

[Lancey Howard]

Which means that if Bush knew, somebody below him knew and told him. Was that somebody below Bush investigated?

You could be right - - maybe (hopefully) Bush has a mole in the scumbag communist State Department.

[slowhand520]

This is, as Bill O'Reilly would say, pithy.

[Wuli]

Forget the TV and the newspapers.

There are hundreds of books published in the past few years by major and minor, liberal and leftist, politicians and "authors" in which some large or small part of the book includes the Rove plame-gate conspiracy mantra as a given and "factual" presentation.

And the worst part?

Twenty years from now, leftist academics in American colleges will refer to those "Rove" passages in those books as "history" and keep their sheeple from reading anything about Armitage and Powell. The myth that Bush sought to "go after Wilson" will not be allowed to be altered by the facts.

When the left looses, then they burrow in to rewrite the history of their loss as a victory.

[TexasCajun]

I believe I read where there was a 3-month window from when Armitage told Powell, The FBI & Justice and when Fitz was appointed.

Seems lots of folks new but wanted to see this Administration twist in the wind.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Armitage was swining in the breeze"

I understand he's a rather porcine individual, lol.

[johnny7]

Abbot & Costello...

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

this is enlightening, viewed today......

Testimony at Senate Confirmation Hearing (Deputy Secretary of State-designate cites U.S. world role)

Richard Armitage
Remarks to Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Washington, DC
March 15, 2001

http://www.state.gov/s/d/former/armitage/remarks/2001/2990.htm

[BallyBill]

I think it was Rush or maybe Levin was talking about this case yesterday and the same thing came to my mind and I wondered why the missed it.

The media grilled McClellan(?) relentlessly about GW B's promise to fire the leaker. Can Tony Snow have him back for a day so he can accept apologies from them b@$tards in the press.

[SoldierDad]

Howard Dean?

[Dems_R_Losers]

Easy. By the time President Bush learned the leaker was Armitage and Powell knew about it, the Fitzgerald investigation was in full swing and he could not say anything about it publicly because he would have been accused of trying to sway the investigation.

Powell stabs Bush in the back again today with his letter to McCain. I question the timing of his letter!

[JeffAtlanta]

Twenty years from now, leftist academics in American colleges will refer to those "Rove" passages in those books as "history" and keep their sheeple from reading anything about Armitage and Powell.

Well since Powell and Armitage were both appointed by Bush, the allegation will be that Bush was the one calling the shots and he instructed Powell and Armitage to try to destroy Wilson.

Of course, that's not the truth but that will be the allegation and let's be honest, most of the public would never know that there was a split between Bush and Powell.

[Tax-chick]

LOL! Good thing he wasn't in Iraw - they don't like pork.

[Wuli]

I read, in one of thousands of books over the past decade, that Powell's problem is a sort of "Peter principal" kind of thing.

Give him a job, give him direction, make the mission and the available resources clear and he can do a fine job.

But, he is not an outside-the-box thinker, not an idea person, and as part of his makeup that liked the military style so much, loyalty and following what he is commanded to do is more than just a major asset of his, its a major attribute; leaving real self-directed executive ability a distantly weaker attribute.

The DOD establishment ran him when he was its top dog and the state dept permanent government ran him at foggy bottom.

Because his GOP foundation is based on his public career and not well-formed philosophical underpinnings, he is a "moderate" - having not a strong values based center.

[Sioux-san]

Actually, what the President said was he'd fire anybody who broke the law. No law was broken, so no one got fired. Powell and Armitage are Libs who have no respect for Bush and what he is trying to do. Good riddance.

[Sioux-san]

Actually, what the President said was he'd fire anybody who broke the law. No law was broken, so no one got fired. Powell and Armitage are Libs who have no respect for Bush and what he is trying to do. Good riddance.

[adorno]

If you could read with comprehension you'd know Wuli isn't here saying or implying that Bush knew anything.

Like your namesake you seem to be wont to leaping to absurdist conclusions.

