Like moths to a Plame?
On September 30, 2003, the President said:
On October 7, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked about the roles of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Elliott Abrams with regard to leaking Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent. McClellan's response:
On October 10, 2003, McClellan was again asked about the involvement of Rove, Libby, and Abrams. His response:
On June 10, 2004, President Bush was asked if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Valerie Plame's name. His response was:
Today, when asked if he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed Plame's identity, his response was:
————
Note the overwhelming lack of an attempt to back his trusted advisor. Loyalty is supposed to be so prized in this White House, yet there seems to be a disturbing lack of it on this one. Lots of stonewalling and denials, but nothing horribly overt in the way of loyalty. That's a good sign, if you ask me. Not that I think the White House will do the right thing, but a boy can dream...
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 ... I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business.
On October 7, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asked about the roles of Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Elliott Abrams with regard to leaking Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent. McClellan's response:
There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.
On October 10, 2003, McClellan was again asked about the involvement of Rove, Libby, and Abrams. His response:
They assured me that they were not involved in this.
On June 10, 2004, President Bush was asked if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Valerie Plame's name. His response was:
Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.
Today, when asked if he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed Plame's identity, his response was:
It's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
————
Note the overwhelming lack of an attempt to back his trusted advisor. Loyalty is supposed to be so prized in this White House, yet there seems to be a disturbing lack of it on this one. Lots of stonewalling and denials, but nothing horribly overt in the way of loyalty. That's a good sign, if you ask me. Not that I think the White House will do the right thing, but a boy can dream...
posted by Sasquatch at
5:07 PM
2 Comments:
This White House may ultimately have no choice but to abandon their loyalty to the individuals in question -- not really any good way to spin this to their advantage, or even as damage control. Kind of sad for the people in question, in a way -- while they may not have received a specific directive to leak Plame's identity, I doubt the powers-that-be were dismayed or disappointed when it happened, either!
By
Anonymous, at 7/18/2005 10:49 PM
I'm simply stopping to comment that your hit count right now is 01234. I thought that was kinda cool. Not particulary erudite, but still kinda cool.
By
Merujo, at 7/21/2005 10:30 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home