Political Cartoons

Bush said in 2003, BEFORE ROVE WAS EVER A SUSPECT, that he would fire anyone that leaked the information ILLEGALLY. RECENTLY, he was pressured into saying "Yes" to a question asking if he would stick by his story to fire anyone involved. He said "Yes" quickly since he still believed what he had said about this issue from before. But of course nobody will bother to look back at what he originally said. I will take him for his word when he had no idea Rove was a target.

Transcript from 2003:

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There's leaks at the executive branch; there's leaks in the legislative branch. There's just too many leaks. And 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. And so I welcome the investigation. I -- I'm absolutely confident that the Justice Department will do a very good job. There's a special division of career Justice Department officials who are tasked with doing this kind of work; they have done this kind of work before in Washington this year.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98736,00.html

From:

java-drinker.livejournal.com

The Times reported on July 14: "Mr. Bush's comment came nearly two years after he suggested that he would fire anyone in his administration who had knowingly leaked the identity of the operative, Valerie Wilson."

The Post reported on July 14: "The White House had declared that Rove was not involved in Plame's unmasking, and, when the controversy broke in the summer of 2003, Bush said he would fire anyone who illegally outed a CIA official."

But as documented, White House press secretary Scott McClellan explicitly stated in a September 29, 2003, press conference that Bush would fire anyone involved in outing an undercover CIA operative. McClellan did not hinge dismissal on criminal or intentional action:

Q: Scott, has anyone -- has the president tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

Bush himself stated on September 30, 2003, that he would "take appropriate action" against "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."

By retroactively amending Bush's words, the Post and the Times asserted that Bush said something even some Republicans reportedly think he wasn't sufficiently clear about. According to a July 14 San Francisco Chronicle article by Washington reporter Carolyn Lochhead, "Privately, Republicans concede the controversy hurts and wonder why Bush does not simply say Rove did not break the law and clarify that when he said he'd fire anyone in his administration for revealing classified information, he specifically meant someone who broke the law." If as the Post said, Bush's pledge was already limited to those who acted illegally, why would his supporters hope he would amend it now?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030930-9.html

From:

If McClellan could have seen into the future of how the press would be grasping for straws to get rid of Rove, he would have been sure to have repeated the 'illegal' part.

In any case, who cares what Scott said? I'm more interested in what Bush himself said.

From:

goumindong.livejournal.com

The press isnt gasting for straws, its a freaking story...

Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity By ANNE MARIE SQUEO and JOHN D. MCKINNON Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL July 19, 2005; Page A3

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.

(deleted comment)

From:

*yawn* Not only did Rove not leak the information, but she had a desk job and had no qualms with telling people she knew that she worked for the CIA.

Please stop making me repeat myself, you're very boring to talk to when you don't keep up with the news.

From:

java-drinker.livejournal.com

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/intel.officers.letter.pdf

From:

lol, it's a sad fucking day when speaking the truth based on the facts of a case is considered talking points.

I have heard from many CIA agents as well on the news and they say this is no big deal. Did you know that before the story was leaked about Plame being in the CIA, that they ran the story past the CIA and they had no problem with it?

This whole story is just pathetic and I so look forward to seeing how much more desperation is seen in trying to have some sort of case against rove.

From:

goumindong.livejournal.com

Cite, Because i do know that the CIA contacted the Justice department and asked them to start investigating.

I also know that Rove knew she was undercover, and that the CIA didnt want anyone discussing the information. And so does the rest of the world.

Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity By ANNE MARIE SQUEO and JOHN D. MCKINNON Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL July 19, 2005; Page A3

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.

And we also know that she was NOC in 1999, which is less than 5 years before the outing. This is because on her tax returns, she listed her employer as the CIA cover company that had to be liquidated due to the leak!

So yes, we know Rove commited a crime, the question is whether or not obstruction and perjury charges are tacked on, and whether or not anyone else in the admin is complicit.

From:

ah yes foxnews fair and balanced new source that it is. Wasn't fox saying that Karl Rove deserved a medal for leaking valerie wilson oh wait excuse me for leaking wilson's wife to the media?

From:

Are you dense? It's a transcript of a speech...and the website is from 2003...you think foxnews altered it because they saw into the future that Rove would be the target of the media?

Good lord.

From:

I never said fox altered the interview, i was just making fun of fox in general. I can see that if you do use fox generally as a news source you would believe that karl rove was cleared of all charges and should be given a medal. That is exactly what i just stated. Put simply I was stating that someone like yourself that uses fox as a source of information most likely also uses fox as a new source and hence would believe them to be credible and think that karl rove is a hero and W is the second coming. Am i wrong?

From:

I use fox as one of my news sources, yes. So what?

From:

Um, it's terrible journalism. I'm not just talking about bias here. I'm a journalism major from one of the top undergraduate journalism programs in the country, and as someone with a degree in the stuff, let me tell you: it's terrible. But even if they admitted they were the PR office for the Republican Party, they'd still be doing a bad job. You want someone who tells you their bias but still reports the news well? Try the London Times. Or the Guardian.

