Downing Street memo

Republicans will win this one, simply because it all started with the Democrats trying to get them, like it has been since GW got in.... Rove only responded in both instances to prodding after reporters contacted him totally for other inquiries, it was bait pure and simple. In the long run nothing will come of it, and ordinary citizens don't stay glued to politics, and armed forces personel and relatives have other responsibilies. Why don't we just let us "dumb" voters decide. Everyone here and we are from all states, clearly see what is going on, day after day after day. Also if you carefully check out (in full context) exactly what this President said about this incident, you will note that he CLEARLY said that anyone in his administration who leaked information on ACTIVE agents, or classified material or broke the law would no longer be in his administration. THAT is a far cry from saying that BUSH promised to fire people who leaked things..like your side says.

 

Poor ickle persecuted Wepublicans.

 

Remember Begala...that is the modi aperandi with Democrats...everything is calculated and everything is weighted politically. Unfortunately them days are over, as per elections these acts are slowly showing voters where this is coming from. And KMO I note you may be of British descent, you know the type of people that made this last incident, was this not enough for you to see what these people want for the world?? The whole problem started when reporters found out certain things, and were trying to politically embarass another reporter, and the Bush Administration's Iraq policies, that along hopefully with also embarassing Blair. Unfortunately, the Bush people only stated they heard about it, or knew about it from press accounts. The original intelligence, although disavowed because of political reasons here, is STILL maintained and proven by British Intelligence. Indeed Iraq was in AFRICA (and by the way Niger is the primary source for yellow cake in AFRICA), for just such a purpose. If you call us WEEEEpubicans, that is supposed to be a factual response??? All it shows is your lack of maturity and inability to maintain a rational conversation. And yes Harold Ickes and Paul Begala's sole purposes in the Clinton Administration was to politically and through a willing press to put down and embarass and discredit anyone who disagreed with anything the Clinton Administration was doing, including the fighting over the Monica affair and rape allegations. They did a good job, because Clinton was never impeached and the American People at that time wanted him again and again. Our view was you was all fooled, but that is an opinion, not FACT.

 

And PS you will be fooled and sorry if you succeed in getting Hillary in there!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"108222)</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"108222)</div>

You are still doing it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"108140)</div>

Actually, here is what the White house said regarding the leak in 2003:

"If anyone in this Administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this Administration." (9/29/03, White House press briefing).


There was no mention of "ACTIVE" agents or breaking the law. This is very clear cut, if you're involved you're fired.
President Bush revised his statement Monday (2 years later) to anyone who "commited a crime", which means, "if we can get away with it then there's no problem." ukeright:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(billysimmerson\";p=\"108458)</div>

Thanks Billy. And there are other exact quotes that were made 2 years ago to the same affect.

When IA made the comment about how Bush had suggested that the firing would only occur if a conviction occurred, I thought he had gone off the deep end as there was zero language to that affect. Then about 16 hours after IA's post, Bush came out and said this. This led me to realize that not only does IA support the republican spin no matter how preposterous it is, but IA IS the Republican spin. And he just might be in trouble with his handlers because he made his post before Bush made his speech. IA, in the future you need to watch your timing.

Whenever there is a Republican slant on the news, take note that all of a sudden Rush, and Bill O'Really, the RNC, Cheney, McClellan, Brit Hume and all of Faux News, Mehlman, Frist and Delay, and now IA, all seem to come out with the same talking point around the same time.

These people are very organized. But their spin is irrelevant. This story is going to go where Fitzgerald wants it to go and according to the polls that IA doesn't trust, the spin is not working. Even newspapers that have powerful Republican slants are finally starting to not go along.

 

FredAgolf...I respond as Prius04 does, if I was "demeaning" so was he, but you just overlook that, and just get me for it....

 

The simplistic, one and a half line quote from the Press secretary at a White House conference does not show WHAT President Bush said on the subject.

NOTE : I cautioned to place stuff in FULL context, and if you JUST look at that, JUST remember WHAT question was asked, and how about the rest of the press release showing the full context. Also again, If you'll just quote the President, the first time he made a substantial full comment and quote it completely, and you will find no FLIP FLOP there.

 

You google expert just look at lines you can use and never quite get around to telling the full story and letting the people decide. Just today I read (from a Hearst Company Paper), and by an AP story, the death of General Westmoreland. The quicker there is a 180 Million Dollar LIBEL suit against CBS, where CBS accused Westmoreland of LYING to President Johnson. GUESS what....CBS settled out of court, after 18 days of the case and just before jury instructions..that tidbid was left out when I saw that story back in those days... Today the Googlers just can make their case, just like now, give the FULL story guys, not your side of it.