If you had any brain at all, you would've interpreted my first post as a word of caution and not an accusation. You either need to learn a little bit of logic or a tuneup for your thinking skills.

Neither the original poster nor you have indicated how Bush got the word on who the leaker was or when Bush got the word. It is also not known who told Bush unless Armitage or Powell were his source.

Questioning a set of statements is not the same as supporting the opposition. And if you had bothered to look up any of my posts at all, you could not even begin to conclude that I was anything like that adorno you are confusing me with. Knee-jerk reactions can get you into deep doo-doo.

[Wuli]

I'm not saying Bush knew; in fact I think both Powell and Armitage did not tell Bush about Armitage's conversation with Novak.

But, in as much as they were the primary source for Novak and took themselves out of the administration, they took their secret with them and (secretly) fulfilled Bush's objective of firing the "leaker". They took care of that obligation for him.

[Citizen4Right]

Powell was more of a road block in the 1st Gulf War than he was a help. Stormin' Norman did all the work and thankfully so. Powell's warrior spirit has always been lacking...

[adorno]

But, in as much as they were the primary source for Novak and took themselves out of the administration, they took their secret with them and (secretly) fulfilled Bush's objective of firing the "leaker". They took care of that obligation for him.

Ok, fine!

So, Bush didn't really fire Armitage. Armitage took himself out.

That still doesn't answer exactly if Bush knew that Armitage was the leaker before Armitage left on his own; also when was Bush informed about who the leaker was. And if Armitage and/or Powell didn't inform Bush, who did?

[Wuli]

Armitage could have said what he said with far fewer words. I'll put his testimony in italics and how briefly he could have said the same thing in bold.

"Mr. Chairman, prudence dictated that the greatest part of the homework I needed to accomplish prior to meeting with you and your colleagues consisted in carefully reviewing your confirmation hearing with the then Secretary of State - Designate. For me to attempt to add to or subtract from what Secretary Powell said would be presumptuous, gratuitous and, if I may be frank, dangerous. To the extent that I would revisit matters of substance already addressed by the Secretary, I would do so carefully and only in response to the Committee's questions."

I'm a lackey and I'm here to graciously kiss your asses and remind my boss what a loyal lackey I am.

"Indeed, in reading the confirmation hearing transcript I am struck by the extraordinarily high quality of the exchange, and reminded that our legislative branch plays a central role in the formulation of, American foreign policy. Our system of government is such that foreign policy, like all aspects of public policy, is based ultimately on the consent of the governed. It is this basic tenet of American constitutionalism that renders the line between foreign and domestic policy blurred in theory and invisible in practice."

I reject the idea that my boss's boss, the POTUS represents the highest elected official of the people and the only one elected by the whole nation and that my boss and I work at his direction and his pleasure.

"To acknowledge and uphold the role of Congress in foreign affairs is not, I hope, seen as either ingratiating or condescending on my part. Rather it is to acknowledge and uphold a political fact of life which executive branch officials ignore at their peril. Even as we undertake to do the will of the Commander-in-Chief and to support his leadership role in the conduct of foreign affairs, the success or failure of our efforts will in large measure depend upon our willingness to consult with the Congress and to draw upon the political expertise and experience resident on this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. In my own experience serving in the Departments of Defense and State I have regarded consultations on Capitol Hill not as penance, or a chore, or a required cost of doing business. Rather I have found that the 'business' itself is not sustainable absent the counsel of people who are, by definition, the most successful practitioners of politics in our political system."

I want to remind the legislature that they can count on me to represent them, and not the President.

"Those Members who have known me over the years know that a pledge on my part to make close Congressional consultation a hallmark of Department of State operations is not an empty gesture. I have, for better or worse, a track record. It is a record of service that includes running the Department of Defense's foreign policy apparatus as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs from 1983 to 1989. It includes as well over three years of trouble-shooting service in the Department of State, mediating a Middle Eastern water dispute, closing out our military bases presence in the Philippines, and establishing U.S. humanitarian and technical assistance programs aimed at the states emerging from the imploded Soviet Union. In all of these endeavors consultations with the Congress were essential, not only in terms of framing policy options, but in terms of drawing upon some impressive institutional wisdom. I cannot imagine that the consultation habit is one I would drop or one that the Secretary of State would allow me to drop."

