The Plunging Standards of Ethics
The Plunging Standards of Ethics
Before he took office, President Bush set a high standard for the ethical conduct he expected for officials in his administration. Since his commandment to his staff that he “[expects] every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries (that) define legal and ethical conduct,” those standards have been plunging. The bar that was once set at “don’t come anywhere near violating the law” has now sadly become “don’t get convicted of violating the law.”
Resources for the President’s Team:
“Ethics in Government starts with you, as a leader in your agency…The Government ethics rules are the minimum acceptable standard of conduct. In other words, the rules spell out what is wrong, not what is right. Truly ethical conduct means doing less than the law allows and more than the law requires. Being an ethical leader involves more than acting ethically Your employees will look to you as a role model for public integrity. In addition, as a leader in your agency, you are responsible for the ethical compliance of your employees. Take an active role in promoting the importance of ethical conduct in the Federal workplace. Your commitment to maintaining high ethical standards will help ensure that the employees in your agency exemplify the principle that public service is a public trust If you are faced with a situation in which you believe that the ethics rules are implicated, your first step should be to discuss the matter with one of your agency’s ethics officials.”
President Bush, 2/2/00:
“I will return honor and dignity to the White House. The current President [President Bill Clinton] pledged the most ethical Administration in American history. As it turned out, he fell about 41 Presidents short. The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. He is the leader of the Free World. He is the voice of the American people. I will return the highest standards of honor to the highest office in the land. This is my pledge. And it does not depend on what the meaning of the word is is.”Presidential Memo, 1/20/01:
“Everyone who enters into public service for the United States has a duty to the American people to maintain the highest standards of integrity in Government…Public service is a public trust…Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating applicable law or the ethical standards in applicable regulations.”White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, 4/24/01:
“Any actions will be taken, as the President indicated on day one of this administration, if you will recall, at an event in the East Room, the President talked about the importance of all members of this administration following all ethics laws and all actions they take should be in accordance with those laws.”White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, 6/13/01:
“As a general matter, it’s important for all White House officials to comply fully with all ethics rules.”President Bush, 7/22/01:
“We must remember the high standards that come with high office. This begins careful adherence with the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries (that) define legal and ethical conduct. No one in the White House should be afraid to confront the people they work for over ethical concerns, and no one should hesitate to confront me as well.”White House Chief of Staff Andy Card:
“We have an awful lot to do for this country and the President understands that. He expects everyone who is working on his team, and all of you are on his team, to understand first of all the rules, regulations and the law with regard to ethics. But even beyond that, recognize that working on this administration means that you should have the courage to follow the rules, obviously, and stay within the law, obviously. But it’s actually to do more than that. Recognize that you do have a moral compass that tells you what to do and to do the right thing, and we’d like to see everyone do the right thing.”White House Press Secretary, 6/10/03:
“I think to the President what [the corporate accounting scandal] indicates is a need to have a society of laws where the laws are vigorously enforced, no matter who violates them; and to have ethics that are followed at home and in the workplace and corporate boards. That’s how the President approaches it.”White House Press Secretary, 9/29/03:
“Because I made it very clear then what I’m making clear now, that there was no information that has come to our attention to suggest any White House involvement [in the leak]. So that’s where things stood. But I made it very clear that that is not the way this White House operates, that the President expects people to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics — and that he has made that very clear from day one of this administration.”White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 10/7/03:
“And the President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct.”Press Conference, 6/10/04:
Q Given — given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name?
THE PRESIDENT: That’s up to –
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.President Bush, 7/18/05:
“I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.“
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Does this mean he’s a (gasp) Flip Flopper?!?!?
July 19th, 2005 at 4:08 pmWell that too, but it means he’s a weak leader.
Something we’ve known all along.
votetoimpeach.org
July 19th, 2005 at 4:10 pmI am thinking it means that Bush like most politicians pays lip service to the idea of ethics. Bush is certianly not the only ethically challenged president.
July 19th, 2005 at 4:24 pmYou didn’t need a crystal ball to see this future in the Bush campaign of 2000.
July 19th, 2005 at 4:27 pmI think on a realistic basis the chance of impeachment is pretty slim. Bush would have to gun someone down at a rally in front of TV cameras get the republicans to impeach him.
