Once Upon a Time at the White House…
Once Upon a Time at the White House…
Crooks and Liars points out that there was a time when President Bush abhorred leaks. How adamant was the Bush administration about keeping classified information classified?
President Bush, 10/9/01:
Q Mr. President, when you meet with the congressional leadership tomorrow, will you be specific about what they can and cannot relay back up to the Hill? Or, do you just expect them not to relay anything?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m going to talk to the leaders about this. I have talked to them about it. I mean, when the classified information first seeped into the public, I called him on the phone and said, this can’t stand. We can’t have leaks of classified information. It’s not in our nation’s interest. But we’re now in extraordinary times. And I was in the — when those leaks occurred, by the way, it was right before we committed troops. And I knew full well what was about to happen. And yet, I see in the media that somebody, or somebodies, feel that they should be able to talk about classified information. And that’s just wrong. The leadership understands that…But I want Congress to hear loud and clear, it is unacceptable behavior to leak classified information when we have troops at risk. I’m looking forward to reiterating that message…But one thing is for certain, I have made clear what I expect from Capitol Hill when it comes to classified information.
Press Briefing, 10/10/01:
Q Yesterday, the President made clear his point about leaks. He’s had breakfast today with congressional leaders. Is the President willing to go from eight to a higher number of congressmen and senators getting the information? And, if so, when would this occur?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, let me try to bring you up to speed on where we are. That issue did come up in the meeting with the four congressional leaders. And I think it’s fair to say, message received. There’s no doubt about it that the importance of keeping classified information classified has been stressed, and the President hopes that it will be closely, exactly adhered to.
[snip]
It’s important that members of Congress have information that they need to do their proper oversight activities; while at the same time, the President will continue to remind members of Congress about the importance of keeping classified information classified.
[snip]
Q When the members emerged, their perception was that the administration was going to be much more careful in what information it shared; that if it was classified or sensitive, they would share that information if it was past-tense information, what happened earlier today or yesterday. And the President made clear he would be much more reluctant because he doesn’t trust them to share “this is what’s going to happen tomorrow” information. Is that fair?
MR. FLEISCHER: I can’t speak about past tense; I haven’t heard that. But I can suggest to you that secrets will be kept secret. And the President knows that he will work with the Congress so that objective can be achieved. And he was satisfied with the meeting this morning; the leaders were satisfied with the meeting this morning. So I think it’s fair to say that from the members’ point of view, and the President’s, this issue has been addressed. And I hope there is a new sense of awareness throughout the government about the importance of keeping information classified.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
As expected, President Bush flip-flopped on his standards for acceptable behavior by White House staff. Turns out for he was for firing leakers before he was against it.
His cowardly turnabout when it comes to saving Karl Rove may qualify for:
“The Bush Top 10 Flip Flip List”
July 19th, 2005 at 6:30 pmwasn’t it an [R] senator or congressman who leaked the fact that bin Laden used a satellite phone that we could track, thereby prompting UBL to quit using the phone immediately?
July 19th, 2005 at 7:04 pmI suppose it all depends on how you define ‘leak’. Or rather, how the idiot cowboy decides to define it today.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:09 pmLeaking classified information and confirming information is totally different. Where does Bush say he will people who confirm information?
Secondly, why isn’t the attention on the people who leaked it to the public. Do you think all private conversations in confidentiality unclassified?
What about the right to privacy that progress offers?
July 19th, 2005 at 7:13 pmHey Bush supporters, check this out.
Your Pig is on his way out.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_LEAK_INVESTIGATION?SITE=SCGRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-07-19-18-47-31
July 19th, 2005 at 7:22 pmI’m new to this site but really like it. That said, and my admission to being a liberal, I cannot help remind readers that this Plame thing is a tempest in a teacup. Yep, laws were broken. Yep, the administration did it for nothing more than a bit of personal vengence but it’s going nowhere.
First, without republicans howling for blood to promp their congressman to howl for blood there will be no action. 1700+ Americans have died in Iraq fighting a war without a basis with little more than an occasional hoot from the right (shouted down hoots, by the way), why would any of us expect one agent’s blown identity to mean anything to them?
Second, big well-timed announcement tonight that will occupy the press for weeks. Plame will now become a back page issue and just as this issue and story has been largely ignored for two years, it will be ignored again.
It’s sad but prepare to move on. Either that or learn to live with yet another whopper of a let-down. Three and a half to go…three and a half to go.
July 19th, 2005 at 7:40 pmDear “jnlhnc”,
You either support the Bush administration or are of a piss poor resilience. Take your “sky is falling” schtick elsewhere.
For the rest of you, try emailing GOP leaders who have supported Rove. Let them know the attempted diversion will fail.
Rep. King, Peter (R-NY-3rd)
July 19th, 2005 at 7:57 pmSen. Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX)
Sen. Cornyn, John (R-TX)
Sen. Coleman, Norm (R-MN
Rep. Blunt, Roy (R-MO-7th
Sen. Graham, Lindsey (R-SC)
jnlhnc,
Sorry you feel that way, but I’ll let Fitz make that case, thank you. Until then, I’m going with the factual information that is already available, however loud the right-wing discrediting spin attempt gets.
July 19th, 2005 at 8:09 pmSpoken by a paranoid, irrational thinker. You’re the real deal, skid-mark.
1.Seemingly irrationally seizes onto something and won’t let go.
2.Grabs onto a few pieces of evidence and defends them inflexibly.
3.Will not face evidence that destroys his theory.
4.Often seizes single pieces of evidence and blows them out of proportion.
