Tico, yes he did say that. And as I posted before...
Quote:White House statements, dating back over the two years of the case, have varied. On Sept. 30, 2003, Bush used language reminiscent of what he said on Monday. "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, " he said then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
At other moments, though, Bush's language has been less precise. In Sea Island, Ga. in June 2004, Bush was asked whether he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Plame's name -- which might or might not violate the law, depending on the circumstances. Without hesitation, Bush said "yes."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/19/MNGSQDQ4BU1.DTL
That is a direct question that he answered, and they even qualified it for him! Now, I'd say that's pretty f*cking clear.
Of course, as we all know, the monkey is going to do what the monkey is going to do, no matter what he said, and the facts will be bent and spun to fit whatever action he takes, so it doesn't really matter. I just wanted to "clarify" the situation a little bit.
Ticomaya wrote:Walter Hinteler wrote:Ticomaya wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Stradee, I wish that was true, but we all know what Bush said about firing anybody in his administration that leaked the info. Now, it's anybody who has legally committed a crime. The next step is when anybody in his administration is sent to prison.
Of course you are aware that when he was
first asked about the Plame case on
September 30, 2003, Bush said, "
If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.
And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
According to the transcript, Bush said as well: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
Source
Thanks Walter. Are you of the camp that would equate the more vague "appropriate action" with "terminating," in light of his specific statement just moments earlier of tying his action to a finding that the person has "violated law"?
ah, now now the "appropriate action" statement "vague".
Bush KNOWS who violated the law. Bush KNOWS because he was told by his buddy, top cop.
The silence from the wh deafening, Tico.
The "law"???
Ticomaya wrote: Are you of the camp that would equate the more vague "appropriate action" with "terminating," in light of his specific statement just moments earlier of tying his action to a finding that the person has "violated law"?
I'm of none camp here.
I only think, a second statement usually verifies the first.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Ticomaya wrote: Are you of the camp that would equate the more vague "appropriate action" with "terminating," in light of his specific statement just moments earlier of tying his action to a finding that the person has "violated law"?
I'm of none camp here.
I only think, a second statement usually verifies the first.
And the specific controls over the vague.
Why hasn't Bush conducted an internal investigation to determine who violated his or her non-disclosure agreement? Is the answer because he already knows who is involved and he is involved himself?
Personally I don't care if bush fires Rove or not. The public can see through all this mumbo jumbo Clinton like cat footing with words. I am just hoping with all I got that Rove and/or others of the administration get charged with something by the prosecutor. I am prepared to wait for years for that to happen and still be happy about it. It would restore my faith that America is not entirely lost to power and corruptness.
kickycan wrote:Tico, yes he did say that. And as I posted before...
Quote:White House statements, dating back over the two years of the case, have varied. On Sept. 30, 2003, Bush used language reminiscent of what he said on Monday. "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, " he said then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
At other moments, though, Bush's language has been less precise. In Sea Island, Ga. in June 2004, Bush was asked whether he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Plame's name -- which might or might not violate the law, depending on the circumstances. Without hesitation, Bush said "yes."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/19/MNGSQDQ4BU1.DTL
That is a direct question that he answered, and they even qualified it for him! Now, I'd say that's pretty f*cking clear.
Of course, as we all know, the monkey is going to do what the monkey is going to do, no matter what he said, and the facts will be bent and spun to fit whatever action he takes, so it doesn't really matter. I just wanted to "clarify" the situation a little bit.
From what I can determine, he said: "Yes," Bush said. "
And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."
Why do you suppose he wants the US Attorney to find the facts. What's he expect, an indictment?
PDiddie wrote:blatham wrote:It's just like a diddie but with a higher sperm count.
*ahem*
That's not possible.
LOL...was dearly hoping you'd see that.
Why do you all get sucked in to Tico's Red Herrings?
Speaking only for myself, I never get sucked by Ticomaya.
I'm not missing anything, am I?
AG Gonzales, The First Casualty
AG Gonzales, The First Casualty
By Frank Rich
From Bush Watch
7/26/05
The forgotten man Mr. Bush did not nominate to the Supreme Court is as much a window into the White House's panic and stonewalling as its haste to put forward the man he did. When the president decided not to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a woman, why did he pick a white guy and not nominate the first Hispanic justice, his friend Alberto Gonzales? Mr. Bush was surely not scared off by Gonzales critics on the right (who find him soft on abortion) or left (who find him soft on the Geneva Conventions). It's Mr. Gonzales's proximity to this scandal that inspires real fear.
As White House counsel, he was the one first notified that the Justice Department, at the request of the C.I.A., had opened an investigation into the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife. That notification came at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003, but it took Mr. Gonzales 12 more hours to inform the White House staff that it must "preserve all materials" relevant to the investigation. This 12-hour delay, he has said, was sanctioned by the Justice Department, but since the department was then run by John Ashcroft, a Bush loyalist who refused to recuse himself from the Plame case, inquiring Senate Democrats would examine this 12-hour delay as closely as an 181/2-minute tape gap. "Every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence," said Senator Charles Schumer, correctly, back when the missing 12 hours was first revealed almost two years ago. A new Gonzales confirmation process now would have quickly devolved into a neo-Watergate hearing. Mr. Gonzales was in the thick of the Plame investigation, all told, for 16 months.
