Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Republicans

Journal pudge's Journal: Nice Job There Woodstein 28

Journal by pudge

A NY Times story claims Bush has backtracked: that he previously said he would dismiss anyone involved with the Plame leak, and now he is saying he would only dismiss someone who broke the law.

Oddly -- perhaps tellingly? and at the least, incompetently -- the article does not actually quote Bush saying this previous statement.

Does anyone have a quote to provide, to fill out this story? I cannot recall any time where Bush said he would fire someone involved with the Plame leak. Maybe it happened, but I just can't recall it. I've asked a few people, all of whom say they recall such quotes, but not specifically, and have not provided me with any citations or links.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nice Job There Woodstein More

Nice Job There Woodstein

Comments Filter:
  • I think it was Scott McClellan who said a year ago that the president would fire anyone that had leaked something.
    • I don't recall that, either. I recall him saying Rove WAS NOT involved, not that if he were, he would be fired. Again: quote, citation? Not that you have to come up with one ... but I won't believe it unless I can see a cite for it.
    • from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/2 0 031006-5.html [whitehouse.gov]

      Q Scott, the President just expressed his desire to get to the bottom of this CIA leak issue. And he said he wanted to hold accountable whoever was responsible --

      MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

      Q -- responsible for this. But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information?

      MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in thi
      • That is not what the NY Times said. They said Bush would fire anyone "involved." This quote is specific to those who "have leaked classified information," which is a higher threshold. We still don't know if Rove did leak classified information, though we know he was involved.
        • I agree that this is a higher threshold, though it is also a different one that what Bush stated now. I do think this statement is the origin of the idea that Bush has said that he would fire the leaker. I would love to see what others come up with. I have spent more than enough time on this.
          • I agree that this is a higher threshold, though it is also a different one that what Bush stated now.

            I am not convinced of that. I don't think it is unreasonable to take "leaked classified information" as an implication that such leaking constituted a crime, as it normally does.

            I do think this statement is the origin of the idea that Bush has said that he would fire the leaker. I would love to see what others come up with. I have spent more than enough time on this.

            If so that's sad; indeed; and indee
            • I am not convinced of that. I don't think it is unreasonable to take "leaked classified information" as an implication that such leaking constituted a crime, as it normally does.

              Hairs are already being split over this. The legal requirements for a crime to have occured are being looked at very carefully now and they are much more specific than "leaked classified information". It is possible for someone to have leaked classified information without having committed a crime, depending on how things were p

              • It is possible for someone to have leaked classified information without having committed a crime, depending on how things were phrased and what the leaker knew.

                Right, but what I am saying is maybe McClellan and Bush and the questioner *meant at the time* to include only people who committed a crime. Look again at the question: "the President just expressed his desire to get to the bottom of this CIA leak issue. And he said he wanted to hold accountable whoever was responsible ... for this. But can you

                • on Sept. 30, Bush said, "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." And just a few weeks later, he said, "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

                  So even back then, it seems Bush was only saying they would be fired if they broke the law. On Sept. 30 he did not s

                  • How could the "appropriate action" be anything less than asking for the person's resignation?

                    It depends on what they actually did.

                    Let's say Novak tells Rove something Rove doesn't know: Wilson got the Niger assignment through his wife, who works on WMD at the Agency. Rove isn't really giving it too much thought, but Cooper says something about Cheney or Tenet, so Rove says, well, actually, it was Wilson's wife.

                    Is what he did wrong? Yes, because he should not give out information about CIA agents. But
        • I read earlier this morning that Rove may have confirmed leaked information was true, but more importantly that he may have found about the supposed leaked information from the press itself.

          I hope it wasn't Rove, but if it's true that he found out from the press or from a reporter [64.233.167.104] then we are chasing the wrong person.

          It seems to be that Rove is being made a target. It's accepted that the columnist asked Rove a rather direct question about Plame, so the question people should be asking is, where did the c
          • Note that Rove has a legal responsibility to make sure information about the CIA is not classified, even if he got it from a reporter, before providing it to someone who does not have classified access. Though I am not sure how that comes into play here. Also, note that you are not legally covert unless you've been an agent overseas in the last five years, and Plame may not have been.
            • Note that Rove has a legal responsibility to make sure information about the CIA is not classified, even if he got it from a reporter, before providing it to someone who does not have classified access. Though I am not sure how that comes into play here.

              The rules regarding security clearances are more headache inducing than the most anal pre-release NDA.

