Bush: Rove and Palmeiro Have My Complete Confidence
Filed Under: Ethics
By on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 10:32 am
Bush: Rove and Palmeiro Have My Complete Confidence
Bush promised to fire anyone involved in the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity. After we learned Karl Rove leaker Plame’s identity to Matt Cooper and was one of Robert Novak’s two sources, Bush said “Karl has got my complete confidence.”
The lesson: if you are a friend of George W. Bush you can do no wrong.
Case in point. Rafael Palmeiro tested positive for steroids and was suspended by Major League Baseball. Here is what the President had to say:
Well, Rafael Palmeiro is a friend…He’s the kind of person that’s going to stand up in front of the klieg lights and say he didn’t use steroids, and I believe him. Still do.
At this point, even if Karl Rove is indicted, I wouldn’t count on Bush firing him.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
88 Responses to “Bush: Rove and Palmeiro Have My Complete Confidence”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Site
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Dobbs
Drudge
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Do we expect anything different from Bush?
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:01 amRove will not be indicted of any wrong doing. The rest of the country has moved on, why can’t you?
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:06 ambecause the investigation has not moved on, nor has as much of the country as you would like moved on.
thank you for playing please try again.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:10 amInteresting rover - when clinton was in office, he had a 61% approval rating at the same time the republicans in washington were trying to lynch him about sex.
Were you telling republicans that the rest of the country had moved on and they should to back then? Or were you screaming up and down that the president had committed some horrible deed in the white house and needed to pay?
It’s funny how sex is something republicans can’t ever seem to let go of, but lying about a war, committing felony crimes and undermining the national security of a nation doesn’t seem to phase them at all.
There is one thing I’ve learned through this process - I’ve learned of the absolute utter, hypocrisy of conservatives. When allegations of clinton misdeeds suface, I expected them to be fully investigated. I didn’t vote for clinton in a second term. I was critical of some of his actions. I hold the current president to the same standard of accountability. Why? Becuase I’m a liberal and we actually do things like that.
Conservatives on the other hand have shown me that they don’t give a damn about integrity, honesty or morality. They only care that their side “wins” and the other side “loses” and as long as the person in the white house has a big fat (R) after his name, they aren’t going to do anything but blindly follow. Even then it makes their bull crap hypocrisy about “ethics” and “integrity” and “honor” a pile of crap.
I remember when Bush was elected all the republicans kept going on and on about how it was going to bring integrity back to the white house. Now those same people ask us why we’re still paying attention to a story of criminal action, major cover up, perjury and lying to the american pulbic. What a joke you have become.
Congratulations neo-cons. Enjoy your 39% approval rating while it lasts — its been going down steadily so god knows where it will bottom out.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:18 amIt all depends on what the definition of “evidence” is, you idiot dhimmicrats. It all depends on what the definition of “guilty” is, you ignorant, commie loving, islamofascist ass-kissing, ignorant, dhimmicrat liberals.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:23 amSelwynn,
The only thing that Clinton ever cared about while he was in office was his approval rating. Because of it, he made some poor decisions based on how his polls were trending. The one thing you can say about Bush is that he is decisive and sticks to his principles. He said he was going to go after the terrorists and take the fight to them and that is why we are fighting in Iraq. We know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It just pisses me off that Liberals bring that up. There is no question that left in power, Sadam would have tried to attack the U.S. in some form. Lets review his track record - started a war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, didn’t comply with any of the U.N. resolutions set before him and tortured and oppressed his own people. If Clinton had gone after the terrorists responsible for the first WTC bombing with same furor he went after women, how different would things have been? So what good are polls during your second presidential term anyway? It didn’t seem to benefit Gore that much.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:31 amYeah, and I wouldn’t count on Scott McClellan answering questions even if Rove is indicted and the investigation is complete. Does anyone actually believe Scotty is actually looking forward to asking questions about this when the investigation is complete?
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:31 amFrom a tactical standpoint, I think it behooves Dubbya to surround himself with advisors who make his own neanderthal criminality seem almost benign in comparison.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:33 amAh, the ugly truth behind Repug words:
Love == Hate
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:34 amPeace == War
Iraq == Oil
House of Saud == Close Family Friends
Firing == Confidence
Being a friend of Bush is equivalent of a “Get Out of Jail Free” card. He declares Palmeiro and Rove as having his confidence, so that’s it - end of report. The king has spoken.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:36 amFake, you know better than that. You communicate better than that, also. Not all Dems are idiots, not all GOP are rapture freaks.
As for Bush? He probably also thinks Kenny Rogers was entitled to pummel the photographers.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:36 am“The one thing you can say about Bush is that he is decisive and sticks to his principles.”
Yes, and the ship captain who sticks with his principles goes down with the ship. There’s a difference between being true to your core and stupidity and flat out denial.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:38 am“Bush promised to fire anyone involved in the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity.”
