President Bush said Monday that “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration,” prompting many to report that Bush had raised the bar for firing anyone involved in the Valerie Plame controversy.
But Bush had already established this (pitifully low) standard: In September 2003, he said, “If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of” (emphasis added).
For Bush, apparently, ethics is about whether you get caught breaking the law, not about standards of right or wrong. Let the message go forth: Convicted felons need not apply at the White House.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
41 Comments
Randy,
Did you miss what “context” is when you were in journalism school?
What do they teach you there? It can’t possibly be how to report the truth or search for it.
Nice to see Randy backing off in the face of so many truths coming out about what a liar Wilson is, and how the CIA is behind much of this crap because Bush knew better than to trust them.
So now the lefty spin is to claim that they know what Bush should have meant when he said illegality won’t be tolerated. Better, they think, he should have meant that anything the Bush-haters hate should be eliminated. Geez.
If the left wants to be held to that standard , they’d better stay hidden under their rocks.
The Left is getting more shrill when it comes to Rove. They just want him gone because he beat them. Somehow I have a feeling if it came to Mr. Scholfield’s job the mere appearance of a problem wouldn’t cause him to leave.
What’s scary here is that any criticism of the current administration is relegated to being “Bush haters”. How simplistic an outlook. I guess its easier to make that judgment and lightly dismiss any adversity than to look into what the issues really are. The definition of treason is now changed, there are few ethics in this administration, and the public at large seems to no longer hold its politicians to any sense of high standard. Changing the wording of his statements as the detrimental information about his buddy unfolds isn’t exactly my idea of amoral, ethical, or even protective president. He certainly isn’t protecting the people of this country at large. He’s simply protecting his cronies. National security suddenly isn’t so important after all.
UUMMM! I’ll wait until the investigation is finished until I make my conclusion.
No matter how it gets twisted, the president changed the standard. He did indeed say that he would fire anybody involved. Now he’s thrown in the criminal charge caveat. It has nothing to do with who gets charged with what. Exposing a CIA operative for political revenge is unethical. Bush said at first that he’d fire anybody involved. It appears he’s changed his story to protect one of the most ethically challenged people in Washington (ok cons, lets hear about Kennedy’s escapades from 30 years ago).
Latest word is that Rove didn’t disclose talking with Matthew Cooper during his first session with the Special Prosector.
Remember, folks: lying is both a matter of COMISSION and of OMISSION.
Hank Price,I’d sure like to hear your opinion on this issue.
Oh I forgot, you’re hiding out because you proved yourself to be a dishonorable fool.
Nathan, are insults always your first response to Randy? It seems that the later at night, the more obnoxious your blogs. I noticed you jumped off the Special Counsel insult train and decided to lash out on this one. Man, if I felt that much anger at the world I think I would have to ask myself if maybe the problem is between my own ears.
I think it is odd that the right is accusing the left of being “shrill” and being ‘Bush haters”. These proceeding remind me of the attempted impeachment of President Clinton. Obviously, the right is much better at dishing out criticism than taking it in.
I think it is odd that the right is accusing the left of being “shrill” and being ‘Bush haters”. These proceedings remind me of the attempted impeachment of President Clinton. Obviously, the right is much better at dishing out criticism than taking it in.
Just for the sake of argument . . . what if everything Wilson said was right? What if the plot to “out” Valerie Plame WAS orchestrated by Rove and Lewis Libby and VP Cheney and even Bush himself?
What if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was illegal and BushCo. comprimised national security for political payback?
IF all those things were true, would Nathan and Kathy and Hank and Tricia still support Bush?
*****What I’m trying to get at is what would it take for the rock-ribbed right-wingers to say “Bush is a miserable failure.”
If he snotrted cocain and ate a puppy on live TV, would that turn you against Bush?
I just wonder if it within the realm of the possible . . .
Remember, we’re already looking at a White House team who said “there is NO DOUBT Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. He can deliver them by drone aircraft to the East Coast and create a mushroom cloud above American cities.” “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction,” said Rumsfilled, “even a trained ape knows that.”
The fact that everything they said has had no impact on the right-wing.
So again I ask, can Bush do anything that would make you lose faith in him?
Go Twister! Can I loan you my ball bat, bro?
Mistertwister,
I don’t recall Bush or the administration pushing those kind of warnings.
