Bush narrows window on getting rid of people

Post #215,380 by JayMehaffey 7/18/05 1:54:41 PM Reply	Bush narrows window on getting rid of people [link\|http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation_18\|Yahoo News] President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." At the same time, Bush yet again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter. Went from 'involved' to 'convicted.' Neatly narrowing up the window and insuring that nothing will have to be done in the near future. Rove probably figures that even if he or somebody else at the White House gets nailed they can drag it out past 2006 and then wait for a pardon from Bush on his way out. Jay
Post #215,387 by jb4 7/18/05 2:22:50 PM Reply	Damn! beat me to it I saw that, too. As an expert in the art of mealymouth-mumblefuck The Berk has neatly presented hisself to The Sheeple as a Man of Action\ufffd, all the while insuring that absolutely nothing will get done. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #215,393 by JayMehaffey 7/18/05 2:51:36 PM Reply	Ha Knew I had to jump on that one quick, it is such an awsome display of politcal hypocrisy in action that it was sure to be posted fast. After selling himself as a man of action and honor, somebody to bring dignity back to the White House, suddenly he can't walk down to Rove's office and find out if he was involved? Now we have to wait to see of Rove can actually be convicted, even though morally he is obviously guilty of crimes bordering on treason? Jay
Post #215,486 by Ashton 7/18/05 9:40:28 PM Reply	How many don't blink == a Red State litmus on It All.
Post #215,608 by johnu 7/19/05 1:21:03 PM Reply	How so? [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/12rove-quotes.html?ex=1121918400&en=a5277206bcfd40ce&ei=5070&pagewanted=print\|President Bush on Sept. 30, 2003:] 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. I'm not sure how he as narrowed the window here...
Post #215,611 by jbrabeck 7/19/05 1:29:29 PM Reply	Very Simple Shrub initial statement was "Whoever leaked the information would be fired" now it's whoever is CONVICTED of a crime will be fired. Huge difference. A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
Post #215,613 by JayMehaffey 7/19/05 1:53:35 PM Reply	Re: How so? Q. Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him \ufffd A. Listen, I know of nobody - 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 this investigation is a good thing. Q. Given recent developments in the C.I.A. leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggestion that it might difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? And ... A. That's up \ufffd Q. And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? And \ufffd A. Yes. Same article, two other quotes. In retrospect, it appears that Bush may have only ever meant to say that he would fire somebody if they where found guilty in court, but that isn't what he always said and it isn't what everybody else understood. In particular, the second quote from a June interview says straight up that he would fire anybody who leaked the name. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!