No, Bush promised to fire anyone found to have broken the law.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:41 amPalmeiro is a one trick pony. 90% of his homers are to right field. He got the “Palmeiro shift” in Texas which eliminated his ability to advance runners.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:42 amThen the liar left because of afew $. Fu*k Him.
I’m Jeff Gannon and my manhood is as rock solid as my reportage. It is tremendous, and larger than any liberal, girly man’s reportage.
http://www.salon.com/ politics/ war_room/ index.html?blog=/ politics/ war_room/ 2005/ 08/ 02/ gannon/ index.html
Jeff Gannon strikes back
Well, all we can say is, we’re honored. War Room gets cited in all sorts of tony neighborhoods, but today might be a first — a shout-out from our old friend Jeff Gannon.
As we noted earlier today, Robert Parry has taken apart Bob Novak’s new smear of Joseph Wilson — and he found Gannon lurking inside. Novak says that even John Kerry’s campaign was so unhappy with Joseph Wilson’s mendacity that it “discarded” him a year ago. Parry traces that tale back to a report Gannon filed for the now-MIA Talon News back in July 2004. In that piece, our intrepid reporter noticed that the Kerry campaign’s Web site no longer featured references to Wilson and concluded for himself — with, it appears, no reporting at all — that it was “likely” that the campaign had decided to “quietly break official contact with someone who proved to be a loose cannon.”
Responding to our post earlier today, Gannon says his story about Kerry and Wilson was “rock solid” and that “Wilson was dumped — hard.” Not so, says Peter Daou, who ran Kerry’s Web site and says the Wilson references were deleted as part of a larger redesign. And not so, says David Wade, who was Kerry’s campaign spokesman. Wade told us earlier today that Wilson drew standing-room-only crowds as a surrogate for Kerry, and that the claim that he was somehow “discarded” by the campaign is “a classic Novakian regurgitation of only-on-Newsmax misinformation.”
And indeed, a little Google searching of our own suggests that Wade is right: In October 2004, just weeks before the election, it appears that Wilson was still on the road for the Democratic nominee, headlining a fundraiser for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Arizona.
That doesn’t sound like the work of someone who was “dumped — hard,” Jeff. But as for the “rock solid” part — well, we suppose you’re the expert on that.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:44 amHere to argue semantics, Editor? You got nothing better to do than argue semantics with liberals? Why don’t you and rover go have your circle jerk elsewhere.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:45 amRover, How can you even begin to think that the country should move on past the Rove/Plame case because it’s not going to produce an indictment?
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:45 amShould we just move past all crime and criminals if it appears, in advance, that the air tight case can’t be made? Conservatives would love to have us all look past this and get on to something else; but this is a matter of serious consequences to the nation. An agent working covertly on WMD, her front company, her contacts have all been blown. There is an investigation of leaked intelligence information, a possibly traitorous act, and we must stay with it no matter the glacial pace. The root of this possible treasonous act is even worse — the rationale for waging war on a sovreign country under false pretenses. Think again about what you would “get over” - forget the politics of it — this is damn serious. The regret is that it took the somnolent press all this time to realize its depth — some of us realized it two years ago and we will not sit back and watch in silence.
Bush isn’t living in our world. If you want a laugh, watch the replay of yesterday’s Daily Show.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:45 amFBA, you have nothing to add to any of these topics except that you spew hate and ignorance. You merely repeat the Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Coulter Hannity, venomous opinions that have no reality. If you can’t contribute something factual, keep quiet.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:49 amIndeed, Bush is not living in our world. He is so arrogant as to feel free to flip off the press, the US, democracy, and liberty.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/08/322477.shtml
And people find it in their minds and hearts to support this guy? They all must have a collective IQ of around 80.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:51 amSelwyn, something you said made me think about something I recall from psychology class long ago. “It’s funny how sex is something republicans can’t ever seem to let go…”
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:54 amThe things that extremists can’t let go of and continue to relate to every subject is something they have repressed within themselves.
Republicans are, indeed, obsessed with sexual behavior in individuals as well as in society as a whole. Sex education, women’s rights, homosexuality, etc., yet we have often seen that the politicians and speakers with the loudest voices are guilty of the offense themselves. I am thinking of a half dozen just off the top — I don’t need to make a list to make my point.
Here to argue semantics, Editor? You got nothing better to do than argue semantics with liberals? Why don’t you and rover go have your circle jerk elsewhere.
Further proof that all you progressives are really anti-semantic and supporters of terrorism, Brian.
August 3rd, 2005 at 12:20 pmHitler had his Grandfather Prescott Bushs’ complete confidence also.
August 3rd, 2005 at 12:22 pmSo now he’s gone to his ranch with a big smile on his face. I doubt the families of the 29 Marines just killed in Iraq are smiling.And on it goes.