If I recall correctly it was the liberals who blew those things out of proportion and still are…
I am beginning to think we have Nathan and Kathy and Hank and Tricia all wrong. Perhaps they are extreme left wing liberals who are posing as conservative Republicans. After all, who else would want to paint such an unflattering portrait of what it means to be Christian, conservative, Republican, or a rational thinking individual?
That is what I find scary, Zoom. It apparently makes no difference to a lot of folks what this administration does or doesn’t do. I can’t think that many people don’t have functioning brains. Wrong seems to only be wrong if the “other side” does it. My geriatric mother thinks that way, but that’s due to the dementia that set in. What is the population at large’s excuse?
Just for the sake of argument . . . what if everything Wilson said was a lie? What if the plot to “out” Valerie Plame WAS orchestrated by the CIA and Wilson and their media lapdogs?
What if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was illegal and the CIA has again compromised national security for political payback?
IF all those things were true, would Twisted and Zoom and Hummer and Dagger and brown still act like spoiled brats?
*****What I’m trying to get at is what would it take for the rock-ribbed loony left to say “Bush is the best president in history.”
If he snotrted cocain and ate a puppy on live TV, would that make you finally like him?
I just wonder if it within the realm of the possible . . .
Nathan, please take note of Misty Twisted and her style of debate. Notably her sinking to name-calling such as; “spoiled brats”, “rock-ribbed loony left. ” The knife cuts both ways, don’t you think?
MISTY
This seems to be a typical rightwing ploy–take the opponents’ argument and just negate it as a kind of parody.
Okay, I’ll bite. Yes, if Wilson is shown to be a liar and Bush’s policies make the country better and safer, then yes, I’ll be the first one to say “Bush is a good president.”
We’ve had five years to see the exact opposite however.
And none of the right-wingers have answered my question.
See, Nathan’s response is exactly what scares me. Instead of dealing with the reality of what Team Bush said in the build up to the Iraq war, they just obtusely refuse to see the truth.
Twister, that’s because people like nathan aren’t worried about being right….all they want is to win the argument, no matter what the cost to their honor or integrity (which they have none of). And have you noticed when you pin one of them down’ they just fade away…..Oh, by the way Twister, the coward Hank Price thinks you and I are one in the same.
Yeah, Hammer, I got to quit posting so much . . . it’s not good for my mental health.
Hammer,
Being right is winning the argument.
I guess when you are wrong and you loose the argument all you have left is to attack us for winning?
Wow! I am amazed at your resolve.
You are one of those guys that could probably loose his house and everything you own and still find the good in it.
God Bless.
Nathan, you’re blithering again. Get a drool cup.Do you have reserve training this weekend?
Hey Hammer,Don’t ask that! He’s obviously a Bush leaguer, and so probably hasn’t shown up for so long that that he’s forgotten which weekend it is!
When did you serve Jed?
You show your true liberal self by the mockery of someone who serves his country.
Gee Nathan, do you suppose Jed might not be one to brag, either?
Hey Nathan,I wasn’t in the military, if that’s what you mean.They didn’t want me any more than I wanted them. But there are many other ways to serve my country than drop bombs on whoever happens to be under you, and I chose several of those.
These former CIA officers counter the contention that outing Plame was not important.
FORMER INTEL OFFICERS SPEAK OUT ON THE PLAME LEAK
“The disclosure of [CIA officer Valerie] Plame’s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources,” wrote eleven former intelligence officers in an open letter to Congressthis week.
They disputed the contention, voiced by some Republican officials, that since Plame was employed at CIA headquarters she could not have been “under cover.”
“These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who ‘work at a desk’ in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.”
See their July 18 letter here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2005/07/intlet.pdf
Steven, I read that, too. But you need to remember, it’s ok if you’re a republican.
This blog shows that it is war folks. Bushies, for whatever self motivated or deluded reason are prepared to excuse anything. Their cries of “treason” against those of us who oppose their president, (and he is their president in action and deed,) demonstrate that for whatever cause or delusion they espouse, these folks are in fact the anti- Americans. They are either willingly in collusion or being used by their hot headed embrace of their own ignorance to embrace FASCISM.May justice be done though the Heavens fall.
Whateever that post of yours meant I don’t know JR.