5.Sticks to preconceived notion regardless of new evidence.
6.Insists on fitting everything into his explanation, often by explaining difficult items as further evidence of conspiracy.
July 19th, 2005 at 8:35 pmYou love it Steed.
July 19th, 2005 at 9:26 pmWhat’s it like to crash a good party, lean against the wall like loser, pick you nose and cut-up the cool kids Stewed?
July 19th, 2005 at 9:53 pmWish I had a power name like Steed or Rush.
How will they dance to this?
http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=10016
July 19th, 2005 at 10:27 pmAll radcons must be liquidated.
July 20th, 2005 at 6:05 amThe sad truth is these guys may just get away with this unless somebody calls them on it. It was amazing to see Ken Mehlman on Meet the Press directly contradict Matt Cooper’s simple, declarative statement that he first learned Plame’s identity from Rove. And Russert just let it slide. Stunning…
related commentary: http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com
July 20th, 2005 at 8:39 amSteed,
Nice Ad Hominem attack and attempt to change the subject again.
I’ve noticed that you seem to do that a lot. In fact you seem to fit point 1 very well…
Seized onto the “fact” that liberals are irrational and won’t let it go.
Point 2 is just a more explicit version of point 1. Continually repeats the accusation that liberals are irrational even when that is not the subject of the discussion and ignores rational comments that would go against this argument.
Point 3 is a subset of point 2. Part of inflexible defense is ignoring the contradictory statements. Of course as this is a rational argument as to why you are wrong this will be ignored. Answering it with another ad hominem attack is still ignoring the contradictions.
Point 4 is basically another subset of point 2. You take a single comment by a single person and then claim that it is proof that all liberals are irrational paranoids.
Point 5 is the same as most of the above… Sticking to the same belief despite contradictory evidence…
Point 6 is a really just another restating of some of your previous points. Anything that can’t be ignored can be dealt with by calling the “liberal” part of the vast liberal conspiracy and claiming that they are irrational and listing vague points that are irrelevant to the actual discussion.
So, your six points come down to:-
Irrational people will ignore evidence, talk about irrelevant things and refuse to change their minds.
It seems that being clear and concise goes against point six…
So, can you PLEASE stop posting this drivel and either argue about what is being said, or be quiet. Ad Hominem attacks are not part of any rational argument and that seems to be your speciality.
Z.
July 20th, 2005 at 11:32 amHey Steed, I concede, Rove is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
As is Saddam Hussein and all of the detainees being tortured at Gitmo and Abu Graib.
Fair enough?
July 20th, 2005 at 11:53 amEquating Rove to terrorists. Very good, Susan.
BTW, I love you, too, Skidmark. You’re my favorite “progressive” here, no kidding.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:30 pmSteed…
Susan compared an unconvicted man who is suspected of various acts ranging from perjury to treason and who IS the subject of an investigation to an unconvincted man who is suspected of various acts ranging from human rights abuses to aiding terrorists and who IS currently on trial and several unconvicted men who are suspected of various acts from being “enemy combatants” to terrorism and who aren’t even being tried under any normal court system.
Well as we all believe in Innocent until proven guilty that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Or don’t you believe that these people might be innocent as they have not been found guilty by a court yet?
How about the detainees that have been released after it was discovered that they were totally innocent of anything and were kidnapped? Are they More or Less guilty than Rove?
In case you think I’m making that last one up…
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70A14F63F550C708EDDAD0894DD404482
The abstract details enough for you to get the gist.
Z.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:42 pmZwack,
I’m here because so I can see what information you all consider to form opinions and conclusions. I make fun of some of you, but I also consider anything offered that appears credible. I get called names for posting information the contradicts or refutes premises posted here all of the time. You haven’t noticed? If someone is being irrational I’m going to point it out.
If you haven’t noticed, Susan has already convicted Rove as has many other people here. If you believe innocent until proven guilty I suggest you lecture them.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:02 pmHey Steed, please show me court documents that show Hussein has been convicted of being a terrorist.
You are a freak and you prove it every single time you post here.
July 20th, 2005 at 1:05 pmI think for all practical purposes, unless there is solid evidence that Plame was not classified info, Rove will be viewed as guilty in the eyes of most people. At the very least, unwittingly guilty.
Let’s not forget, OJ was found not guilty.
July 20th, 2005 at 2:08 pmSusan,
Several UN resolutions address Saddam and his government’s acts, methods and practices of terrorism. The evidence is well documented (i.e. rape, torture, taking of hostages, mass graves, murder for hire, harboring and supporting terrorists and their activities). If you’re not aware of this I would gladly direct you to specific and credible resources, but you can start with the UN resolutions, maybe 687 and 688.
What did Zwack say about name calling?
July 20th, 2005 at 2:19 pmSteed,
I don’t think I said anything about name calling per se… although I did condemn ad hominem arguments (attacking the person not the argument) and name calling can definitely fall into that.
Yes, a civilised discourse is definitely better in my opinion. Name calling is not productive.
Z.
July 20th, 2005 at 3:03 pmRip on the Dems and Libs all you want, as you imbibe the nectar of the Turd Blossom, but remember, Patrick Fitzgerald is the one poised to take down Karl Rove (at the very least).
Placin’ bets in Vegas! What’s your wager, Steed?
July 20th, 2005 at 8:31 pmI’m still waiting for court documentation Steed. You know, the judges ruling. Produce it or shut up.
July 20th, 2005 at 9:26 pmHi! How at you with weather? At us absolutely of gloom = (
January 5th, 2006 at 6:11 am