August 3rd, 2005 at 12:50 pmrover,
Decisive? Are you stupid? He’s stubborn - not decisive. Bush has flip flopped more time on more issues than clinton ever did - but he only does it by pretending he always believed that way. He was against the idea of the patriot act - he was for the patriot act. He was against the idea of any medicare reform - he was for medicare reform.
Bush isn’t decisive - that’s a propaganda spin marketing logo attached to him, like ’smoking makes you healthy’. Just because you believe it, and it’s ‘marketed’, doesn’t make it so… And the areas he’s stubborn on like Iraq - it’s just because he’s too stupid to realize what a dope he was for doing this in the first place, and his big fat ego can’t be put aside long enough to do what’s right for the american people - something I’m sure you must personally relate to.
August 3rd, 2005 at 12:51 pmBy his own words, Dubya said it would be easier if this nation were a dictatorship with him as the dictator. Thanks to Diebold and other manipulations, he is pretty much getting his desire.
For these reasons, he can have confidence in who-e-v-e-r he wants….
Sieg Heil.
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:04 pmBush trusts these guys because he knows they will lie, cheat and commit treason at the snap of his fingers. The same way hitler trusted Goebels implicitly - bush trusts rove, and it’s the same reason the american people shouldn’t trust either!
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:05 pmBush decisive? He’s got that earpiece permanently jammed in his ear and he’s reciting his handlers calculated propaganda word for word.
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:09 pmDid you know that a parrot discovered the Theory of Relativity.
It is very telling that Repugs rabidly support acts of treason but loath acts of love. Rove vs Clinton.
Give me Monica and a little blue dress any day of the week over the public disclosure of a CIA NOC and the killing of CIA agents around the world.
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:24 pmEditor,
“For months, Mr. Bush’s spokesmen have said that anyone involved in the disclosure of the C.I.A. officer’s identity would be dismissed. Today’s developments come amid mounting evidence that, at the very least, Mr. Rove provided backhanded confirmation of the C.I.A. officer’s identity.” -NYT
Then on July 18, 2005:
“If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration. I don’t know all the facts; I want to know all the facts.” - NYT
A lil research goes a long way. Shifting standards aren’t much to stand on.
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:26 pmRove must resign! He is doing damage to Dear Leader!
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:55 pmTechnically, he promised to fire anyone who committed a crime. In 2003, the following exchange took place:
Q Do you think that the Justice Department can conduct an impartial investigation, considering the political ramifications of the CIA leak, and why wouldn’t a special counsel be better?
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.
So, his refusal to fire Rove could be construed in a number of ways which are not necessarily a sign that he has broken his pledge. He may believe that while Rove was the source of the leak, he did not technically commit a crime, or he may be waiting to hear from the special prosecutor.
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:55 pmRepugs are wishing that all of this will go away. But in reality it’s all coming together…
(1) Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein just sent a letter to Sen. Pat Roberts asking where the hell is “Phase II” (how the administration handled pre-war intel). She especially highlighted Curveball and the Downing Street Memo.
(2) Secrecy News publishes the DOJ Media Leak Questionnaire , whose answers would have promted the Fitzgerald investigation. Further proof that the investigation wouldn’t be happening unless there was a leak of classified information.
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:56 pmI’m tired of all this. Its hard work looking out for Rove, DeLay and Rummy. I think I’ll take a five week vacation down in Crawford and cut some brush for some photo ops. Gdubya
August 3rd, 2005 at 2:01 pmBush is nothing if not consistent.
No amount of evidence to the contrary will shake him from his support of Snake Oil salesman Karl Rove and Viagra salesman Rafael Palmeiro.
August 3rd, 2005 at 2:20 pmOverheard in the White House: Hey, us mob guys gotta stick togedder — got dat? Youse know what we all been tru togedder — nine eleven, eerak an’ stuff — so keeps yo nose clean an yor mout shut an’ ile look out fer youse. Youse ken count on dat.
August 3rd, 2005 at 2:43 pmRover,
Fabulous attempt to change the subject. But I’m not biting. I’m not interesting in arguing with you about Iraq or the political philosophy of this adminstration. All I’m interested in is knowing where you were when Clinton was in office.
Were you telling republicans that the rest of the country had moved on and they should to back then? Or were you screaming up and down that the president had committed some horrible deed in the white house and needed to pay?
Once again you can bash Clinton all you want, and it bounces off of me because I’m not a clinton supporter. I demanded accountability from Clinton when he was in office, and I demand accountability from this president and administration as well. Why? Becuase I actually care about principles and values. You’re side on the other hand has shown me that their hypocrisy knows no boundaries. You don’t care about “values” or “principles.” You care about “winning.” If a guy has an (R) behind their name, you’ll blindly defend them no matter what they do and no matter how hyporcitical it is.