Everyone is acting like a bunch of school children.I’m right and everyone else is wrong.This is exactly what is wrong with our systems.Take off all the labels. Look at just the facts.Someone leaked a CIA’s agents name. Very few people had access to that knowledge. Laws were broken.We, the little people will never know how much damage this did our intelligence gathering efforts.Instead of bashing each other.Instead of trying to “win” the argument.Think honestly to yourself. You don’t have to admit to anyone else.Should the person who leaked the knowledge, whether to the media, or vice versa be punished?
Sum1, sadly, you’re wasting your time. I agree with what you say, but they’ll tear you apart even if you don’t take sides, and you sound liberal. That’ll really set em off. No room for anybody in the center on these blogs.
It’s a vast left wing conspiracy. Valerie Plame outed herself long before anyone else. Flashy blonde, big mouth has been husband. Judith Miller had the security clearance to know exactly what Plame’s supposed confidential status was. In fact, Judith Miller knows more about that sort of thing than any other journalist,,with her bioterrorism exercise expertise and interviews with Bin Laden types, etc.The left is whining that Karl Rove passed of the fictitious Bush military duty papers to the whiner who passed them to CBS who just passed them. Karl Rove must be an absolute genius. Karl Rove is being blamed/credited with things that no mere mortal can achieve. The current administration CERTAINLY ought to keep a guy like Karl Rove, they’d be fools not to. The left has made Karl a legend!
I wish the Eagle would pick up the testimony of James Marcinkowski. He is a former CIA agent and this is what he has to say to about the partisan politics. Below is the transcript:”What is important now is not who wins or loses the political battle or who may or may not be indicted; rather, it is a question of how we will go about protecting the citizens of this country in a very dangerous world. The undisputed fact is that we have irreparably damaged our capability to collect human intelligence and thereby significantly diminished our capability to protect the American people.
Understandable to all Americans is a simple, incontrovertible, but damning truth: the United States government exposed the identity of a clandestine officer working for the CIA. This is not just another partisan “dust-up” between political parties. This unprecedented act will have far-reaching consequences for covert operations around the world. Equally disastrous is that from the time of that first damning act, we have continued on a course of self-inflicted wounds by government officials who have refused to take any responsibility, have played hide-and-seek with the truth and engaged in semantic parlor games for more than two years, all at the expense of the safety of the American people. No government official has that right.
For an understanding of what is at stake it is important to understand some fundamental principles. No country or hostile group, from al Qaeda to any drug rings operating in our cities, likes to be infiltrated or spied upon. The CIA, much like any police department in any city, has undercover officers–spies, that use “cover.”
To operate under “cover” means you use some ruse to cloak both your identity and your intentions. The degree of cover needed to carry out any operation varies depending on the target of the investigation. A police officer performing “street buys” uses a “light” cover, meaning he or she could pose as something as simple as a drug user, operate only at night and during the day and, believe it or not, have a desk job in the police station. On the other hand, if an attempt were made to infiltrate a crime syndicate, visiting the local police station or drinking with fellowFBI agents after work may be out of the question. In any scenario, your cover, no matter what the degree, provides personal protection and safety. But it does not end there. Cover is also used to protect collection methodology as well as any innocent persons a CIA officer may have regular contact with, such as overseas acquaintances, friends, and even other U.S. government officials.
While cover provides a degree of safety for the case officer, it also provides security for that officer’s informants or agents. In most human intelligence operations, the confidentiality of the cover used by a CIA officer and the personal security of the agent or asset is mutually dependent. A case officer cannot be identified as working for the CIA, just as the informant/agent cannot be identified as working for the CIA through the case officer. If an informant or agent is exposed as working for the CIA, there is a good chance that the CIA officer has been identified as well. Similarly, if the CIA officer is exposed, his or her agents or informants are exposed. In all cases, the cover of a case officer ensures not only his or her own personal safety but that of the agents or assets as well.
The exposure of Valerie Plame’s cover by the White House is the same as the local chief of police announcing to the media the identity of its undercover drug officers. In both cases, the ability of the officer to operate is destroyed, but there is also an added dimension. An informant in a major sophisticated crime network, or a CIA asset working in a foreign government, if exposed, has a rather good chance of losing more than just their ability to operate.
Any undercover officer, whether in the police department or the CIA, will tell you that the major concern of their informant or agent is their personal safety and that of their family. Cover is safety. If you cannot guarantee that safety in some form or other, the person will not work for you and the source of important information will be lost.
