Monday, July 18, 2005

Moving the Goalposts

In a stirring testament to his campaign promises to "restore honor and integrity to the White House," President Bush said today that anyone convicted of a crime would be fired from the administration. This is, of course, a far cry from the president's original promise to fire anyone involved in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame.

Some people -- mostly liberals and communists -- might characterize this as, oh, a "flip flop" or something like that. Maybe they'd even call it a stunning demonstration that the president values political loyalty more than he does national security. Of course, to say such a thing would mean that one does, in fact, hate America.

Personally, I hope that Bush's bold new "No Felons" policy will be retroactively applied to all of the former convicted participants in the Iran-Contra scandal who now populate the administration. Perhaps the administration will once again split hairs here, noting that the standard is now "No Felons" plural and therefore they're allowed to keep at least one. (See also, the "No Homers" rule.)

UPDATE: The second link has been changed to point to the correct comment. The previous link, like past White House claims, is no longer operative.


Thrillhous said...

I think we need to put this in bushspeak.

Read my lips: No new felons. said...

I think the link you include regarding Bush's "promise to fire anyone involved in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame" doesn't actually have Bush saying that. That being said, I think Bush's most recent comment (which must infuriate Scott McClellan who is trying to help the investigation by not commenting at all at the prosecutor's request) is an attempt to shift the focus from whether Rove's misguided ad hominem attack against a war critic, which, in my opinion, is the stronger case to make for the Dems than the convoluted legality of the leak of Plame's identity. Shifting the focus to whether the leak was legal or, as Republican guests on the Sunday talk shows did, to the accuracy of Wilson's Op-Ed and follow-up comments, helps the White House. Whether laws were broken by Rove or not, isn't it bad enough to have him calling reporters on double secret background to discredit someone who has criticized the war without actually engaging the critic's arguments? And what will change in the White House if Rove is gone other than shorter lines at the snack machine? Although, it would be nice to see anyone at the White House face an actual consequence.

InanimateCarbonRod said...

Listen, baby, I know I made a promise to not sleep with other women, but what I meant to say is that I wouldn't sleep with other women if it broke any laws. If a law wasn't broken, how can it be considered wrongdoing? And about that sickness and health thing...

Studiodave said...

Technically, we didn't sleep. said...

So for now on I should read links in posts as if they're preceded by "cf."? PS, good to hear you're getting some on the side.

Otto Man said...

Whoops, Buffalo Theory is right -- that second link was the wrong one. It's been corrected.

Here's the money exchange:

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?


Mrs_Thrillhous said...

Shrub's new talk reminds me of the dumb guy in A Few Good Men who was saying "But I did nothing wrong" at the end. (oops, spoiler alert)

occurrences on Google News--
Rovegate: 29
Plame Game: 22
Karlgate: 5

Would Rove eat salad with the shrimp fork, or wear white shoes after Labor Day? These aren't illegal acts either, but I don't think so!