• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Let there be snark.

When we show up, we win.

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

Republicans can’t even be trusted with their own money.

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

Somebody needs to explain to DeSantis that nobody needs to do anything to make him look bad.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

“I never thought they’d lock HIM up,” sobbed a distraught member of the Lock Her Up Party.

Trump’s legal defense is going to be a dumpster fire inside a clown car on a derailing train.

Bad news for Ron DeSantis is great news for America.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

The fundamental promise of conservatism all over the world is a return to an idealized past that never existed.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / The Evolving Standard For Conduct

The Evolving Standard For Conduct

by John Cole|  July 18, 20054:19 pm| 27 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

This isn’t going to cut it, and is making an already bad situation worse:

“If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration,” Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, “I don’t know all the facts; I want to know all the facts.”

That is all well and good, but not what he said originally:

Let me just say something about leaks in Washington. There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. 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.

This is a real difference in position, and not something that can be spun away. Did they fire all the media handlers at the White House? Are they on vacation?

*** Update ***

Several people have commented that there is no difference between these statements. I took the first statement to read that if someone was found leaking, they would be dealt with (fired, in other words), and if someone was found to have broken the law, they would additionally face criminal prosecution. I interpreted the second one to read that someone will only be dealt with if it is proven they have committed a crime. That, I thought, was a real difference. Maybe I am wrong.

While we are at it, here is a quote from way back:

“Bush warned that he expected his White House staff to meet the highest ethical standards, avoiding not only violations of law, but even the appearance of impropriety.”

“”We must remember the high standards that come with high office,” he said. “This begins careful adherence with the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries [that] define legal and ethical conduct.”

Any way you slice or dice it, these recent quotes, when compared to this statement shortly after the inauguration, creates a PR nightmare for the President. A President who is recently having difficulty conveying a perception of honesty should not be engaging in what will rightly be seen as ‘Clintonian’ parsing. Not a position a self-styled ‘straight shooter’ would want to be in, I would think.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Just Asking for Trouble
Next Post: The Utility of Intelligent Design »

Reader Interactions

27Comments

  1. 1.

    db

    July 18, 2005 at 4:29 pm

    Maybe I got up too early today, maybe my head has been spun around more times than Linda Blair, but I am seeing these essentially as the same thing:

    If someone committed a crime

    AND

    And if the person has violated law

    Violating a law vs committing a crime. I imagine that is not the distinction you are drawing.

    they will no longer work in my administration

    AND

    the person will be taken care of

    Again, I read this as being the same thing except that perhaps the former is stronger than the latter.

    I imagine I am really failing in reading between the lines.

    Sincerely,

    One tired dumbass.

  2. 2.

    Joel B.

    July 18, 2005 at 4:29 pm

    It may be true, that the original statement was different than Bush’s current statement, but I read the two you posted as saying pretty much the same thing. So I’m not totally sure what you’re getting at…
    Compare

    “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” to

    “And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.”

    If this is truly a real difference…or an evolution than perhaps you’re thinking…micro, not macro evolution (heh).

  3. 3.

    SomeCallMeTim

    July 18, 2005 at 4:31 pm

    See…Iran…Contra.

  4. 4.

    neil

    July 18, 2005 at 4:31 pm

    Did they fire all the media handlers at the White House? Are they on vacation?

    They are all out writing headlines for the AP wire. Headlines like “Bush clarifies firing pledge” or “Bush reiterates firing pledge”.

  5. 5.

    BinkyBoy

    July 18, 2005 at 4:36 pm

    If you couple everything said along with this conversation with a journalist, he’s flipped and flopped his way into hypocracy.

    Q Given

  6. 6.

    Mr Furious

    July 18, 2005 at 4:40 pm

    Um, John, I too read those two statements as pretty much the same. And remember, I consider Bush evil incarnate and all that, so I’d really like to pounce on this, but I just can’t.

    Those two positions are consistent with each other, in my book. But I consider them to be two consistent pieces of bullshit. In both cases, Bush is leaving himself wiggle room to keep anyone who falls short of a conviction and that’s a pretty low bar for the highest office in the land.