So how is the Valerie Plame incident perceived by any current or potential agent of the CIA? I will guarantee you that if the local police chief identified the names of the department’s undercover officers, any half-way sophisticated undercover operation would come to a halt and if he survived that accidental discharge of a weapon in police headquarters, would be asked to retire.
And so the real issues before this Congress and this country today is not partisan politics, not even the loss of secrets. The secrets of Valerie Plame’s cover are long gone. What has suffered perhaps irreversible damage is the credibility of our case officers when they try to convince our overseas contact that their safety is of primary importance to us. How are our case officers supposed to build and maintain that confidence when their own government cannot even guarantee the personal protection of the home team? While the loss of secrets in the world of espionage may be damaging, the stealing of the credibility of our CIA officers is unforgivable….
And so we are left with only one fundamental truth, the U.S. government exposed the identity of a covert operative. I am not convinced that the toothpaste can be put back into the tube. Great damage has been done and that damage has been increasing every single day for more than two years. The problem of the refusal to accept responsibility by senior government officials is ongoing and causing greater damage to our national security and our ability to collect human intelligence. But the problem lies not only with government officials but also with the media, commentators and other apologists who have no clue as to the workings of the intelligence community. Think about what we are doing from the perspective of our overseas human intelligence assets or potential assets.
I believe Bob Novak when he credited senior administration officials for the initial leak, or the simple, but not insignificant confirmation of that secret information, as I believe a CIA officer in some far away country will lose an opportunity to recruit an asset that may be of invaluable service to our covert war on terror because “promises of protection” will no longer carry the level of trust they once had.
Each time the leader of a political party opens his mouth in public to deflect responsibility, the word overseas is loud and clear–politics in this country does in fact trump national security.
Each time a distinguished ambassador is ruthlessly attacked for the information he provided, a foreign asset will contemplate why he should risk his life when his information will not be taken seriously.
Each time there is a perceived political “success” in deflecting responsibility by debating or re-debating some minutia, such actions are equally effective in undermining the ability of this country to protect itself against its enemies, because the two are indeed related. Each time the political machine made up of prime-time patriots and partisan ninnies display their ignorance by deriding Valerie Plame as a mere “paper-pusher,” or belittling the varying degrees of cover used to protect our officers, or continuing to play partisan politics with our national security, it is a disservice to this country. By ridiculing, for example, the “degree” of cover or the use of post office boxes, you lessen the level of confidence that foreign nationals place in our covert capabilities.
Those who would advocate the “I’m ok, you’re ok” politics of non-responsibility, should probably think about the impact of those actions on our foreign agents. Non-responsibility means we don’t care. Not caring means a loss of security. A loss of security means a loss of an agent. The loss of an agent means the loss of information. The loss of information means an increase in the risk to the people of the United States.
There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.
Those who take pride in their political ability to divert the issue from the fundamental truth ought to be prepared to take their share of the responsibility for the continuing damage done to our national security.
When this unprecedented act first occurred, the president could have immediately demanded the resignation of all persons even tangentially involved. Or, at a minimum, he could have suspended the security clearances of these persons and placed them on administrative leave. Such methods are routine with police forces throughout the country. That would have at least sent the right message around the globe, that we take the security of those risking their lives on behalf of the United States seriously. Instead, we have flooded the foreign airwaves with two years of inaction, political rhetoric, ignorance, and partisan bickering. That’s the wrong message. In doing so we have not lessened, but increased the threat to the security and safety of the people of the United States. “
Absolutely brilliant Sum! I’m at a loss to add much to it and I think you already said something similar. The neo-cons and bushies are on a bulldozer. That is the best analogy I can conjure for what is going on. They will do anything and say anything even to the point of endangering national security, all while cloaking themselves in the flag.I hope they draw this thing out. I hope they defend Rove to the last because I think this administration is likely the most corrupt in American history. If their zeal to save “the architect” can bring light onto the rest of these crooks it is a good thing.
Sum1, may I offer my congrats too? Well done!
The fundamental truth is that Plame is and was a desk jockey, so all of Sum1’s comments are irrelevant. As her former boss at the CIA has stated, Plame’s status as an agent was the worst kept secret in Washington. Neither she nor her husband bothered to maintain any kind of secrecy about her position at the CIA.
Where’s the beef?