              So from what I understand Rove could get into trouble for passing on information that was "out in the wild". Though I don't know the clearance rules well
              • So from what I understand Rove could get into trouble for passing on information that was "out in the wild".

                As I understand it, too.

                Though I don't know the clearance rules well enough to know what is in the slap on the wrist territory, what would get the clearance revoked, and what would subject to criminal prosecution.

                Right.

                As to revoking security clearance, especially with the investigation pending: that is nothing more than partisanship, period. How many of those Democrats wanted to revoke Torric
                • As to revoking security clearance, especially with the investigation pending: that is nothing more than partisanship, period. How many of those Democrats wanted to revoke Torricelli's security clearance, when what he did was published in the NY Times?

                  Not that this is an argument in favor of Rove, just noting that the partisanship is tiresome.

                  Actually since I posted this I ran across the NDA/Security Clearance rules that apply to executive branch employees. In theory accoring to things Rove has already ad
                  • Well we don't really know why the grand jury wants to talk to Miller nor where exactly the info regarding Plame came from. Cooper is claiming he heard the info directly from Rove and had it confirmed by Libby. Rove claims he heard it from a reporter. Somebody is lying.

                    Why do you assume that? Why can not all of those things be true?

                    While it may be more minor than some are making it out to be I'm also concerned that some in the White House might have been involved in trying to deliberately spread the inf
                    • Why do you assume that? Why can not all of those things be true?

                      I believe Rove was claiming Cooper was the reporter in question, but I could have the details wrong. (I swear I think I need a scorecard to track everything at this point)

                      Though if the reporter was someone other than Cooper Rove could have then passed the info to Cooper.

                      Oh, but Wilson didn't violate the law to discredit Bush, which is exactly the point: I don't care about the discrediting, I care about the violation of the law. Intentional
  • bush plays the idiot very well:
    I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts.
    it's not stonewalling--it's fact-finding.
  • I was looking for the same thing. The only thing I have found is that Bush answered "Yes." to a June 10th 2004 question of whether he would fire anyone who leaked Plame's name.

    I've heard of the Scott McClellan comment though.
    • Press Conference of the President After G8 Summit (June 10, 2004) [state.gov]

      Here's the relevant bit:

      QUESTION: 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 --

      QUESTION: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

      THE PRESIDENT:

      • Is anyone going to seriously claim that if the word "fire" didn't come out of Bush's own mouth that it "doesn't count?"

        I simply ask: what DID come out of Bush's mouth? He made a pledge. A reporter asks him if he stands by that pledge. He says yes. What pledge? What did it say? When Bush says "yes" to that question, he is saying "yes" in reference to his actual pledge, not to the reporter's characterization of the pledge.

        If I say, "I am going to eat chocolate babies," and then later you ask me if I

        • He made a pledge. A reporter asks him if he stands by that pledge. He says yes. What pledge? What did it say? When Bush says "yes" to that question, he is saying "yes" in reference to his actual pledge, not to the reporter's characterization of the pledge.

          No, he's saying "yes" to the question asked. If Bush thought that the pledge as described by the reporter differed from the pledge he made, he could have and should have corrected it, he could have simply said "yes" followed by a reiteration of the pledg

          • No, he's saying "yes" to the question asked.

            Which was WHETHER HE STANDS BY HIS PLEDGE. And so far no one can tell me what that pledge was.

            Doubt about the legality based on "name" versus "identity" has certainly been raised in the press [mediamatters.org]. Isikoff said on TV that it was an "important distinction" (cited in link above).

            Heh, your problem is paying attention to mediamatters, which routinely and intentionally pulls quotes out of context. Whether he said her name *is* an important distinc

            • Well, that certainly would have been a great opportunity for him to clarify this phantom pledge. As it is he seems to be accepting the reporter's characterization of it. But you are right that it seems that nobody can find the first instance of Bush mentioning this, though everybody including Bush seems to think that he did make a pledge at some point.

  • I asked the same question, and like the poster above me, I found this:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content / article/2005/07/11/AR2005071101568_pf.html [washingtonpost.com]

    "Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name."

    Unfortunately, I couldn't find an article describing that June 2004 conversation in more detail.

    • Re:Link (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      Yeah, the detail is the tough part, which is the point. :-)
      • I believe the article is referring to a June 10, 2004 press conference (courtesy of the Council of Foreign Relations [cfr.org]):

        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?

Slashdot Top Deals

Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." -- David Guaspari

Close