I on the other hand, care about holding both (D) and (R) accountable. I’ll tell you one thing though. I’ll never be able to listen to another neo-conservative lecture me about “values” and “integrity” without laughing out loud. You guys are obiviously full of crap. Had you demanded accountability from even people in your own party, you would have seriously earned some respect from me.
Back in the Clinton era, plently of democrats had the courage to demand accountability from their own leader - both inside and outside of washington. The Republicans on the other hand, walk in total blind lockstep behind their leader no matter what things come to light about him or the people under him. That ought to be utterly embarassing to you.
So I’m not here to talk to you about Iraq. You don’t get to change the subject. The subject is that you can’t go off about Clinton about be right out there during those years crying and screaming about “integrity” and “accountability” and all that, then come back now and say “why won’t you liberals just let it go?” Such a disgrace.
Thankfully, I live and work with an awful lot of republican friends (I live in Idaho) who have a lot more integrity than YOU apparently have. They continue to believe in conservative ideology, but they are ashamed of the behavior of their president and adiminstration and think he and all those under him ought to be held accountable. I applaud and respect their consistency and honesty. If a few more republicans were like that, this country would be a much better place.
August 3rd, 2005 at 3:28 pmKing George has no ethical integrity, so why are we surprised that he has complete confidence in all cheats, liars, thugs, et.al?
August 3rd, 2005 at 3:59 pmSelwynn - From the link I posted above, Bush has said that he’ll fire anyone found to have committed a crime. Everyone appears to be cooperating with the special prosecutor. It sounds like, if you’ll just wait it out, Bush will fire the individual(s) responsible for any criminal leaks. I don’t see why you’re already rushing to judgment on Bush for not doing the very thing he promised to do, when he has always maintained he’ll fire the one who found to have broken the law.
August 3rd, 2005 at 4:34 pm#38–
Bush made another “promise” that he didn’t keep. Before manipulating his answer to the leak he said that anyone involved would be fired. Rove was obviously involved. Now he changed the rules in midstream, kinda like the Tom Delay changing the ethics rules deal, so that NOW Rove and etc. have to be convicted criminals to get fired.
Wonder how he’ll manipulate his “promises” further if anyone is convicted of a crime? Just wait and see; his spin doctors will come up with something to pipe into that ear piece of his!
August 3rd, 2005 at 4:45 pm38,
Actually Bush promised to fire anyone involved until it became publically known and ‘proven’ that Rove was involved - then he flip flopped and said ‘anyone convicted’ of a crime. That’s a big difference, as it would require them go through trials, appeals and any other number of steps that would ‘run out the clock’ on the administration - at which point he’d just pardon them.
And I agree that the investigation is moving forward, although apparently there isn’t full cooperation as several points of testimony have been contradicted by emails, notes and witnesses that all show perjury. So your ‘assertion’ that there’s full cooperation is less than honest.
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:51 pmYou’re a bunch of liars. Bush did not promise to fire anyone who was “involved”.
“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.”
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:20 pmUniversity of Chicago, Sept 30, 2003.
Bush said in June 2004 that he “would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame.”
Steed, don’t be such a jackass. Your quote doesn’t do away with what he said in June. His quote was ’show to have leaked’ - yet in the spin zone of the CONservative lie machine - I doubt you’d know that.
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:24 pmQ 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. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:26 pmNote the quote is ‘fire anyone found to have leaked the name’. No qualifications, no spin.
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:27 pmWho leaked the name? Rove didn’t. And the investigation isn’t complete, so no one, including you Ryan, know what Fitz has found. You and Wilson would make good team of liars.
And what was Bush’s pledge? If the person has violated the law.
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:46 pm#41, Your quote is accurate, but you don’t post the follow up question when Bush was asked directly if that meant he would fire the person and his reply was “yes.”
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:59 pmYou’re damn right it’s accurate. Who has violated the law? No one knows.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:03 pmAnd by the way, there was no follow-up question where Bush was asked directly would he fire the person. The follow-up was “…do you have confidence in him [Rove]?”
You’re lying, too. Marie. Busted.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:22 pmSteed,
You’re such a lying idiot!
Newsweek says that Rove in fact was their source. That’s a fact and we already know this. Just because you’ve got your head up your ass in denial of the truth - doesn’t make it so.
As for the post being accurate - the quote was ‘if they violated the law’, it didn’t say if they were found guilty in a court of law. By the Newsweek article, it’s already clear Rove broke the law - what the special prosecutor is doing is figuring out how many people broke the law, how high it went, and what the charges should be… That’s a BIG difference - something I doubt you have the wits to get.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:23 pmSteed,
What Bush said is irrelevant, the fact that Rove would even try to out a CIA agent shows he’s unfit to serve. And your willingness to defend him shows you’re unfit to be an american. Go to north korea and hang out with the other dictator schills!
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:25 pmAs for the post being accurate - the quote was ‘if they violated the law’, it didn’t say if they were found guilty in a court of law.
