Obvious like perjury?
Isn’t that a crime?
Obvious like perjury?
Isn’t that a crime?
Yep…just ask Bill Clinton.
Obvious like perjury?
Isn’t that a crime?
Yep…just ask Bill Clinton.
Uh-oh, everyone out of the pool. Brian286 just jumped in. Yechh.
Spoiled your little tirade, huh?
Time for you to head to the kiddie pool. It’s adult time now.
Spoiled your little tirade, huh?
Time for you to head to the kiddie pool. It’s adult time now.
Hey, a**hole, this thread was (until you hopped in) about Rove and Bush. Take your Clinton-relativism somewhere else.
Very adult reply. Classy. Clintonian almost.
Spoiled your little tirade, huh?
Time for you to head to the kiddie pool. It’s adult time now.
Hey, a**hole, this thread was (until you hopped in) about Rove and Bush. Take your Clinton-relativism somewhere else.
Did you forget a smiley on this reply?
June 10, 2004 -
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.
Nowhere in that exchange does the President require that a “crime” be committed, only that the agent’s identity be leaked.
Or we can have a discussion about the meaning of “is”, if you like.
Spoiled your little tirade, huh?
Time for you to head to the kiddie pool. It’s adult time now.
Hey, a**hole, this thread was (until you hopped in) about Rove and Bush. Take your Clinton-relativism somewhere else.
Did you forget a smiley on this reply?
No.
June 10, 2004 -
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.
Nowhere in that exchange does the President require that a “crime” be committed, only that the agent’s identity be leaked.
Or we can have a discussion about the meaning of “is”, if you like.
The response will be that, by definition, if no crime was committed, then the agent’s name was not leaked. Without an honest-to-goodness indictment for something, Rove will not be fired.
But I guess that’s the point - if you’re going to parse to the level of whether the “name” was leaked, you’re trodding on soft ground, especially in light of campaign promises of being a non-parsing straight shooter. Or is that no longer operative?
And while that may stand as a defense in the media, it unfortunately doesn’t shield Rove or Libby or whoever from the actual law, which doesn’t require an actual “name”.
but…but…but it was a “gotcha” question! bush has to respond to the question as posed! he can’t say exactly what he means!
oh, and forget the statements by the wh spokesman…he was just riffing and not speaking on behalf of the prez…