I think Squink has already shown that Bush originally established ground rules much more consistent with his affirmative response to the question than his specification of requiring a crime having been committed.
So, it seems to me that he was actually for firing before he was against firing before he was for firing before he was against it.
In other words it all depends on what the meaning of the words “Karl’s the one who got his tit in the wringer” are.
I’m not at all sure that standing four-square for the proposition that anyone who commits a criminal offense under color of official position and in line of duty is an especially brave and bold stance. That is a little like a bank president announcing that any teller who is convicted of embezzling from his bank, by God, is going to lose their job. It sure doesn’t sound like a pronouncement designed to restore honor to the White House and honesty to government to me. It looks like the least the President could do.
Tonight.
But what makes you think the nominee won’t be Rove?
That’d “take care of him” as the president promised. 
I think that’s a stretch. As long as Bush’s strategy (or maybe it’s Rove’s) is to keep Rove from getting fired, it’s gonna be in the news for a long time to come. But he has to submit a nomination pretty soon no matter what. If Rove was going to walk the plank, it would have happened by now. Now, it’s too late for Bush to get any credit for it even if it did happen, so he might as well try to stonewall it out anyway.
That complaint is like the constant one from the GOP partisans that anything Clinton did as President over a period of several years was intended to draw attention away from the Monica story. At some point, the President has job duties to fulfill no matter what else is going on. The timing might even be good for us - if Bush names a moderate, he might recover some of his “political capital” and partly defuse Rovegate, but if he names a firebreather while not in a position to force it through, he might never recover and the damage might be felt in 2006 in Congress and 2008 in the general campaign, whoever’s in it.
Where, precisely, is this being ‘speculated?’
Here, for one.
Such speculation is pure political common sense.
Is this the same memo that the CIA found objectionable?
The one that I asked about here?
The same one referenced here?
Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.
CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame’s alleged role in arranging Wilson’s trip could not have attended the meeting.
Cause if it s the same memo and it is inaccurate the way that the CIA says it was, then it becomes very pertinent who wrote the inaccurate (or, posssibly ‘intentionally misleading’) document.
The doc is the source of the Plame sent Wilson charge as well as being suspected as a possible source for the leaker of (Mrs. Wilson’s) Plame’s status.
If inaccuracies were intentionally intorduced that raises a whole new round of issues and questions.
Btw, has anyone found out any more about the CIA’s objections to the memo?
Here’s some interesting info from one of the concurring opinions in the appeal case of Judith Miller. It doesn’t sound like this judge, who had presumably reviewed the evidence at that time, thinks that this is a trivial matter.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf
It’s common sense that a SC nominee will grab headlines, yes…but that’s hardly ‘speculation’ that Bush is making the announcement for the express purpose to take the spotlight away from Karl Rove.
Your original quote:
“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.”
The CNN story hardly ‘speculates’ about such a thing.
“…the lot against Wilson…”? Oh, my. Oh, dear. Oh, goody gumdrops.
The quote was from squeegee, not me. Not that I disagree with it. I’m speculating it, squeegee’s speculating it, hell, elucidator is probably speculating it - though he’d likely put it: “vagrant thoughts cross my mind, forcing me, as unbelievably untrustworthy as this may sound, to doubt, nay, to mildly distrust, the words of those who associate foursquare and stalwart next our valiant leader that this is so.” Or something like that.
I’m beginning to wonder if you’re paying attention. Not only did you not notice that your quote attribution was wrong, your comment in the earlier digression about Bush/Clinton/and or Carter running in '08 shows that you completely missed the part about the 22nd Amendment being overturned.
What I noticed was that the CNN link provided as a source confirming there was “speculation” didn’t even mention Karl Rove. At all. I’ll ask again: where is this speculation that Bush is naming his SC choice to deliberately force the Karl Rove story onto the back pages? Unless, of course, you think “there has been some speculation” is the same as “this is what my friend thinks.”
I’m curious as to where the support is for this. All signs I’ve seen indicate that the tactical brilliance in GWB’s political career have been almost entirely due to his handlers, most notably Rove.
I continue to maintain that, if it wasn’t for his family connections and smarter puppetmasters, Bush couldn’t succeed in anything more than being a greeter at Wal-Mart. Evidence to the contrary would be interesting reading.
My quote was taken from my linked story. It appears CNN has updated the story; the listing of other candidates besides Ms. Clement was not in it then. C’est le Internet.
Are regular people no longer allowed to speculate? Must I purchase a speculation license before I begin to wonder about the motives of the government? I don’t do blogs, but I have no doubt there’s some out there. There’s some in my office, there’s some on this message board, there was some on CNN. Why is the non-existance of speculation so important to you, anyway?
Naw, are you kidding? These hosers wouldn’t admit wrongdoing on anyone’s part until the desk in the Oval Office actually started to buckle.
I’m sure our Republican politicians would loudly and forcibly denounce such a blatant attempt to “wag the do–” sniggerguffawchorcleBWAHAHAHAHAHA!
…sorry, I just couldn’t keep the straight face… 
Speculation is meaningless…unless you can prove that such ‘speculation’ is occurring at the highest levels. Think about yet: there’s been speculation that the moon landings were faked. Does that make it likely?
:dubious: Highest levels of what?