“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.”
McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.
Geesh. Rove commited no crime. Novak mentioned Plame to Rove, not the other way around. And besides, the law that you are claiming he broke wouldn’t apply even if Rove did do the things he is getting slammed for. The statute on the bill is 5 years; Plame wasn’t covert for 9 years, etc, etc. The fact that she is CIA is not what the bill protects, it would only apply to a covert agent, which she wasn’t at the time.
but mclellan is only the spokesman. you can’t attribute his statements to the prez, can you? i mean, isn’t he up there just giving is own opinions?
the point ken is trying to make is that for a long period of time, the wh was saying that any involvement = a firing offense. they didn’t say criminal liability. now, they’ve hedged in a big way.
Righto. I would think that even unethical involvment would merit a firing. But even that standard has not been met. From what I have gathered, Cooper calls Rove about an unrelated story and while they are on the phone Cooper mentions that Wilson was sent to Africa on the request of Cheney. Rove corrects this falsehood and says it was his wife that got Wilson the assignment. End of story. No secrets blown. Neither Wilson nor Plame hid the fact that she was employed by the CIA. Nevermind that disclosing CIA employment isn’t a crime. (Can you imagine what Langley’s parking situation would be if it was!) Only if she was covert internationally and her identity was leaked to cause malice to her or her mission would it be a crime as I understand the law. Other than creating a story to get Rove out, I don’t get the fuss.
Geesh. Rove commited no crime. Novak mentioned Plame to Rove, not the other way around. And besides, the law that you are claiming he broke wouldn’t apply even if Rove did do the things he is getting slammed for. The statute on the bill is 5 years; Plame wasn’t covert for 9 years, etc, etc. The fact that she is CIA is not what the bill protects, it would only apply to a covert agent, which she wasn’t at the time.
First, you don’t know that no crime was committed (think: why did the CIA ask Justice to launch an investigation? Would they do that if they believed Plame was not covered?). Second, Cooper himself says that he first learned Plame’s identity from Rove himself (where Rove learned that is not material in determining if Rove broke any laws). Third, you don’t know she wasn’t covert. You are parrotting the RNC talking points; the one which claims this appears to be incorrect, based on a biased interpretation of the plain language of the statute. Said statute says nothing about being stationed overseas; Plame appears to have traveled frequently overseas on Company business, and may very well have made her covered by the statute.
From what I have gathered, Cooper calls Rove about an unrelated story and while they are on the phone Cooper mentions that Wilson was sent to Africa on the request of Cheney. Rove corrects this falsehood and says it was his wife that got Wilson the assignment. End of story. No secrets blown. Neither Wilson nor Plame hid the fact that she was employed by the CIA.
You really believe this? Rove was just looking out for the poor ol’ journalist? And how is it that none of Wilson’s neighbors had any inkling that she worked for the CIA?
also, it should be pointed out that there is a second statute at play involving the leaking of any classified info. there is no statute of limitations on it like the statute covering id’ing an undercover agent. not sure if there was classified info involved, but i’d think if a person had ever been n.o.c. would be classified info…
also, it should be pointed out that there is a second statute at play involving the leaking of any classified info. there is no statute of limitations on it like the statute covering id’ing an undercover agent. not sure if there was classified info involved, but i’d think if a person had ever been n.o.c. would be classified info…
It appears that covert status is a formal declaration by the CIA, not something open to interpretation. If the CIA asked Justice to investigate, it would seem pretty clear that the CIA thought the person had covert status.
well, that’s always been my position on that aspect too. just mentioning that there is more than one statute involved.
So when do we get to call Bush a flipflopper?
You win. Niether of us is persuadable, and as it is a talk far too much and say far too little. No mas, no mas…
But one small last thing from me about this. About Rove correctting Cooper out of the goodness of his heart. I do think it makes perfect sense for Rove to correct misinformation about Cheney. If there was a story that would have made Cheney look bad or conflicted the facts as Cheney has testified to, it is absolutly believable to me that Rove would try to set the facts straight when asked for a comment by the reporter. To protect Cheney.
That is not a good assumption Ken. It is clear just from reading the NY Times that the CIA leaks like a sieve in opposition to our action in Iraq. An equally good guess is that Porter Goss looked at this incident as a great vehicle to track down some of the leaking.
My guess is that this whole thing is playing out the way it is because of the media’s desire to protect the CIA source or sources, particularly the source of leaks to the Times.
your post seems to be based on the implication that whoever leaked the information did so because it makes the admin look bad or it somehow promotes the opposition to the war in iraq. my question is how does that make sense in light of assertions that revealing mrs. wilson’s identity undermines the credibility of joe wilson?
and by the way, a reason that ken’s assumption still holds water is that it was tenet who originally asked for the investigation…
You are assuming that the information about Plame’s status was a leak of otherwise unknown classified information. That is not likely the case. The media, in their case to defend their reporters, took the position that there was no underlying crime, in part because Plame’s identity was already well known. They cited some situation surrounding the Cuban embassy in Switzerland in particular.
You are also assuming that Fitzgerald is pursuing leaks about Plame rather than connected leaks at the CIA. That assumption may prove correct, but it doesn’t answer why Miller sits in jail. We know, or we think we know is that she is not there to protect Rove. I am guessing she is there to protect a CIA source that they badly want to keep.
That theory explains everyone’s actions. It explains why the CIA wants an investigation. It explains the nearly unprecedented action against reporters. It explains why the Times reporter sits in jail. It explains Fitzgerald’s relentless investigation of a very unimportant leak.
The idea that this is all to “protect” the identity of a CIA employee who drove to CIA HQ every day for six years is just silly. Since when did the media give a damn about covert CIA agents?
Hopefully, we will eventually find out, but there are no guarantees that we will.
Here is what President Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003: “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.”
In other words, no flip-flop, no change of position.
so who is mclellan speaking for? is he just ad libbing? there is no way mclellan’s statements can be taken out of context…
As I read the President’s two statements, I do not interpret them the way the press, you, and Ken apparently do. In other words, some seem to interpret his statements to mean that, if and only if, someone is guilty of a crime, will they be fired. The way I interpret them, the President is saying with certitude that anyone guilty of a crime WILL be fired. But this statement does not foreclose the possibility that someone found–by the Special Prosecutor–to have committed unethical or improper behavior falling short of criminal, will be leaving (either by being asked to leave or by submitting a resignation).
So, I do not necessarily see any conflict between what the President said and what McClellan said.
As I read the President’s two statements, I do not interpret them the way the press, you, and Ken apparently do. In other words, some seem to interpret his statements to mean that, if and only if, someone is guilty of a crime, will they be fired. The way I interpret them, the President is saying with certitude that anyone guilty of a crime WILL be fired. But this statement does not foreclose the possibility that someone found–by the Special Prosecutor–to have committed unethical or improper behavior falling short of criminal, will be leaving (either by being asked to leave or by submitting a resignation).
So, I do not necessarily see any conflict between what the President said and what McClellan said.
Two things:
-
What McClelland said ("If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.") doesn’t seem open to interpretation, does it? I’m certainly not interpreting it. It says that if someone had something to do with the leaking of the name, they won’t be around.
-
Why would the President bother to state that if someone broke the law, they’d be fired? I mean, isn’t that obvious? I would hope that the President of the USA would have an explicitly less tolerant stand than “I won’t have convicted criminals working in the White House”. Something like “if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration”.