    There was an instance where after some hounding he paraphrased himself and neglected to include the “crime/illegal” qualifier, but even I can hardly nail him on that. Ask a guy the same question a thousand times and he will slip up. It’s clear his actual, official, prepared opinion on this matter includes the “commit a crime/violate the law/illegal” every time.

    As I said, that’s crap and worthy of scorn, not the parsing.

  7. 7.

    Jon H

    July 18, 2005 at 4:42 pm

    Then there’s Bush’s long-ago pledge that he wouldn’t stand for even the appearance of impropriety. At that time, lawbreaking was not required. Or so he claimed.

  8. 8.

    Joel B.

    July 18, 2005 at 4:49 pm

    Read as you describe it in your update, is a real difference. I didn’t read it that way, but it’s not an unreasonable reading. I still hold to my reading. Your point now makes better sense to me.

  9. 9.

    Frank

    July 18, 2005 at 4:51 pm

    John- You were right the first time. This is goalpost moving. Bush said he was going to fire the leaker. Now he will only fire for criminal wrongdoing. My respect for you went up a lot before I got to the update.

  10. 10.

    Jon H

    July 18, 2005 at 4:51 pm

    Here it is, from 2001, after he was sworn in:

    “Bush warned that he expected his White House staff to meet the highest ethical standards, avoiding not only violations of law, but even the appearance of impropriety.”

    “”We must remember the high standards that come with high office,” he said. “This begins careful adherence with the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries [that] define legal and ethical conduct.”

  11. 11.

    Otto Man

    July 18, 2005 at 4:56 pm

    John, I think you had it right the first time. Bush’s initial posture on this was that if anyone was found to have leaked the name of a covert operative, period, then they’d be “dealt with,” and now his stance is that if anyone “broke the law” — which as pundits on the right have stressed, means they knowingly leaked the name of a covert operative — they’d be fired. It’s an important difference.

  12. 12.

    db

    July 18, 2005 at 5:07 pm

    Well, maybe I’m not all that smart. Forgive my hubris here but I do, however, feel that I know a bit more about American politics and current events than the average American.

    That said, if the majority of you are going to debate the semantics of these two phrases to suggest that they really are that different and this is evidence of partisan tom-foolery on the part of the GOP, then I am sorry but you have played right into the GOP’s hand.

    In my opinion, I think the average American gets fed up when one side, one group (i.e., in this case, RINOS and Demos) say, “Ah-hah!! See these words really means X! You see they are lying!” Most people don’t have the time and energy for that and get pissed at whoever is doing it. And I, a person who savors political gossip and news, have just been exhausted and worn out by all this fighting over the meanings of single words. Perhaps, I am the one who has played into the GOPs hands – capitulation by fatigue.

  13. 13.

    BinkyBoy

    July 18, 2005 at 5:18 pm

    The quote I posted before leaves him absolutely no wiggle room, while the other statements were more open and non-commital unless there is a conviction.

    If the press would stop talking about the two quotes John posted and look at what else was said, they’d have him in a nice corner, probably pissing himself like a scared puppy.

  14. 14.

    Compuglobalhypermeganet

    July 18, 2005 at 5:47 pm

    Speaking of hilarious quotes, this from Chuckles the Clown Schumer, Democrat Grandstander/Comedian:

    “The standard for holding a high position in the White House should not simply be that you didn’t break the law,” he said. “It should be a lot higher…”

    As usual, Democrats are good primarily for the irony.

  15. 15.

    Bob

    July 18, 2005 at 6:14 pm

    How far away are we from the next “I am not a crook” speech?

  16. 16.

    Lee

    July 18, 2005 at 6:20 pm

    Everytime I hear the Republicans say “Nobody here committed a crime” I swear I hear an echo of Gore saying “no controlling legal authority”.

    Maybe it is just the room I’m in.

  17. 17.

    wufnik

    July 18, 2005 at 6:24 pm

    Two questions: (1) Why is anyone at all surprised? and (2) When will Fox news start talking about George Bush’s flip-flops?

  18. 18.

