Just what makes you think Bush will be doing (or has been doing, or has ever done at any stage of his political career) any of that surveying and plotting? If he had to make any tactical decisions without Rove and Cheney at his elbow . . .
:dubious: If Bush “managed to overturn the 22nd Amendment,” I would be tempted to underestimate his involvement!
If he managed to do that I’d say a Hillary Jimmy Carter ticket would be hard to stop given the great respect that Carter has garnered since leaving office. If something happened to Carter due to his age, Hillary would be free to appoint Bill VP, or run Bill 8 years later…
Goalposts still firmly in place (despite the best efforts of the press).
From Bush’s Sept. 2003 statement:
“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 believe this is incorrect. Maybe you’re kidding but as I understand nobody can be nominated for VP who is not eligible to become president. So Bubba would be out.
Very selective editing there. Goalposts shifted, despite the best efforts of, well, you:Link
Indeed. From this:
to the point where it’s now newsworthy when the president says that convicted administration officials will not be allowed to telecommute from their jail cells.
Thanks to Og that he ordained a President who would restore honor and dignity to the White House. Kinda makes one nostalgic for Blowjobgate, don’t it?
What would it have to do with Carter? Carter served only one term as president. He’s eligible now to run for and serve a second term.
Now that’s reassuring! :eek:
You beat me to it.
Wrong. In June 2004, a reporter asked Bush if he still stood by a pledge he had not previously made: to fire anyone who was involved with the leak. This was a mischaracterization of the previous statement made by the president in 2003 which I have already posted. If someone was involved in the leak, and they have violated the law, then they will be removed. That position has not changed.
Then why did he say “Yes” when he was asked that question? Which position is operative?
More bad news for those carrying the water here: Apparently the memo about Plame’s status that was circulated on Air Force One, and is emerging as central to the matter, clearly indicated that the information was classified and not to be released. Reportedly the Wall Street Journal has an article on the matter, reproduced in part at Atrios.
News that the memo was marked for its sensitivity emerged as President Bush yesterday appeared to backtrack from his 2004 pledge to fire any member of his staff involved in the leaking of the CIA agent’s name. In a news conference yesterday that followed disclosures that his top strategist, Karl Rove, had discussed Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment with two reporters, Mr. Bush adopted a different formulation, specifying criminality as the standard for firing.
The memo’s details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn’t realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes – such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information – were committed.
More bad news for those carrying the water here: Apparently the memo about Plame’s status that was circulated on Air Force One, and is emerging as central to the matter, clearly indicated that the information was classified and not to be released. Reportedly the Wall Street Journal has an article on the matter, reproduced in part at Atrios.
Not sure why he answered “Yes” to the question. I can only assume the president understood the question as making sure he still stood by his original statement and that he did not catch the subtle rewording of his statement that he made 9 months earlier.
I would have to say the president’s original position from 2003 is the one that is still operative, not that I am entirely happy with that position (“It is OK unless it was a crime.”)
So he was for firing before he was against it?
This thread had better be hurried along to a conclusion. GW might announce a Supreme Court nomination this afternoon and l’affaire Rove will go to page 19.
I’m told that it’s all a vast left-wing conspiracy.
There’s been some speculation that Bush will name a SC nominee this week for precisely that reason, to get Rove off the front pages. It had been signaled by the WH that someone would be named a month from now, but the current rumor is that it’s been moved up. Desperate times, and all that.
I don’t read it that way. I read it as he was for firing if a crime was violated in 2003. Then in 2004, his answer was viewed as saying that if anyone was involved (no mention of a crime) then they would be fired - which moved the goalposts. He issued a clarifying comment this week restating his intention to fire anyone if a crime was violated. This led to the outcry that the goalposts had been moved. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it.