You all know I'm a great guy.

"I do not come before you in the guise of political philosopher or ideologist. I do not claim to possess a notional framework for the pursuit of national interests in the post-Cold War world. To the extent that I may be able to make a positive impact on U.S. foreign policy, my personal emphasis will be on how we do our business."

I'm a functionary, not a policy maker.

"I am very much a "people person." What this means, in a practical sense --provided you confirm me as Deputy Secretary of State -- is that our diplomats will be asked to relate to their counterparts very intensively on a person-to- person basis. Too often we think of 'diplomacy' as a sort of specialized language mastered by the keepers of a special code, one featuring indirection and ambiguity. I think of diplomacy as the building of relationships based on trust; relationships to be drawn upon by professionals in the course of securing certain results. Our diplomats need to think politically in order to report accurately; they need to act politically in order to get results. Thinking and acting politically means putting people first. As Socrates once commented: "Politics? Politics? All of life is 'politics'." Whether in Washington or abroad the building of solid relationships with counterparts is essential to achieving diplomatic objectives."

I'm not John Bolton.

"Indeed, I believe that many of the theoretical debates over the relative merits of unilateralism, multilateralism and the like become truly relevant only when we have lost the ability to attract supporters to a course of action desired by the U.S. The coalition built a decade ago to free Kuwait did not materialize out of thin air. It was built by a President and by Secretaries of State and Defense who were able to draw upon relationships of trust which had been planted deeply and tended carefully. If we view foreign policy as an episodic endeavor to be engaged in only during times of crisis or convenience we shall find unilateralism to be a fait accompli instead of an option. Close and constant consultation with allies is not optional. It is the precondition for sustaining American leadership."

I will advise my boss to compromise our national interest for the national interest of weak allies who want to undermine a real multilateral approach, for self-serving ends of their own.

"If we expect our diplomats to get out from behind their desks and build relationships with counterparts, we owe them leadership by example and sound management practices. I can assure you that I will not preach sermons about consulting with the Congress and engaging with counterparts only to stay holed-up on the seventh floor of the State Department. In terms of management, I can only echo the Secretary's promise that we will be back seeking from you the resources our people need to get the job done right. Yet I have another management concern that I would like to broach, one that pertains to the structure of the Department itself."

You can be sure that my promises to defer to you and to the demands of other nations will be implemented as department policy.

"I cannot imagine what it must be like to serve in an American embassy and to be on the receiving end of instructions from a Department as loosely organized as State. I will tell you quite frankly that I do not like single-issue bureaus. No matter the organization as it exists today, I will expect, for example, the Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs to be the single focal point in the Department for policy matters relating to Japan, China and the rest of Asia. Although arms control, democracy, education and culture, nonproliferation and so forth are important issues, they make policy sense only within the context of a total package. I will be looking to the regional bureaus to integrate all of the key issues and to interact with the embassies. While I will insist that the Department work closely with this Committee and with other relevant committees of Congress on matters of substantive policy, I would ask that the Congress make every effort to refrain from giving us excessive 'rudder direction' in the organization of the Department itself."

Don't worry, I'll work with you on over-ruling the POTUS on policy, but let me figure out how to implement our important mutual interests in the management of the department.