July 19th, 2005 at 4:38 pmSelf-defense?
July 19th, 2005 at 4:39 pm#5: well, i guess, that would clearly count as a crime.
July 19th, 2005 at 4:40 pm“those standards have been plunging” OK. How? The investigation is still going on. If Plame’s identity was not classified, still an open question, then no one did anything unethical.
You guys declaring the results of the investigation before the investigation is complete is like declaring victory at half-time.
I’d expect as much over at DailyKos, and from a drunk on a bar stool, but I thought this website might attract a higher level of dicussion.
July 19th, 2005 at 4:55 pmAnd sadly, Rove et al may just get away with this. When Ken Mehlman can go on Meet the Press, right after Matt Cooper, and simply assert the direct opposite of the known facts, without getting hammered by Russert, what’s to stop them?
related: http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com
July 19th, 2005 at 4:56 pmSept. 2003: Bush says, “[I]f 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. . . . If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”
Sounds like he is being pretty consistent to me with his first statements on this matter.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:01 pmYou guys declaring the results of the investigation before the investigation is complete is like declaring victory at half-time.
don’t disallusion Krazny.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:03 pmNothing will change if you continue to give in.
I guess myself and a few million others have great confidence in the action that we take to “save America”.
BushCo relies on those who have no confidence.
When you allow the same ol, you get the same ol.
votetoimpeach.org
July 19th, 2005 at 5:04 pmMJ,
It’s an ethical perspective, regardless of legal loopholes. can you honestly say nothing unethical, or malicious has been enacted by Karl Rove, “Scooter”, and Novak in taking a cheap shot at Mr. and Mrs. Wilson?
Sorry, but what they did to the Wilsons is FACT. HOW they did it, to what extent did they go, and Who all were taking part in it is what is being investigated.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:08 pmpart of why this story is reverberating is this type semantic argument is what really got a lot folks hot about Clinton. Bush in his campaign said he would return honor and respect to the white house. now they are arguing over wether Rove actually said Plames name or just said Wilson’s wife.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:11 pmSkid,
If her identity isn’t classified, and she WAS at least partially responsible for Wilson being selected for the trip, which is all that we know of that Rove said, where is the foul?
July 19th, 2005 at 5:12 pmThe bottom line is MJ that Wilson refused to lie about WMD’s and BushCo retaliated.
That is grounds for impeachment and a whole lotta other charges.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:15 pm#8 MJ
I hope it isn’t like declaring “Mission Accomplished” and then saying it won’t be over for 14 more (2 plus Rummy’s 12) years.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:19 pmEthics, Skid? How about Mr. Wilson’s ethics?
A democratic hack gets his CIA operative wife to get CIA brass to send him to Nigeria where he does a half-ass job investigating Iraq and yellowcake — solely for the purpose of discrediting intelligence that indicated that Saddam has tried to get yellowcake.
He actually finds some evidence that Iraq did in fact inquire about obtaining yellowcake, then misrepresents that in an article in the NYT. And why didn’t he take his report to the White House first? Maybe because he wanted to try to smear the Bush administration?
Don’t give me this crap about the innocent Mr. Wilson. He’s as ethically challenged as anyone in this thing.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:20 pmSusan, no, the bottom line is that Wilson was trying to discredit the administration and the evidence they had about Iraq trying to get yellowcake. This evidence has since been corroborated by British intelligence and others. Wilson is no hero in this.
Nobody is going to get impeached. I’ll be surprised if anyone gets fired.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:26 pmUmm Wilson was first employed by the Reagan administration or so I was led to believe. As far as Iraq buying yellow cake from Nigeria I belive it was revealed that the documents in question were forgeries. Also why did Bush change the text of his state of the union address if Wilson was wrong?
July 19th, 2005 at 5:29 pmLast I checked, Mrs. Plame WAS classified, thus being the reason the CIA called for an investigation. If you can show me otherwise, and not from a baseless repub talking head, please let me know.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:31 pmAs for the foul, Rove and McClellan both stated that they had nothing to do with it when in fact Rove did have much to do with the outing of Mrs. Wilson’s ID. It’s a lie period. Smells pretty foul to me. Were you upset with Clinton’s lie? I was.
Thats where you are wrong MJ. Wilson’s facts were part of the “intelligence fixing”..
