Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
Seattle Post Intelligencer gets Bush claim wrong
This has long been debunked, but they nevertheless repeated the false claim here (emphasis added):
President Bush likes to talk about values. Let’s see him uphold honesty by firing Karl Rove.
That would begin to restore integrity to White House assurances that no senior official had leaked the identity of a CIA agent. Before lowering the ethical bar, Bush promised to fire anyone involved.
Here’s what Bush actually said:
9/30/2003: “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.”
Why do papers like the Seattle PI keep forgetting this? This isn’t the first time the media has forgotten that quote. A few months ago, the media claimed Bush was ’shifting his policy’ by going from the standpoint of ‘anyone involved will be fired’ to ‘anyone who violated the law will be fired.’ And of course the SPI picks up on that them with the “before lowering the ethical bar” swipe. There wasn’t and has never been a shift in policy on the part of the President regarding this non-issue. But sloppy media reporting leads people to believe otherwise.
The SPI goes on to write:
As a special prosecutor has found, Rove was up to his ears in exposing Valerie Plame Wilson.
Oh? So I guess they are privy to info from the special proesecutor that we are not??
If there was a raspberry award for the media, the SPI would have earned it today.
(Cross-posted at California Conservative)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
23 Responses to “Seattle Post Intelligencer gets Bush claim wrong”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
“There wasn’t and has never been a shift in policy on the part of the President regarding this non-issue. ”
What’s a non-issue? the leak? It looked pretty serious to the people who forwarded it to Fitzgerald. As well as Fitzgerald.
Also, as to the shift, here is Scott McCleland, talking about the president and the leak:
“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.”
h. garner. wrote, “here is Scott McCleland
Here’s what SPI wrote, “Bush promised to fire anyone involved.
I didn’t know that Scott was Bush and Bush was Scott. Now I know. So the SPI is EXONERATED for making fiction fact.
garner, when have Liberals in government adhered to high standards? What is Jim McDermott taking an illegally taped conversation to the NY Times? Is it the filibustering of Judges which is not in the Constitution? Is it demanding a Sexual Harasser Bob Packwood leave the senate while defending a Sexual Harasser Bill Clinton in the White House?
Or is another example h.garner using twisted quotes and specious ethics to demand Rove, if not the entire Administration resign because h.garner’s candidate did not get elected?
Look. While I can see both sides of the story h.garner…. the GOAL POSTS were moved but the law remains the same. Nobody was indicted for breaking the 1982 law. Victoria Toensing doesn’t think it was broken and she was the author.
And meanwhile the left continues on as if they know the President and/or other White House employees motives. The left can’t fathom that a)people were responding to Joe Wilson’s lying accusation b) people are now being punished for responding to Joe Wilson’s lying accusations
This is the pattern of the left… accuse attack and make people a) respond with defensiveness b) ignore the attacker.
We can see h.garner did it in his post. Why? Do you like that pattern h.garner? Does it make you happy? My life long goal is to figure out why people resort to the behavior they do and what can be done about it. Philosophy and psychology are interesting to me. Well. So is economics and history and science.
I’m out.
Actually, there was a softening of the White House’s stand on this issue, and having top WH officials involved in treasonous activity is not a non-issue.
Here’s info from mediamatters.org, not that you’d give them much credit, but you can check the rest of the links yourself if you like:
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the White House’s initial pledge to fire anyone involved in leaking classified information related to Plame’s identity did not hinge upon any determination of illegal activity. During a September 29, 2003, press conference, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the alleged leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.” Bush himself stated on September 30, 2003: “If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.” The quote USA Today used comes from a July 18 press conference in which Bush narrowed his pledge to cover only those administration officials who “committed a crime.”
Elendril: ROTFLMAO – “treasonous activity”? You guys are stretching this so much that it’s beyond pathetic. Your credibility gets ripped to shreds when you use terms like that to describe the actions of those involved in la affaier de Plame. We couldn’t even get John Walker Lindh – a known traitor – for treason. What in the world makes you think we can get Rove and Co. for the same?
Also, to both you and h. garner, last I checked Scott McClellan wasn’t the President.
Elendril,
Just as stated above and elsewhere here, you are taken to twisting the President’s words to suit your twisted purposes.
Why do you and h.garner and the other liberals insist on holding the Bush administration to a higher standard than you yourselves practice?
Show me one Democrat hounded from office for leaking a CIA Officer or a CIA Operation. You can start with Sen. Kerry. There are others, but I’m pointing out your continuing hyper hyporisy.
I’m thinking their should’ve been a prosecutor concerning the 900+ FBI files that Clinton had on people.
And we should’ve labeled that treasonous…
sheesh
Actually WH press secretary said explicitly about firing anyone involved. I guess whatever he sais on morning briefings is just the movement of the air, nobody takes him seriously anyway…
Baklava, not to mention selling the Chinese missle and nuclear weapons secrets for a few campaign donations.
Twisting the president’s words? Man you guys are in denial. Scared that “the Architect” might drop your president’s leash? Or that a sitting VP may have purposefully outed an undercover CIA operative? Why don’t you ask Georgie’s dad what he thinks about naming CIA operatives.
Bush himself stated on September 30, 2003, that he would “take appropriate action” against “anybody in my administration who leaked classified information.”