What?????!!!!!! In this country you’re innocent until proven guilty. You know nothing about the investigation. No one does. Especially Newsweak. You’re a paranoid liar, Ryan.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:33 pmSteed, in a wildly emotionaly manner you call everyone liars while you refuse to even question your own beliefs. This emotionalism combined with name calling is showing us that you are afraid. Afraid of what–seeing your denial slip away from you? I think it should be obvious that the people on this blog are stating their opinions and often quoting facts without meaning to tell fibs.
Read this quote again. Bush did not initially state that he would wait until the leaker was proven guilty. Then he changed the rules, (kind of like Delay and the changing of ethics rules) when the new facts did not serve his purposes.
I copied this from a previous entry:
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. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:50 pm‘Bush said “Karl has got my complete confidence.â€?’
Does that mean that Bush and Republicans
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:57 pmare soft on treason?
Very good Cheryl. Of course you skipped the part where Ryan called me an idiot and a jackass and unfit to be an american. Noticed he used lower case “a” in American. Who’s calling who names? And like I asked Lyin’ Ryan, what exactly was Bush’s pledge that that reporter refered too? If anyone has violated the law. Who determines if anyone has violated the law? You? Ryan? Thinkparanoid.org?
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:08 pmSteed,
You are an idiot - as for your spell checking and attention to details beyond the points of content, very typical of someone with paranoid personality disorder - quite ironic you would also point out think paranoid as a link… You might want to get that checked before it interferes with what’s left of your life..
Now as for content.
On September 29, 2003, Scott McClellan said of the leak (which first appeared in a Bob Novak column on July 14, 2003):
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.
Asked then about the allegation Rove had been involved in the leak, he said,
Well, I’ve made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion…. It is simply not true…. And I have spoken with Karl Rove.
He also said that the White House would not stand for such conduct:
If anyone in this Administration was involved in [the leak], they would no longer be in this Administration..
On October 1, 2003, McClellan reiterated the White House position:
The president certainly doesn’t condone the leaking.
And he said of Rove:
I made it very clear that he didn’t condone that kind of activity and was not involved in that kind of activity.
On October 7, McClellan noted that prior to previously telling the press that Rove and two other White House aides–National Security Council staffer Elliott Abrams and Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby–were not involved in the leak, he had spoken to each of the three and determined they had not been part of the Plame/CIA leak:
I had no doubt of that…but I like to check my information to make sure it’s accurate before I report back to you, and that’s exactly what I did.
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:18 pm“You know nothing about the investigation. No one does. Especially Newsweak.”
Actually we know a LOT about the investigation. Not only have some of the ‘details’ of the investigation been made public that showed Rove’s ‘claims’ contradict the notes of the Newsweek reporters - but those reporters also made this information public.
So your ‘claims’ of how little ‘we’ know, merely demonstrate how little ‘you’ know, and nothing more.
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:20 pmSo this quote’s particularly relevant.
“I made it very clear that he didn’t condone that kind of activity and was not involved in that kind of activity.”
Based on the public statements of two separate reporters, either Rove lied to Scottie, or Scottie lied to us. Either way, it’s clear Rove DID lie, and since the original promise in september was that there’s no room in the administration for anyone ‘involved’ in this - then either they lied then, or they lie now.
You seem to prefer allowing public officials to lie, and attacking those who hold them accountable. Your twisted sense of morality is all to common in the CONservative mindset - and frankly it’s unpatriotic.
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:23 pmSettle down Lyin’ Ryan. You lied. Bush never said he would fire anyone for being “involved”. He said “violated the law”.
Your selected quotes from someone other than Bush, (paraphrased!) doesn’t explain your and Marie’s lies and is not very compelling evidence. Where are your quotes from Fitz that tell us what laws have been violated? Who’s the focus of the investigation? Wasn’t Val exposed in 1994? Is Fitz considering that? What do you really know Lyin Ryan?
August 3rd, 2005 at 10:02 pmThis thread only proves how easy it is for an evil adversary to recruit “USEFUL IDIOTS” from the ranks of its enemy.
August 3rd, 2005 at 10:07 pmThis presidency has become an embarrasment. I assure you that history will support this-
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:03 pmGive it up for • Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ ), in his fight for truth in the CIA leak case.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:06 pmRyan Neat wrote, “Actually Bush promised to fire anyone involved until it became publically known and ‘proven’ that Rove was involved - then he flip flopped and said ‘anyone convicted’ of a crime. That’s a big difference, as it would require them go through trials, appeals and any other number of steps that would ‘run out the clock’ on the administration - at which point he’d just pardon them.”
See post 38. The 2004 quote you note should be interpreted in light of what he said earlier in 2003, in which he said explicitly that he would fire anyone found to have broken the law. Even the 2004 implies as much when the President says he will keep his “original pledge” (which I’m saying is his earlier 2003 statement explicitly noting a crime had occured) by saying, “Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.”
So, in other words, there has been no equivocation on Bush’s position. He has all along stated (clearly, I might add, for those with an interest in understanding him) that he will fire anyone found to have broken the law - a criminal leak, in other words. The fact that he has done nothing says a few things. One, it could mean that he has always known Rove, Libby and the third source (the one Novak indicated was “no partisan gunslinger”) were the leaks, but that they had not technically broken the law. Two, it could mean that he does not know if Rove is the real leak, and trusts him since they have history together. That is not, in my mind, shady. It’s natural to give people the benefit of the doubt, particularly in a situation like this where Bush perceives Rove as an invaluable part of his team. He would want the evidence to meet the highest standards, I would imagine, before sacking him. He may simply be doing like he said he was doing - waiting for the special prosecutor to conclude his investigation before acting.
All in all, though, it’s incorrect to say that Bush has changed his position on this. His position is clearly laid out, and anyone who has bothered to actually discover what he said can do so if they so desire. My impression is that many people simply don’t care much for the truth, though, since this lie is continually repeated, despite quite clear evidence to the contrary.
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:09 pm#47 you are out of sync. You refer to the wrong quote. Before we knew it was Rove, he was asked if he meant he would fire the leaker and his reply was yes.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:00 am#58, Bush DID say “involved” not “violated the law” — you have your timing wrong on when he said these things and in what context.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:03 amDo you all realize we are parsing words here about a president who lied us into a war? A man who is responsible for 1820 dead soldiers because of his lies.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:12 amA man who has ruined our economy for the forseeable future. A man who in his “compassion” has made a mockery of the term with his drastic cuts for the poor, the sick, the elderly and the children. We impeached a man for stupid sexual conduct and we let this rotten creep just skate? What are you thinking, you Bush lovers? The man is a grown up schoolyard bully who kicked pebbles at the other kids, who never got in trouble for misbehavior because his Daddy was rich and powerful, who never had to pay for his mistakes, who never had to earn an honest dollar, who is a reformed drunk who found Jesus, but doesn’t follow the lead of his “philosopher,” who doesn’t have a clue about what real Americans do every day - and in spite of all the evidence against him, we are parsing his lying words because you can’t accept that he is a rotten person.
I’ve always thought shrubya was a creep. Now we have volumes and volumes of proof.
A spoiled little (probably less than averagely endowed)smart ass. A little brat that never heard the word NO.
As a child he tortured animals. His parents were (and no doubt still are) ashamed of him.
As a college coke head and booze hound, he knew that some men were born to greatness, and some get it for graduation.
Now, this family isn’t exactly the poster family for the model American family. You know with gramps financing the Nazis and using slave labor in the factories. But no doubt, they know right from wrong, it is just so much more profitable to do wrong.
Two stolen elections, being the most hated man in the universe. What accomplishments. Not to mention being the MOST televised lying s.o.b. in the world (except Bill O’Reallybig Mouth).
Just remember, most little boys that torture animals don’t grow up to be president. They usually grow up to be serial killers.
Food for thought, after all he has a little more time to do the devil’s work.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:22 am#62 - You’re wrong. Check your facts.
I realize shrubya THINKS needs no stinkin’ facts.
But the truth (another concept shrubya knows nothing about) is facts are paramount.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:43 amKJ,
Scott (#62) is like most CONservative - he has a preconception and an opinion, so his pea brain has no room left for facts…
August 4th, 2005 at 2:20 amScott,
Bush’s apathy, regardless of the details, shows his complicity. And yours. You’re a traitor.
August 4th, 2005 at 9:35 amPresident Bush has reverted back to using the phrase “war on terror” to describe the debacle in Iraq, even after his supporters were told to use the new public-relations-suggested phrase “struggle against global extremism.” Hmmm, could it be that someone did some remedial research and found that in 2003, Bush and Cheney bashed John Kerry for refusing to use the inaccurate and generic term “war on terror.”
August 4th, 2005 at 9:44 amBrian and Ryan,
I’m not sure where the hostility towards me is coming from, since all I’ve done is note a factual error that Ryan had made. How does actually showing you the quotation from the 2003 press conference imply anything about me? It’s right there, clear as day. Bush has said, from the very beginning, that if anyone in his administration committed a crime, then that person would be fired. Now maybe you and other think that he should expand that criteria beyond mere criminality. That’s fine and dandy. But just say that. Don’t say that he’s changing his position, as that’s factually incorrect. His position is the same as it’s always been. Read the URL I posted, and particularly the section in which the press ask him about the leak and he states he’ll fire anyone found to have broken the law. I’m not sure how it is that my “pea brain” has no room for the facts, when I’m showing you the facts and you’re just ignoring them, and launching into ad hominem attacks. Usually, it’s the inability to calmly and rationally discuss a topic that indicates low intelligence, not a willingness to.