From:

nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com

How is it terrible journalism?

From:

For starters, they go against most of the guidelines of media theory presented by people such as Parenti and Gans. From my own experience, my biggest gripe is that they spend more time repeating an interview's talking points and less time asking questions. Their questions are also often soft-balls, and, on top of that, they don't do any balanced reporting whatsoever. For example, when they talk to the right, they get prominent officials. When they talk to the left, they get crackpots. They're harder on the crackpots than the prominent officials as well.

The other problem I have is that personal opinion is far too often expressed during straight news segments. It's completely unethical.

But that's only the beginning of my complaints.

Oddly enough, if you want an example of a good interview, look to the Daily Show.

From:

studmuff.livejournal.com

Oh, I get it. Before Bush says it, which he won't, you get all over him. When Clinton himself said it, it wasn't a big deal. Understood.

From:

johnraptor.livejournal.com

It's not about whether or not Bush uses that exact phrase. It's about the hypocrisy of the Bush administration using the same kind of technicality and semantic evasions that conservatives got so angry at Clinton for using. Sure, Bush is never actually going to say, "depends on what the definition of is is," but as you can see, even just in this thread, the argument is being steered towards things like "fire anyone involved in the outing" vs "fire anyone who illegally outed" and legal technicalities. It was wrong for Clinton to lie and then try to evade the subsequent questioning, just as it's wrong for Bush & Co. to leak a CIA operative's name and then try to evade the subsequent questioning.

From:

I don't see how lying about getting a blow job in the oval office is comparable to lying about how you would handle finding out a member of your administration was leaking sensitive information to the press (endangering people's lives in the process and possibly breaking a federal law). Sorry maybe i am slow.

From:

studmuff.livejournal.com

Bush hasn't lied, you just wish he had. Karl Rove has been cleared of any charges! Don't you understand that? And yet, if it is someone in Bush's Administration, I have no doubt he will be taken care of.

From:

johnraptor.livejournal.com

Karl Rove has been cleared of any charges!

Really? Last I hear (from the administration) it was still an "ongoing investigation."

From:

Why would i wish that W had lied? That makes no sense.

From:

because, after all, Clinton was only impeached. But hey, the media loved him, right?! They didn't. Oh. But they let him off the hook! For... oh, right, he didn't lie.

But!

From:

nacreousflaneur.livejournal.com

"I did not have sex with that woman," I think, was pretty much a lie.

Also, he obstructed justice, intimidated witnesses, etc. etc.

Try again, Mr. Unbiased Journalist.

From:

"I did not have sex with that woman," I think, was pretty much a lie.
Actually, you have to look at what he said under oath and what had been set as the definition of sex before his statement. What Kenneth Starr did was a bait and switch - he defined sex, had the President say he did not have "sex" as Starr defined it, then ommitted the definition change and used a different definition in the end.

Is it no surprise that the testimony was thrown out of court? Not to mention, legally, any testimony in a case that's been thrown out of court (after all, you knew that testimony was part of the now defunct Paul Jones case, right?) cannot be used in any other cases.

In the end, Kenneth Starr broke more laws than Bill Clinton.

But that's neither here nor there. There's ZERO rulings that Clinton obstructed justice or intimidated witnesses. The reason that fiasco fell apart with a failed removal was BECAUSE there was nothing they could pin on him except cheating on his wife. Even the investigation in to White Water turned up NOTHING.

And just because I know my media theory and how to actually report the news doesn't mean I'm not entitled to my opinions. But those opinions are not appropriate when I'm doing my job unless I express them in...

... wait for it...

the Op/Ed section!

but feel free to try again.

From:

genuinesarcasm.livejournal.com

So...

Bush says that he will fire anyone involved, anyone found guilty, etc.

My bigger problem is that the WH press sec. said that no one in the White House was involved. NO ONE. So... two questions. Was this a complete lie? Or was it complete incompetence? Does the buck end with Bush? Not that he should be impeached, because he obviously didn't get head. But, if I were GWB, and I thought we were free and clear of this act which violated national security, and it turns out that Rove/Libby/Bolten or anyone in the Admin (especially the inner-circle) was involved in this I would f-ing fire them for exposing me like this. Take a firm stand on this and gain some points with the public. Otherwise, Bush, you are on the verge of being a lame-duck president who hasn't confirmed Bolten, hasn't changed Soc. Security, hasn't curbed spending, hasn't gotten out of Iraq, and has a Supreme Court Nominee to do battle for. You already have all dems and some moderate republicans and indeps. pissed off. Screw this up, and you have a lot of Senators, Congressmen, and Govs licking their chops for a shot at 2008, and you will be a good piñata to use so that a Candidate distances him/herself from a corrupt, ineffectual, unpopular admin. i

From: