Bush is between an rock and a hard place. All he needed to do was ask his staff if they leaked Valerie Plame. Unfortunately, how many are willing to believe Bush if he says an underling was responsible - like all the convictions for mistreatment of prisoners falls on only the enlisted troops and court martial.
That's pretty lame, ticomaya.
Tico
Remember Bush said that he would fire the leaker. If as I believe he knows who the leaker is he should make good on his promise and fire the rat. He does not need to wait for the outcome of the investigation.
Of course if as I suspect he was part of the conspiracy he would have to resign and that is something King George would never do.
The timing of announcements from the White House is always intriguing.
Timing.
More important than location, in politics.
Congress, White House agrees on torture ban by US military
and
Bush takes blame for Iraq war on bad intelligence
What are they trying to distract people from this time?
~~~~~~~
Watching the patterns over time is, well, worth it. Maybe even well worth it.
bethie
In the first, McCain had the WH boxed into a corner. Quite a brilliant move. The WH had no alternative. "We don't torture but we are vetoing this bill that says we won't torture", essentially.
On the second, they've clearly figured out that Bush has to speak with less of that overriding arrogance. We can be quite assured that repub pollsters found that Bush had to say this sort of thing right now to move his numbers up (along with which, they have been filling up the news vaccum for a week or more now with THEIR story...daily speeches from Bush the main element). It's been working. The avalanche of negatives has been lessened.
I'ma thinking there's something they don't want to have spotted, lurking in the shadows.
If they shine the light over by the sofa, no one will notice the elephant on the coffee table.
Bush has, it would appear, been turned into a snake oil salesman. There are always some that will buy almost anything.
au1929 wrote:Tico
Remember Bush said that he would fire the leaker. If as I believe he knows who the leaker is he should make good on his promise and fire the rat. He does not need to wait for the outcome of the investigation.
Of course if as I suspect he was part of the conspiracy he would have to resign and that is something King George would never do.
I believe he said he would fire someone if they committed a crime. And he said it was the Dept. of Justice's role to determine that. I don't recall him saying, "I'm gonna fire the leaker."
The leftist media are so transparent. What a headline: "Bush takes blame for Iraq war on bad intelligence." LOL.
He said he's responsible for the decision to go to Iraq, and he'd do it again. And he will try and fix the intelligence problems. He did not say he was taking the blame for the war.
Ticomaya wrote:I believe he said he would fire someone if they committed a crime. And he said it was the Dept. of Justice's role to determine that. I don't recall him saying, "I'm gonna fire the leaker."
~~~~~~~
Quote:Mr. Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the president's Iraq policy.
On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have to be shown that a crime was committed.
will he change his mind again?
he's been doing that a lot in the last few days
link
ehBeth wrote:Ticomaya wrote:I believe he said he would fire someone if they committed a crime. And he said it was the Dept. of Justice's role to determine that. I don't recall him saying, "I'm gonna fire the leaker."
~~~~~~~
Quote:Mr. Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an outspoken critic of the president's Iraq policy.
On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have to be shown that a crime was committed.
will he change his mind again?
he's been doing that a lot in the last few days
link
I refer you to this 10/27/05 post of mine in this very thread:
On October 27, 2005, Ticomaya wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:We must not forget that Bush said initially that he would fire the person responsible. He changed that to, he would fire anyone found to have committed a crime.
The next statement from Bush will be, he will fire anyone put into prison for the crime.
I hope it's Cheney, and he's tortured to tell the truth. After all, this is a national security issue.
Even though you liked saying it so much you said it three times, it doesn't alter the fact that you are wrong each time you say it.
If we are going to remember what Bush said
initially, we should examine what he in fact DID say
initially. 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."
LINK
LINK
He initially was very specific about his requirement that there be a violation of the law. In 2004, he was less than specific about that, and all the leftist media jumped all over it. However, his specific statements on this subject control over the general ones.
Tico
Outing the CIA agent is a crime. Since he knows who the culprit is. If he were any kind of leader he would fire the Crum and be leading the fight to send him to prison.
au1929 wrote:Tico
Outing the CIA agent is a crime.
That remains to be seen, au.
Quote:Since he knows who the culprit is. If he were any kind of leader he would fire the Crum and be leading the fight to send him to prison.
And Fitzgerald knows "who the culprit is." There is no real urgency to disclose that information to the public right now. The criminal investigation is ongoing. You just want to know, and you want to know now, that's all.
ofcoarse we all want to know who the culprit is; and I'm hoping it's Rove. Go straight to jail, do not collect 2oo.
Saw that. Novak is moving to none other than Fox News.
Tico, this whole thing is delicious to watch. Whether you believe there was a crime or not, the WH is going to get f*cked on this one.
Cycloptichorn
ooooo bethie...looking good, girl!
Here's a dilly, folks.