 

"If anyone in this Administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this Administration." (9/29/03, White House press briefing).

MORE GOOGLE, GOOGLERS......

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"108811)</div>

I don't see anything in Prius04's post that accuses someone of lack of maturity or demeans anyone. He does attack the other side. As for me having a double standard, I may be guilty. But I became intensely aware of your consistently attacking others, apparently without knowing you were doing so. I have refrained from countering what you say and have focused on helping you see that you are doing something I don't think you want to do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"108820)</div>

Imagine that, your quote is word for word what billysimmerson's post above said it was. I suppose that means you agree with him.

 

Prius 04 comments (not personal...accuses me of talking points etc..)

"I thought he had gone off the deep end as there was zero language to that affect. Then about 16 hours after IA's post, Bush came out and said this. This led me to realize that not only does IA support the republican spin no matter how preposterous it is, but IA IS the Republican spin. And he just might be in trouble with his handlers because he made his post before Bush made his speech. IA, in the future you need to watch your timing. "


And the quote...RIGHT., same words just proving my own case, not agreeing. Have him (whoever it was that quoted the press conference) give the rest of it, and the President's own words. I refuse to do the work, when people refuse to read or listen anyway, if I posted it, you would either not read it or post more snipits supporting your opinions. If I saw that Bush had said ONLY that with regards to all this, I would agree, but that is NOT WHAT Bush said in complete terms, anyone can cut parts and make their case. It was like the mission accomplished quote, the president made it clear in that SPEECH that it would take a long time and a lot of hard sacrifices to complete the mission, but YOU all focussed on the two words, and still make fun of that today. Never mind he was addressing young pilots and sailors, he was boosting morale etc.. READ the WHOLE SPEECH.

 

aND ps to PRIUS 04: ON that 16 hour thing, did it ever occur to you that I might have been right on that one ???????????????????????????????

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"108869)</div>

You were right, you were just 16 hours early. You should have waited for the President to actually say that he would only fire someone if they were convicted, before you cited him as saying it.

But lets analyse this statement. Bush is now saying that he will not have a convicted felon in his administration.

Wow, isn't that wonderful. He won't have a convicted felon. What a phenomenally high standard that is. Does Bush mean to tell us that if Rove is caught in a lie that is not criminal, he can stay in his administration? And this is OK with you?

 

Of course it's okay. Anything that Bush does is okay with his loyal troops.

Odd, I could have sworn that Republicans were the ones who were supposed to be distrustful of government and politicians. :| Must be getting my US politics confused.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO\";p=\"108917)</div>

No, no, no. They only distrust government officials and politicians whose policies they dislike.

 

My apologies for taking the quote out of context. Presented below is the qoute, in context. The original quote is in bold. I'm glad Scott cleared it up early that Karl wasn't involved!



Q. All right, let me just follow up. You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that?

A. Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So - I mean, it's public knowledge I've said that it's not true.

Q. Well, how …

A. And I have spoken with Karl Rove. I'm not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff, or anything of that nature. That's not my practice.

Q. But the president has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove …

A. Well, I said it publicly. I said that - and so, I've made it very clear.

Q. I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the president has a factual basis for saying - for your statement that he knows Karl Rove …

A. He's aware of what I said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have - I have spoken with Karl about it.…

Q. But, Scott, it gets to the question, if you know - if the president knows that Karl Rove was not involved, then maybe you can tell us more about what the president specifically is doing to get to the bottom of this, or what has he ordered to be done within the White House to get to the bottom …

A. The president wants anyone, anyone who has information relating to this to report that information to the appropriate agency, the Department of Justice. That's what the president wants, and I've been very clear about that. If …

Q. So he's convinced that there was no White House involvement …

A. You know, if I could get - well, if I could get anonymous to fess up, that would make my life a whole lot easier. But there's been nothing - there has been absolutely …

Q. My question is, does he know, is he convinced that no one in the White House was involved with this?

A. There has been absolutely nothing brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement. All we've seen is what is in the media reports. Media reports cite senior administration official, or senior administration officials.

Q. So they're wrong?

A. But I haven't seen anything before that. That's why it's appropriate for the Department of Justice, if something like this happened, to look into it.

