Thursday, July 21, 2005

Flip-Flop? Sorry, not this time

A major story in the blogosphere is President Bush's "backtracking" and "flip-flopping" of what he'd do if someone in his Administration was involved in leaking a covert operative's name. It's a question of responses over three years:

September 20, 2003: "... 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."

June 10, 2004: When asked at a post G-8 Summit News Conference if he stood by his statement of September 20, 2003, Bush said, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

July 18, 2005: "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

After selective editing, this is the resulting AP story:

President Bush qualified his pledge to dismiss any White House official found to have leaked the name of a CIA operative, saying Monday that "if someone committed a crime" he would be fired.

In September 2003, the White House had said anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed. Bush reiterated that promise last June, saying he would fire anyone found to have disclosed the CIA officer's name.

Qualified his pledge? Not at all. There is no flip-flop.


Anonymous Robert said...

Right on. The MSM keep hammering away at this ad nauseum, and it's just not true. When that reporter in 2004 asked the question, he added "do you stand by your pledge from last September to fire anyone involved in the leak" - his words, not the President's. And people wonder if the press is liberal. Here's a prime example.

July 28, 2005 9:58 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home