The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Plame THIS: A brief but DEADLY chronology on the President's statements about Karl Rove
NewsMax, by virtue of retrieving a few chronological quotes, so thoroughally and completely blew the msm's joke of a case against Karl Rove today out of the water that it is truly stupefying to see how anyone can be so dense as to not see clearly what is going on (bold emphases are mine):
The press is claiming that President Bush has changed his pledge to fire anyone in his administration involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name - saying he's now added the qualifier "if someone committed a crime."But that's exactly what Bush said when he was first asked about the Plame case on Sept. 30, 2003.
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," the president told reporters back then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Dozens of news organizations quoted Bush's Sept. 2003 proviso, "if the person has violated law", including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN.
On Monday, Bush made it clear his position hadn't changed one bit. Asked about the Plame case, he explained:
"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Still, that didn't stop the Associated Press from charging: "On Monday, however,[Bush] added the qualifier that it would have [to] be shown that a crime was committed."
The AP cited a June 10, 2004, news conference, where, according to the wire service, a reporter simply asked if Bush stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name. Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."
But the full June 10, 2004 exchange was somewhat more complicated:
REPORTER: 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, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent's name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts. [End of Excerpt]
Any honest reading of that exchange would acknowledge that when Bush answered, "Yes" - he meant he was standing by his earlier statement, not the reporter's distorted version: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"
Bush hadn't offered any such pledge.
But what he had said several months previous was that if the leaker had "violated the law," he'd be "taken care of."
Did you catch that? If you didn't, read it all again. Pay attention to the dates.
Anyone who still thinks Bush has backtracked on ANYTHING is being sold a pack of lies by the get-Rove-or-Bush-at-all-costs "mainstream media."
Think about it: why don't they want you to know the truth?? Class dismissed.
The press is claiming that President Bush has changed his pledge to fire anyone in his administration involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name - saying he's now added the qualifier "if someone committed a crime."But that's exactly what Bush said when he was first asked about the Plame case on Sept. 30, 2003.
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," the president told reporters back then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Dozens of news organizations quoted Bush's Sept. 2003 proviso, "if the person has violated law", including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN.
On Monday, Bush made it clear his position hadn't changed one bit. Asked about the Plame case, he explained:
"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Still, that didn't stop the Associated Press from charging: "On Monday, however,[Bush] added the qualifier that it would have [to] be shown that a crime was committed."
The AP cited a June 10, 2004, news conference, where, according to the wire service, a reporter simply asked if Bush stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name. Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."
But the full June 10, 2004 exchange was somewhat more complicated:
REPORTER: 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, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent's name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts. [End of Excerpt]
Any honest reading of that exchange would acknowledge that when Bush answered, "Yes" - he meant he was standing by his earlier statement, not the reporter's distorted version: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"
Bush hadn't offered any such pledge.
But what he had said several months previous was that if the leaker had "violated the law," he'd be "taken care of."
Did you catch that? If you didn't, read it all again. Pay attention to the dates.
Anyone who still thinks Bush has backtracked on ANYTHING is being sold a pack of lies by the get-Rove-or-Bush-at-all-costs "mainstream media."
Think about it: why don't they want you to know the truth?? Class dismissed.