Remember the DSM? Hmmmm….”the intelligence was being fixed around the Iraq policy”..
Two very credible sources/documents that will prove Bushie to be a criminal.
Show us the facts that state otherwise. And if I were you,
I’d fax your evidence to Patrick Fitzgerald because he is the one who will decide who’s going to jail.
Get to work and save your hero with your documents. Nobody else is producing any.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:34 pmCC,
I would like to see your source to the claims of disengenous action and information on the part of Mr. Wilson, let alone his wife. Not from the choir on the right either.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:38 pmWilson has lied throughout this affair from who got him the mission to what he found out. The Iraqis did try to purchase yellowcake from Niger. His wife was responsible for him getting the mission. His Op-Ed piece was a masterpiece of distortion. He has been thoroughly discredited by the bi-partisianship Senate Intelligence Report. His wife was not a covert agent per the law. It appears likely that even her neighbors knew who she worked for. Her CIA connection was revealed first in Moscow and then in Cuba. The Cuban revelation was the CIA’s fault as they sent an unsealed package which the Cuban security forces read.
July 19th, 2005 at 5:50 pmAnd, supposedly Rove heard about her from another reporter.
Bush’s stance on firing for an illegal act has not waivered. Hopefully, all the spin from the MSM and Krazny types will only serve to inspire Rove to participate in the 2008 elections and deal the Democrats another blow.
Paladin do you have anything to back up all these assertions you have just made?
July 19th, 2005 at 5:54 pmYes, enlighten “us” with your sourcing of such information, paladin.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:12 pmPaladin-
Sorry, but this isn’t about Joe Wilson. It is about the people in the Bush White House that blew his wife’s cover.
Your rant is irrelevant, and only proves how desperate you conservatives are. Keep grasping at straws, if you must.
July 19th, 2005 at 6:24 pmCheck it out bushies.
I don’t know how to link in a post, but
you should be able to make use of this.
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 7:16 pmHow can you blow a cover which has been blown twice already? How can an agent be covered by a law which requires her to be based overseas during the past 5 years when by her own admission she has been based in the US for the past 6 years?
My prior post was a rant? John you obviously don’t know the meaning of the word.
No, it isn’t about a lying scumbag like Joe Wilson. It is about a President saying in Sept 2003 that he would fire anyone who did anything illegal in connection with this case. A reporter asked him in 2004 if he would stand by his pledge and he said yes. He then said he would fire anyone who committed a crime and the Bush Haters go, “AHA. He is lowering his ethics standards. He’s raising the bar.”
Yeah, right. Perhaps a better response to this line of reasoning is “WTF?”
It is clear to anyone who doesn’t have a partisan agenda that no one will be indicted under the statute with which this case was opened. I, personally think he is investigating other crimes connected with this affair. Whether anyone is ever indicted I do not know. But, if they are, and they are a White House staffer, I am sure they will be relieved of duty.
But, you can carry on your fantasies about this bringing down the President and Karl Rove if it helps you sleep at night.
Good night, have to go see if Roberts is really a conservative. Ha Ha.
July 19th, 2005 at 11:31 pmPaladin,
You are right about that Bush quote. But Scott McClellan–whose job it is to speak for the administration–went much further and declared that anybody who leaked classified information would no longer be in the administration. Other quotes actually from Bush say that he considers leaking (not just violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982) to be a serious offense. See the “Once upon a time at the White House…” post: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/19/once-upon-a-time-at-the-white-house/.
Also, I think you really needn’t be proud of Bush’s “unwavering” stand against criminals in the White House. Criminals have a hard time keeping their jobs at hot dog stands. If you have a friend or relative who has ever, no matter how long ago, done something stupid and gotten in trouble, you know what I mean.
As for Joe Wilson being a partisan, his public life started by working for Republicans. He was hired by none less than St. Ronald Reagan. He was deputy chief of mission in Baghdad before Desert Storm. He voted for W in 2000. Talk about undercover! He must have been planning his bitter smear campaign against Karl Rove since the ’80s!
July 20th, 2005 at 7:09 am“Have gun will travel read the card of a man. A man without armour in a savage land”.
Hey Paladin, you posting from Iraq?
Yeah, right, chickenhawk!
July 20th, 2005 at 12:17 pm