“If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration,” Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, “I don’t know all the facts; I want to know all the facts.”
And btw, Scotty is the WH press secretary, and as such is a direct spokesperson for the WH and the president. When Scott says something, it is common to report is as “the White House has stated…”
In denial?? GMAB. And don’t even go there with the “scared” stuff. You guys were pitching fits Friday because Rove didn’t get an indictment handed to him – and are scared yourselves once this is all said and done that he … the guy you guys wanted marched out whether in handcuffs or whether it came from a resignation – won’t get indicted at all. Oh, and if this is about “national security” to most people pushing this on the left, then I’m Martha Stewart.
To repeat: Scott McClellan isn’t the President. Your posting GHWB’s comments about this is supposed to mean what exactly …?
Again, Elendril, like a true liberal attacks without acknowledging previous arguments.
What you going to do Elendril when Libby is found not guilty? He’s not indicted for outing Plame, and neither is anyone else, but Joe Wilson should be indicted.
“I didn’t know that Scott was Bush and Bush was Scott.”
The guy is the spokesperson. If there is anyone that can be charged with speaking for administration policy, it is the spokesperson, right?
If people want to tell me that Scottie is not to be believed when he speaks on admin policy, then fine.
“Also, to both you and h. garner, last I checked Scott McClellan wasn’t the President. ”
He’s the spokesperson. Does that mean nothing? Do his words mean nothing? Does he speak on policy?
“Why do you and h.garner and the other liberals insist on holding the Bush administration to a higher standard than you yourselves practice?”
What do you know about my ethics? I don’t know what standard I’m holding bush to. Just pointing that they have changed. If you think thats a bad thing, take it up with bush (or scottie).
h,garner, I’m taking you lack of ethics up with YOU. When you come here and demand John Kerry and Pat Leahy be arrested and frog marched out of the senate for treason, then I’ll believe you are ethical, until then, you are just a partisan hack.
h.garner wrote, “If people want to tell me that Scottie is not to be believed when he speaks on admin policy, then fine.”
Nope. But when the SPI writes they should write that Scott McClellan said as opposed to Bush saying. Would be nice to see the truth. And it would be nice to see the entire answer in context not just an interpretation of his answer as the SPI did.
” When you come here and demand John Kerry and Pat Leahy be arrested and frog marched out of the senate for treason, then I’ll believe you are ethical, until then, you are just a partisan hack.”
Whats treasonous about them? And whats hackery about pointing out the administrations changing standards?
“Nope. But when the SPI writes they should write that Scott McClellan said as opposed to Bush saying.”
It looks like a slip-up. Should just have said ‘the administration’ or ‘the bush administration.’
“And it would be nice to see the entire answer in context not just an interpretation of his answer as the SPI did.”
Its not that much of an interpretation. Scottie said anyone involved.
harmer wrote, “It looks like a slip-up.”
How convenient of a slip up. Notice mine?
Interesting how an indictment of lying to a Grand Jury about where he heard of Plame translates into a threat to national security. The indictment has absolutely nothing to do with the outing of a covert agent, which Plame was not (she was a fricking desk jocky). He couldn’t have outed her even if he wanted to.
There was no crime here outside of possible perjury (and it’s just an indictment, it doesn’t mean he’s guilty yet). There is no threat to national security and no agent was outed. Saying there is demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand. It would be best for the Democrats to let this go and move one (if you’ll forgive the expression). Of course, they’re to busy playing gotcha games to understand that.
I am continually amused by the repitition of the phrase, “outing an undercover operative” when she was in fact neither. She had not been undercover since she married Joe Wilson. She and Joe posed in Vanity Fair BEFORE she was supposedly “outed”
I am tired of this post-”Fitzmas” I-didn’t-get-what-I-wanted tantrum. One person indicted (for lying about a non-existant crime). As yet there is no conviction (at least not one that counts legally).
h.garner.
Kerry committed Treason when he met with the VietCong in Paris and then advocated for them while he was still a commissioned Naval officer and while we were still at war with them.
Pat Leahy got thrown off the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking covert operations (and blowing the covers for the people on those operations).
“How convenient of a slip up. Notice mine?”
Akin to the mixup of “bush” and “bush administration,” to some kind of minds.
“She and Joe posed in Vanity Fair BEFORE she was supposedly “outed”"
Oh boy.
“Kerry committed Treason when he met with the VietCong in Paris and then advocated for them while he was still a commissioned Naval officer and while we were still at war with them.”
Was he advocating for them or for us? Makes a difference. Also hard to say there was material Aid and comfort. But thats just all legalese and ‘technicalities’ like perjury, which we can safely ignore.
“Pat Leahy got thrown off the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking covert operations (and blowing the covers for the people on those operations).”
How awful. Of course we’ve run down how they weren’t on magazine covers, etc…
Maybe someone should out the rest of the CIA, like the stuff that hit the front pages of the Post this morning.
Nice side step, h.garner. We all see how partisan you are, and how you give a pass to fellow traveller leftists.
In case you haven’t figured out what that means, let me tell you. It means your charges will just go into the circular file as another bloody screaming leftie who isn’t in power and will say and do anything to get power, except hold his/her fellow travellers to the same standards as those you criticize.