Thus is Mr. Gonzales's Supreme Court aspiration the first White House casualty of this affair. It won't be the last. When you look at the early timeline of this case, rather than the latest investigatory scraps, two damning story lines emerge and both have legs....
BBB
Journalists are reporting it may actually be 84 hours, not 12 hours, between the time Gonzales learned of the investigation and the time he notified the Bush adm. staff. Plenty of time to allow for getting rid of evidence.
BBB
Congress plans to scrutinize Plame-related issues
Congress plans to scrutinize Plame-related issues
By David Morgan
New York Times July 25, 2005
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress will conduct a series of hearings on national security and espionage issues raised by the CIA-leak controversy surrounding senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, officials said on Monday.
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence plans hearings on potential national security threats posed by leaks, including leaks to the media, and will aim to toughen legislation barring the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
"It's time there's a comprehensive law that will make it easier for the government to prosecute wrongdoers and increase the penalties that hopefully will act as a deterrent," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the panel's Republican chairman.
Media leaks and the covert status of espionage officials have become politically charged issues with the controversy over Valerie Plame, whose identity as a CIA agent was leaked in 2003 after her diplomat husband Joseph Wilson accused the White House of exaggerating intelligence to justify the Iraq war.
A Time magazine reporter said he learned about Plame's identity from Rove, deputy White House chief of staff and chief architect of President Bush's re-election. Time reporter Matthew Cooper also said he discussed Plame and Wilson with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.
It can be illegal for a government official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA operative.
Democrats, who have urged Bush to fire Rove or revoke his classified clearance, stepped up political pressure on Republicans on Monday by calling for a formal congressional investigation of the Plame leak.
'CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY'
"The United States Congress has a constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of the executive branch, whether a law has been broken or not," the 26 senators said in a letter.
Speaking earlier at a forum hosted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, Hoekstra said his committee would begin hearings as early as September that would include testimony from CIA, Pentagon and Justice Department witnesses.
He said he would also hope to invite witnesses representing the news media.
Intelligence officials have long complained that leaks to the media have damaged U.S. spy operations, including efforts to track al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Hoekstra described current laws governing unauthorized disclosure as a limited "patchwork" of statutes. Past attempts to craft more comprehensive measures have ended in failure. But Hoekstra said concerns fostered by bombings in Madrid, London and Egypt have created a more favorable political climate.
"I don't have any legislation yet," Hoekstra said. "That's what we have the hearing process for, to design and determine exactly what legislation might look like."
Meanwhile, Hoekstra's counterpart in the Senate, Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, intends to preside over hearings on the intelligence community's use of covert protections for CIA agents and others involved in secret activities.
The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence could hold hearings on the use of espionage cover soon after the U.S. Congress returns from its August recess, said Roberts spokeswoman Sarah Little.
Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years. (BBB's note: Now why would congressional Republicans want to review Fitzgerald's work? To try to cut his legs off at the knees?)
Good. Finally some "real" probes including Fitzgerald. When any administration is responsible for a security breach, they must be investigated with vigor and quickly. Otherwise, legal and illegal issues will be moot.
PDiddie wrote:Speaking only for myself, I never get sucked by Ticomaya.
I'm not missing anything, am I?
Of course, I was speaking of all who do. I must admit I have but now I know better. No, you are not missing a thing.
How much you wanna bet that the next Republican strategy in dealing with all of this is to clump ALL leaks, past AND present, together into one issue which needs to be dealt with in Congress. This would allow the Karl Rove affair to disappear within the umbrella issue of leaks in general.
Then there would be a minimizing of any specific investigations on Rove, as Republicans control Congress, and not a SINGLE one of them has the balls to actually condemn this act and hold this administration accountable.
Remember, these are the same Republicans who raked Clinton over the coals because he lied under oath about a BJ.
Truly amazing, really...
It must be all that love:
cicerone imposter wrote:Good. Finally some "real" probes including Fitzgerald. When any administration is responsible for a security breach, they must be investigated with vigor and quickly. Otherwise, legal and illegal issues will be moot.
Let's not get to excited. I'm sure the Republicans still have a few more tricks up their sleaves. Like I said, their unbelievable lack of outrage over this leak is telling unto itself, and merely indicates the lengths they must go to keep their party from completely unravelling.
Afterall, if you revisit the last paragraph of the article, you see this:
Quote:Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) spokeswoman Sarah] Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.
But of COURSE. Typical Republican strategy; investigate the investigator, and start making the case to smear Fitzgerald and introduce doubts in his ability to investigate. Then take over the mantle of being the ones pretending to actually be concerned about all these leaks, and pass a bunch of ridiculous laws packed with a bunch of pork barrel spending so as to placate the moderate Dems who could be pursuaded with Congressional bribes to give in.
Ahh, Washington...