"Mr. Chairman, foreign policy is not an exotic rite practiced by an ordained priesthood. The men and women of the Department of State are our fellow citizens, serving us under conditions that are sometimes dangerous and often abysmal. We are privileged to have within the ranks of the Foreign and Civil Services some extraordinarily brilliant and incredibly courageous individuals. They and their families will be tested in ways we can scarcely imagine. They deserve our support, our appreciation and, above all, our leadership. All of the expertise resident in the Department of State avails us little if we fail to lead. If there is one thing I would like to leave to this Department if you accord me the privilege of serving it would be an emerging culture in which loyalty flows both ways, not just from the bottom-up. Although there may be some who might question or decry the presence of a retired Army General and former Naval officer in the top two positions of the Department of State, I seriously doubt that there is a subset of leadership uniquely applicable to Foggy Bottom. If the principles of leadership learned at the U.S. Naval Academy and the practice of leadership in Vietnam, the Pentagon and the private sector prove insufficient to the task at hand, the fault will not, I am certain, reside in my failure to pursue a career in the Foreign Service of the U.S."

I'll try to get the staff at the State Department to like me as much as I hope you do.

"Leadership as I understand it is heavy on duty and light on prerogative. To provide leadership to the people of the Department of State requires a focus on service, not privilege. So it is, in my view, in the exercise of American leadership in the world. To the extent that our behavior reflects arrogance and a heightened sense of position, our claim to leadership will become, in spite of our military prowess, the thinnest of pretensions. To the extent that our behavior reflects a sense of duty, informed and supported by allies and friends around the globe, American leadership will be the central reality of the international system for as far as the eye can see. Although I cannot articulate for you a philosophical framework describing this system and the precise interaction of the United States with all of its facets, I can pledge to you that I will, with your support and your counsel, work tirelessly to make American leadership the constant in our changing universe."

The only proper form of U.S. leadership is simply to follow; there are no national interests and no foreign policy "prerogatives" in those national interests. If we would only help other nations achieve their foreign policy objectives, they will gladly help us do that.

[Wuli]

I do not know if anyone "informed" Bush, that Armitage was the leaker, before we all read it in the news. We have no knowledge that anyone did.

[Wuli]

You hit that just right.

There was a survey of front page newspaper stories, covering the last couple years of the Clinton admin and the first couple years under Bush.

In statistical percentages that were too great to be accidents, the survey showed:

During Clinton's term, if it was "good" news, the heading or sub-heading would most often say "Clinton.............". And if it was "bad" news, it would say: "Defense Department.........", or "State Department.......", or "CIA........." or "EPA.................", etc.

During the Bush years, if it is "bad" news, the heading or subheading says "Bush..............." not, "State Dep.........", "DOD....................", "CIA............." and if it is "good" news Bush is not mentioned in the heading or sub-heading.

This bias is pervasive.

[pepperdog]

I have always wondered about Powell, but then he was so canonized by the press that it was heresy to ask questions about him during the first Gulf war.

The one thing about him that I believed but now question was that he was an honorable man. If he knew about Armitage three months before the special prosecutor and did nothing I can only conclude he is not the honorable man he appeared to be.

I hope he will speak out about his part in all this and clear his reputation if he is being falsely labeled, I await his statement.

[Chunga]

If you had any brain at all, you would've interpreted my first post as a word of caution and not an accusation. You either need to learn a little bit of logic or a tuneup for your thinking skills.

How laughable. You addressed Wuli thusly:

Wait a minute here!

You're saying that Bush knew. Which means that if Bush knew, somebody below him knew and told him. Was that somebody below Bush investigated?

Wuli never once said that Bush knew anything, and his conclusion merely suggests that Armitage's resignation rendered Bush's requirement that the leaker be fired moot.

My reading comprehension isn't in question here. Yours is.

Have a great day.

[sappy]

And not one person has come out to call Joe Wilson to the carpet. Not that I have heard, at least.

[Chunga]

The question that needs to be asked of Wilson is "Why did you want to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House?"

[sappy]

The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy at work. effective leaders = we must destroy you. Kinda like Delay

[TigersEye]

Seems lots of folks new but wanted to see this Administration twist in the wind.

Or put another way; a lot of people tried to bring down a sitting President and his administration during a time of war with completely false information.

Plame
Wilson
Fitzgerald
Armitage
Powell
Schumer
.....
.....