August 4th, 2005 at 10:03 amBrian - are you admitting, then, that the details do support what I’ve said? That is, that Bush explicitly stated he would fire anyone guilty of a criminal leak? Everything else you are saying could very well be true (for instance, Bush’s dubious character and/or his apathy about this case) and yet what I said still be true. So, just for my sake, was your short comment meant to say that you recognize that Bush originally qualified his action by saying that the person would have to have committed a crime (at least as far back as 2003, anyway)?
I’m only pressing this because I think that some people are being misinformed about what Bush has actually said (some people on this very blog, too, it looks like), and it’s an incorrect assertion which is easily corrected by anyone interested. But I am getting the sense of apathy among critics - many people (like Ryan and possibly yourself) seem genuinely uninterested in separation truth from conjecture and falsehood. They only hate Bush and want to see him and his administration tarred and feathered. And that’s fine - if I believed everything most progressives believed about Bush, I’d too want to see him out of office. But I would hope that I wouldn’t resort to distortion and deceit in publicly advocating for it, and since this blog is a part of the public square, I figure it’s important to correct the record.
August 4th, 2005 at 10:15 amYour’s is the same arguement that “Constitutionalists don’t care about Roe v. Wade”, they “Just think it’s a bad law”. You think too much scott.
August 4th, 2005 at 10:38 amBrian, Is it or is not the case that in 2003 Bush clearly said he’d fire the criminal who leaked Plame’s identity to the press (if the person was in his administration)? If it is the case, then isn’t it false to say that Bush has changed his position as of late, since he is apparently being consistent - he’ll fire the criminal, and thus his lack of action to fire anyone means there does not (yet) exist a criminal to fire.
If a person only listened to people like you and concluded that Bush had changed his position, then I could forgive the person for simply having been exposed to misinformation. But I’m having a hard time giving you or Ryan or even the authors of this blog the benefit of the doubt, when there appears to be a conscious suppression of the facts when making these claims. The 2003 press conference appears to be the context from which we should interpret the 2004 question from a journalist about whether Bush was going to stick to his “original pledge” to fire the leak. Bush said, in essence, that his original pledge hadn’t changed - he will fire the person who broke the law, and in 2004 qualified this even more by saying that the special prosecutor’s job was to get the evidence he would need to do so.
So it’s always been the case that Bush wanted rigorous, non-partisan investigation by a special prosecutor. If he’s going to be firing someone like Rove, who clearly has Bush’s confidence, loyalty and friendship, don’t you think it’s rational for him to want there to be absolutely no doubt that Rove is actually guilty? I don’t care what you say - it’s completely rational for a person in this position to want this vetted thoroughly before taking an action. Anyone, liberal or conservative, would follow this.
Put it into a private context - say that there was evidence that emerged that your wife (or my wife) had had an affair with another man. But there also existed a plausible defense by the wife. Since you and I both love our respective wives a great deal, we’d want to be fully convinced that she had broken our trust before we divorced her (assuming we had made a pledge to do so). Rove is an old, trusted friend - regardless of what you think about him and Bush. If you try to look at this from non-partisan eyes, I think you can see why it’s not necessarily a sign of poor ethics that Bush is saying publicly, “Rove has my confidence,” while simultaneously insisting that everyone cooperate with the special prosecutor, and furthermore, refusing to act until the prosecutor has completed his investigation. His actions are in no way a sign of poor ethics or shady dealings - they are also consistent with a narrative of a man wanting to give his administration the benefit of the doubt, yet also taking justice seriously by insisting on an impartial, nonpartian investigation.
August 4th, 2005 at 11:04 amSteed, you are an idiot!
August 4th, 2005 at 12:06 pmScott,
August 4th, 2005 at 1:40 pmI would rather have my finger nails torn out than have to read another of your speeches. There is no parallel between THIS gov’t and anyone’s private life.
You’re convinced Rove is innocent, leave it alone.
[…] It’s odd that Tyrrell tries to connect Palmeiro to Clinton. After all, Palmeiro and his wife gave George W. Bush $8,000 for his 2004 campaign. And it’s Bush, who, even after Palmerio tested positive, still believes Palmerio never took steriods. […]
August 4th, 2005 at 2:52 pmActually, nothing I’ve said has anything to do with Rove’s guilt. I’m simply saying that you appear to be consciously (perhaps malicioiusly?) perverting the historical record. That’s all. Rove could be guilty and everything I stated about Bush’s “original pledge” true.
You know, on a different note, you’re no different than a hard right-winger. You’re what Hoffer called one of the “true believers” - an ideologue, in other words. From where I am sitting, there’s no real difference between extreme right-wingers and people like you. You both are so committed to an ideology that you cannot rationally explore any issue in a non-partisan sense. The fact that I am pointing out a fairly obvious counterexample, yet you can only spew venom and ad hominem in response, is a testimony - not the left’s bankruptcy mind you - but rather, to your own shallowness.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:11 pmDo you think Rove is guilty of a crime, scott?