    Sojourner

    July 18, 2005 at 6:28 pm

    “The standard for holding a high position in the White House should not simply be that you didn’t break the law,” he said. “It should be a lot higher…”

    Sounds good to me… especially when national security is involved.

  19. 19.

    croatoan

    July 18, 2005 at 6:50 pm

    September 29, 2003:

    MR. McCLELLAN:…If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

    June 10, 2004:

    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: Yes.

  20. 20.

    Kimmitt

    July 18, 2005 at 7:04 pm

    In his defense, President George W. Bush is a lying sack of shit. So Clintonian parsing is a step up for him.

  21. 21.

    p.lukasiak

    July 18, 2005 at 7:40 pm

    Perhaps most importantly, Bush’s first “fire” statement was made on September 29th, 2.5 monts after Plame was outed — and days after the CIA had referred the case to the Justice Dept under the 1982 law everyone cites.

    In other words, the first statement was not a statement of principle, but our first acknowledgement that Bush knew that Rove was involved in the disclosure of Plame’s covert status. Bush was already covering for Rove….

  22. 22.

    eileen from OH

    July 18, 2005 at 7:41 pm

    My guess is the reason why this strikes a really odd note is the feeling that Bush shouldn’t have to wait on on Fitzgerald in order to find out if the law has been violated. Hell, he’s had two years and these people work for him, right? Like down the hall? He needs an outside grand jury to tell him whether or not his staff is doing things they oughtn’t? And there ain’t a lawyer around who could spell out if said behavior is criminal? (NOTE: I did not say provably criminal, just criminal. Which, one would hope, would not make a difference when it comes to silly things like security clearances and oaths and stuff.)

    Or maybe he knows, but is hoping, praying, and rubbing Karl’s head for luck, and hedging his bets that the crime won’t be INDICTABLE crime and therefore not really a crime at all TA-DA! Safe at the plate!

    I’m betting that the next statement will be “Anyone who is indicted for a crime is SO out of here” followed by “Okay, seriously, anyone who is indicted for a crime and convicted is TOAST” followed by “Really, I mean it this time, anyone who is tried and convicted and turned down on appeal is skating on really thin ice.”

    All conjecture of course, but I think that IS the perception. And as I oft observe (to the annoyance of friends, btw) perception trumps reality most of the time.

    eileen from OH

  23. 23.

    Jess

    July 18, 2005 at 8:06 pm

    “I’m betting that the next statement will be “Anyone who is indicted for a crime is SO out of here” followed by “Okay, seriously, anyone who is indicted for a crime and convicted is TOAST” followed by “Really, I mean it this time, anyone who is tried and convicted and turned down on appeal is skating on really thin ice.””

    LOL! you are too funny, girlfriend!

  24. 24.

    CaseyL

    July 18, 2005 at 8:09 pm

    I know where Bush’s rep for being a “straight shooter” came from: his own mouthpieces.

    I’ve never understood why anyone takes that self-endowed reputation at face value. C’mon: someone here, anyone, give me a single example of Bush being straight with anyone about anything.

  25. 25.

    Sojourner

    July 18, 2005 at 9:22 pm

    I think you guys are being unfair. It’s not as if Rove has a pattern of leaking to, for example, Bob Novak. So how can you just assume that he would do something like this?

    (pssst… Daddy Bush fired him for this exact thing with Bob Novak.). Oh. Never mind.

  26. 26.

    Bob

    July 18, 2005 at 9:43 pm

    Soon it will be “I will deal with anyone convicted of a felony of more ten years and a fine of more than $50,000.”

  27. 27.

    Peter

    July 24, 2005 at 1:54 am

    I believe Bush may be impeached. That’s what’s slowly, but surely, coming down the pike. Keep your fingers crossed.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • schrodingers_cat on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:42pm)
  • lowtechcyclist on Henry Would Like His Lunch Right Now, Please (Open Thread) (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:42pm)
  • Nelle on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:38pm)
  • Geminid on Take the Fucking Win (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:37pm)
  • cain on Righteous Rant Open Thread (Apr 15, 2024 @ 4:29pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!