Bush makes new appointments to FEC
Quote:President Bush nominated two controversial lawyers to the Federal Election Commission yesterday: Hans von Spakovsky who helped Georgia win approval of a disputed voter-identification law, and Robert D. Lenhard, who was part of a legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
link
and then the kicker...
Quote:Well well well. What do we have here?
George W. Bush has picked new nominees for the FEC. One is a Republican, Hans von Spakovsky, whom Ted Kennedy says "may be at the heart of the political interference that is undermining the [Justice] Department's enforcement of federal civil laws." And in an uncharacteristic moment of cheerful bipartisanship, Bush is also appointing a Democrat, Robert D. Lenhard, who was quite helpful to the 1600 Crew as part of the legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
But there is perhaps another reason why Mr. Lenhard is being rewarded by BushCo. at just this moment. He's the husband of Viveca Novak, whose testimony now provides the foundation for Karl Rove's defense in the CIA leak case.
link
But, Blotham, why do you only concentrate on appointments made in the USA? Why don't you tell us the name of the head administrator who is chasing Pederasts in your home city, Vancouver? You are aware of the story, I am sure. I understand that there is a team assigned to keep tabs on pederasts at all times. In such a lovely city like Vancouver?
Bush Picks Controversial Nominees for FEC
Bush Appoints Husband Of Plamegate's Viveca Novak, Robert D. Lenhard, to FEC Over Opposition of Senator John McCain.
George W. Bush has picked new nominees for the FEC. One is a Republican, Hans von Spakovsky, whom Ted Kennedy says "may be at the heart of the political interference that is undermining the Department's enforcement of federal civil laws." And in an uncharacteristic moment of cheerful bipartisanship, Bush is also appointing a Democrat, Robert D. Lenhard, who was quite helpful to the 1600 Crew as part of the legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
But there is perhaps another reason why Mr. Lenhard is being rewarded by BushCo. at just this moment. He's the husband of Viveca Novak, whose testimony now provides the foundation for Karl Rove's defense in the CIA leak case.
A small but rather key fact that both the Washington Post and the White House Press Release manages to leave out, wouldn't you say? They Washington Post is having quite a stint in the GOP stenography department this week, it would seem.
Is this the reward for Viveca Novak's attempt to give Karl Rove a get out of jail free card?---BBB
Bush Picks Controversial Nominees for FEC
By Thomas B. Edsall and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 17, 2005; A09
President Bush nominated two controversial lawyers to the Federal Election Commission yesterday: Hans von Spakovsky who helped Georgia win approval of a disputed voter-identification law, and Robert D. Lenhard, who was part of a legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
In addition, Bush proposed a second term for commissioner David M. Mason and nominated Steven T. Walther, a Nevada lawyer with close ties to Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
Von Spakovsky and Mason are Republican appointees, while Lenhard and Walther are Democratic picks for the bipartisan six-member commission.
In a letter to Senate Rules Committee Chairman Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) wrote that he is "extremely troubled" by the von Spakovsky nomination. Kennedy contends that von Spakovsky "may be at the heart of the political interference that is undermining the [Justice] Department's enforcement of federal civil laws."
Career Justice Department lawyers involved in a Georgia case said von Spakovsky pushed strongly for approval of a state program requiring voters to have photo identification. A team of staff lawyers that examined the case recommended 4 to 1 that the Georgia plan should be rejected because it would harm black voters; the recommendation was overruled by von Spakovsky and other senior officials in the Civil Rights Division.
Before working in the Justice Department, von Spakovsky was the Republican Party chairman in Fulton County, Ga., and served on the board of the Voter Integrity Project, which advocated regular purging of voter roles to prevent felons from casting ballots.
In a brief telephone interview, von Spakovsky played down his role in policy decisions in the Civil Rights Division. "I'm just a career lawyer who works in the front office of civil rights," he said. He noted that the department has rules against career lawyers talking to reporters.
In a 1997 policy paper, von Spakovsky wrote, "Georgia should require all potential voters to present reliable photo identification at their polling location to help prevent impostors from voting."
Asked if it was a conflict for von Spakovsky to work on a case involving a Republican plan in his home state of Georgia, Justice spokesman Eric Holland said: "Many of the dedicated and professional attorneys in the Voting Rights Section have worked in advocacy roles involving voting issues prior to their arrival at the Justice Department. . . . Justice Department attorneys are always mindful of their responsibility to perform duties in ethical matters, including recusing themselves as necessary under standards of ethical and professional conduct."
The Lenhard nomination, first proposed in July 2003, has provoked strong opposition from advocacy groups seeking tough enforcement of campaign finance laws, especially the 2002 McCain-Feingold bill.
Meredith McGehee, president and executive director of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, described the prospect of Lenhard replacing Thomas as "beyond disappointing" when it was first proposed.
Reid issued a statement yesterday saying that he is "very pleased the president acted today upon my two recommendations for Commissioners on the Federal Election Commission," Walther and Lenhard.