Q. So those media reports are wrong, as far as the White House is concerned?

A. Well, we have nothing beyond those media reports to suggest there is White House involvement. And so …

Q. And the president …

A. There's been no specific information brought to my attention to suggest …

Q. He's not doing anything proactive?

Q. Let me - let me follow up on …

A. No, he's making it clear that this is a serious - through his spokesman, me, that this is a serious matter, and if someone did this, it should be looked into and it should be pursued to the fullest extent.…

Q. What do you say to people out there who are watching this and must be saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington, and yet his spokesman …

A. And he has.

Q. … and yet his spokesman is saying that there's no internal even questioning of whether or not people were involved in this, and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, letting it pursue more of a criminal investigation as opposed to almost an ethical

A. Dana, think about what you're asking. Do you have specific information to bring to our attention that suggests White House involvement?

Q. No, but - (off mike) -

A. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.…

Q. Scott, we do know one thing that did happen, and that is that a name was leaked of a C.I.A. operative. Whoever did it, does the president want some type of Justice Department investigation into just that?

A. Well, like I said, one, I've only - I've seen the media reports, and from one report I saw, that the C.I.A. had neither confirmed nor denied that this individual was a covert operative for the C.I.A.

Q. Why don't they deny it …

A. But, yes, if something like this happened, a leak of highly classified information of this nature, the president would want it looked into and pursued to the fullest extent by the Department of Justice.…

Q. Okay, now, in terms of your efforts to - and in terms of the issue of whether or not to contact senior administration officials, are you saying it is inappropriate to contact them on behalf of the president, or that it's too difficult?

A. I'm sorry, contact - contact them in the sense of asking whether or not there was any involvement?

Q. Well, obviously someone contacted Karl Rove. There was some effort to knock down a specific allegation here. So I'm wondering, why not contact others? Were others contacted in the - among the president's senior advisers?

A. Well, there was a specific allegation leveled - I saw it was - has now since been backed away from - about Karl Rove, and that's why I responded to that question. But I think we could go down the White House directory of every single staff member and play that game. I'm not going to do that. What I've made clear is that if anybody has information relating to this, they need to report it to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice should pursue it to the fullest. It is a serious matter. But I'm not going to go down a list of every single staffer in the White House when there's not specific information that has been brought to my attention to suggest …

Q. - inappropriate, in your view, or is it just too diffuse, it's too difficult? I don't understand exactly what the reason is that you wouldn't expand the effort from Karl Rove to perhaps another dozen or so people who might have been …

A. Well, we've got important work to do here in Washington, D.C., for the people of this nation, and the president will continue to focus on the priorities we are pursuing: the war on terrorism; strengthening the economy. There are a number of important priorities we are focused on. There are a lot of anonymous media reports that happen all the time, and it's not our practice to go and try to chase down anonymous sources every time there's a report in the media. If there's specific information that comes to our attention, that's another matter. But there has not been any information beyond what we've seen in just anonymous media reporting to suggest that there was White House involvement.

Q. (Off mike.)…

Q. Scott, just one point. You said that the president knows that Karl Rove was not involved, and you specifically have spoken to Karl Rove and gotten these assurances. By those statements, you've implied that the president has not talk to Karl Rove specifically about this. Is that a correct assumption or …

A. No, I said that - what - I've already answered this question when Terry asked it earlier, and I said that it's not my habit to get into conversations the president has with staff or with advisers. So that's just not - I'm not going to get - I'm not going to get into those conversations. I've made it clear that it simply is not true, and I'm speaking on behalf of the White House when I say that.…

Q. Scott, just a couple quick clarifications. Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous.

A. That's right.

Q. And I want to just make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl?

A. I've made it very clear from the beginning that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl - I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct.

Q. So you didn't have a subsequent conversation with Mr. Rove in order to say that you had this conversation?

A. I have spoken with Karl about this matter.

Q. When did you talk to him?

A. I have spoken with Karl about this matter.

Q. When did you talk to him? Weeks ago, or just recently?

A. And I've already addressed. What I said then still applies today, and that's what I've made clear.

Q. I have one other follow-up.

A. Okay.

Q. Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife but merely did not talk to anybody about it? Do you know whether for a fact he knew?

A. I don't know whether or not - I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has.

Q. No …

Q. Before.

Q. When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, "Did you ever have this information?" Could you have talked …

A. Yeah, I mean, we're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

Q. No, I'm trying to ask …

A. And again, I'd say, I didn't - it's not something I needed to ask him, but I like to, like you do, verify things and make sure that it's completely accurate. But I knew that Karl would not be involved in something like this.