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.
db
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:
AND
Violating a law vs committing a crime. I imagine that is not the distinction you are drawing.
AND
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.
Joel B.
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).
SomeCallMeTim
See…Iran…Contra.
neil
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”.
BinkyBoy
If you couple everything said along with this conversation with a journalist, he’s flipped and flopped his way into hypocracy.
Q Given
Mr Furious
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.
Jon H
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.
Joel B.
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.
Frank
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.
Jon H
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.”
Otto Man
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.
db
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.
BinkyBoy
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.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
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.
Bob
How far away are we from the next “I am not a crook” speech?
Lee
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.
wufnik
Two questions: (1) Why is anyone at all surprised? and (2) When will Fox news start talking about George Bush’s flip-flops?
Sojourner
Sounds good to me… especially when national security is involved.
croatoan
September 29, 2003:
June 10, 2004:
Kimmitt
In his defense, President George W. Bush is a lying sack of shit. So Clintonian parsing is a step up for him.
p.lukasiak
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….
eileen from OH
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
Jess
“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!
CaseyL
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.
Sojourner
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.
Bob
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.”
Peter
I believe Bush may be impeached. That’s what’s slowly, but surely, coming down the pike. Keep your fingers crossed.