August 4th, 2005 at 3:59 pmBrian, I’ll answer that question once you answer the questions I posed you.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:20 pmHe said a couple of things indicating an intention to address the situation. Either through “Dealing with” or firing for “involvement” or illegaklity.
But you are correct. It is not about what Bush or Rove or anyone else did or did not do, or what you think.
The anger here is because of a paradox. Bush knows the situation and is waiting to see how the cards fall, or he is being lied to and he hasn’t the power or desire to get to the bottom of this on his own.
I don’t even give a shit if Plame is classified or not.
She was brought into this at a minimum in yet another game of propoganda by a piece of shit unloved by his absent father and dead, selfish mother.
This is the root of the anger by people who are unhappy with the administration. It is not about your goddamn minutia.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:25 pmYou said, “He said a couple of things indicating an intention to address the situation. Either through “Dealing withâ€? or firing for “involvementâ€? or illegaklity.
”
I strongly encourage you to read very closely the 2003 URL posted above (twice) in my earlier posts. There is nothing about an intention to address the situation. His words are very clear - he says he’ll fire the person who has broken the law. And I would add the conjecture that until very recently, the public always understood him to be referring to a criminal activity.
Now if you are acknowledging (it’s not clear from your post that this is the case) this, then I will drop it. I am not interested in being an apologist for the adminstration. The context of all my posts have been to challenge the claim that Bush has changed his stance from a general firing of “anyone involved in the leak” to firing the criminal leak.
You wrote, “The anger here is because of a paradox. Bush knows the situation and is waiting to see how the cards fall, or he is being lied to and he hasn’t the power or desire to get to the bottom of this on his own.”
That’s a conjecture on your part. You know absolutely nothing about what the special prosecutor knows - you only know various items reported in the press. Again, it is entirely plausible that Bush is giving Rove and Libby the benefit of the doubt and simply waiting to see. There is nothing that has happened that requires one support your conspiracy theory.
As for whether there was malfeasance at all, and whether Bush should respond to it by firing the interested parties, as a citizen, I need to know precisely what happened, having seen something official from a neutral, non-partisan source, like the special prosecutor. Nothing on Think Progress even remotely fits that bill, nor do your politicized rants. In fact, I think you’re hatred of Bush and Rove make it impossible for you to carefully and thoughtfully evaluate any of this. Like I already said, you strike me as an ideologue, blinded by your worldview which eliminates certain lines of thinking and facts ex ante when they do not fit the grid through which you interact with events within the political realm.
The fact that Bush is saying he will fire the person based on the conclusions of the special prosector strikes me as responsible. And the fact that he hasn’t fired anyone yet doesn’t prove your case that he is unethical.
August 4th, 2005 at 6:10 pmYou can’t “prove” unethical behavior.
August 4th, 2005 at 6:37 pmI never said there was a conspiracy.
CIA’s regard for Plame is enough to cast doubt on Bushco.
I’m from Texas, Bush and Rove are unethical.
Everything I say is conjecture.
I’m back at square one with you. There are clowns on this site who argue they are not particularly attentive to the abortion issue, yet they spend an inordinate amount of time complaining about the legal strength of Roe.
That is you in regard to this matter. Put down your thesaurus and you’ll find in yourself someone just as idealistic as I. I’m done.
You can’t prove someone did something that is unethical? Why not? Isn’t it possible to prove Germany slaughtered Jews? I’m not sure I understand what you’re talking about.
You wrote, “CIA’s regard for Plame is enough to cast doubt on Bushco.”
Fine, doubt’s cast. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my points. My point is that you are misstating the historical record by saying Bush changed his standards for firing someone. Casting doubt is not the same thing as proving beyond some reasonable degree of doubt that a person broke the law, and/or engaged in something shady (I’ll try to stick to the words you understand from now on).
Don’t bring up abortion with me, either. Just stick to this argument, and don’t project your frustrations with other people onto me.
The only idealism I have on this matter is the belief that rational people can look at evidence and come to conclusions which are not, ultimately, the result of premeditated ideological beliefs. That’s what you do. You aren’t concerned about justice or truth; you just want to see Bush screwed. That’s fine - it’s a free country - but don’t think you can simply make shit up in the meantime.
August 4th, 2005 at 7:51 pmP.S.: seeing shrubya (world record holder of vacation time in office) screwed is just gravy on the potatoes!
August 4th, 2005 at 8:36 pmHell, while I’m p.o.ed.:
Gannon is just another whore paid by the repugnacans.
Last paid whore was monica.
(at least they keep the same criteria: ugly)
August 4th, 2005 at 8:37 pmsport shoes
sport shoes The usquebay dichromatism of the road to Ronsdale was seventy-five-millimetre and hilly. Its stronger nike shoes snat
October 8th, 2005 at 1:33 am