more hypocrital white house crap- Page 2

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/13/05 at 2:40pm

Letter from Senator Barbara Boxer and Rep. George Miller to the president:

---

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:

In his press briefings on Monday and Tuesday of this week, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan cited “an ongoing investigation” more than 30 times to justify his repeated refusal to answer questions about Karl Rove’s involvement in revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative.

Mr. McClellan refused to answer even simple questions about whether or not what Mr. Rove did was “right” – not whether it was “legal,” but whether it was right. The legality of Mr. Rove’s actions may be an open matter, but his acknowledged actions were clearly wrong. We are writing to you because we believe those actions merit Mr. Rove’s immediate departure from your Administration.

America is a country that stands for justice and that demands that those in government are held to high ethical standards. The admitted actions of Mr. Rove violated both those standards and your own statements on this matter, and therefore we call on you to dismiss Mr. Rove.

On September 29, 2003, Mr. McClellan said that “the President knows that Karl Rove wasn’t involved.” The very next day, you stated that “if there is a leak out of my Administration, I want to know who it is. And if that person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”

Mr. President, there should be no splitting of hairs here; it is a fact that Mr. Rove was directly involved in the exposure of Valerie Plame’s identity. The credibility of your Administration will only deteriorate further should you take no action on this matter.

We urge you to follow through on your word, to clear the air on this issue, and send the message to the entire nation that actions such as those taken by Mr. Rove will not be tolerated. There has never been a more important time for U.S. intelligence agents to be able to do their work unimpeded; the threats posed by terrorists are simply too great. Our national security requires that we protect the identity of undercover agents and that sacred responsibility clearly is more important than personal relationships or political posturing.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

George Miller
United States Representative

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/13/05 at 2:41pm

Statement of Rep. Nancy Pelosi:

---

"The American people deserve the truth about who in the White House recklessly disclosed the identity of a CIA clandestine service officer, endangering our national security. The first President Bush called it a traitorous act to reveal the names of those involved in intelligence collection.

"The President said two years ago that he wanted to get to the bottom of this. If he were sincere, it would have happened. For two years, there has been an investigation that did not reveal Karl Rove's involvement until a reporter went to jail. It looks to me that there may have been some effort by people in the White House to obstruct the investigation.

"The President has said that anyone who leaked the identity of Ms. Plame should no longer be part of his Administration. The American people and Congress expect the President to keep his word. That means firing Karl Rove and anyone else in the White House if they identified her as a CIA clandestine service officer.

"Disclosing Ms. Plame's identity is a deadly serious matter and the Republicans in the House of Representatives should be having hearings on this subject. But they have not held the Bush Administration accountable in any way on any subject, be it the budget, our national security, the war in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, the list goes on. The Administration has gotten off scot-free without any oversight from the Congress. The American people deserve better."

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 7/13/05 at 3:02pm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-13-bush-rove_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Uh, George why don't you just ASK Rove? I'm sure you know how to contact him...

Aren't you his boss?!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/13/05 at 5:28pm

anybody? $100? nobody? just stirring sh*t, then?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/14/05 at 12:07am

Bush honesty rating drops to lowest point

NBC/WSJ poll: Iraq replaces jobs as most important American priority

By Mark Murray
Political reporter
NBC News
Updated: 6:35 p.m. ET July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON - The last two weeks certainly have been eventful ones in America and across the globe: President Bush gave a prime-time speech on Iraq and attended a G-8 summit in Scotland; Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court (with perhaps another retirement on the way); and suicide bombers killed approximately 50 people in London. After these events, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Bush’s overall job rating has slipped and that his rating for being “honest and straightforward” has dropped to its lowest point.

Regarding Bush’s upcoming pick to replace O’Connor on the court, moreover, the poll shows that strong majorities believe Bush would be taking a step in the right direction if he appointed a woman and someone who supports references to God in public life. But a majority also thinks that Bush would take a wrong step if he chose someone who would vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

The survey, which was conducted from July 8-11 among 1,009 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, finds that respondents, by a 49 percent-to-46 percent margin, disapprove of Bush’s job performance. That’s a drop from the last NBC/Journal poll in May, when 47 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved. In addition, the only time when Bush’s job rating has been worse was in June 2004, when 45 percent approved of his performance.

Furthermore, only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being “honest and straightforward” — his lowest ranking on this question since he became president. That’s a drop of nine percentage points since January, when a majority (50 percent to 36 percent) indicated that he was honest and straightforward. This finding comes at a time when the Bush administration is battling the perception that its rhetoric doesn’t match the realities in Iraq, and also allegations that chief political adviser Karl Rove leaked sensitive information about a CIA agent to a reporter. (The survey, however, was taken just before these allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)

“It’s a bad period for the president,” said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican Bill McInturff. Hart attributes Bush’s problems to “one part the economy, two parts Iraq, and one part everything else.” In fact, he is somewhat surprised that Bush’s ratings didn’t increase slightly after the London attacks. “I am sort of surprised we don’t see more a skew toward rallying around anti-terrorism.”

But McInturff sees Bush’s poll numbers as part of a broader indictment against all of Washington and politics as usual. “These are problematic numbers, but there are a lot of indications that the other option — the Democratic Party — is also in a much weaker position than it started the year.” He adds that the public’s negative attitude toward Washington could intensify if Democrats and Republicans begin battling over Bush’s eventual choice to replace O’Connor on the Supreme Court. “This is a very difficult climate to begin [that] conversation,” McInturff said.

Also according to the poll, the public ranks the war in Iraq as the top priority the federal government should address, followed by job creation and then homeland security. In January’s NBC/Journal poll, the economy ranked first — followed by Iraq and then homeland security.

On Bush’s upcoming pick for the Supreme Court, strong majorities believe Bush would be making a positive step if he appointed a justice who continues to allow references to God in public life (63 percent), who is a woman (60 percent), and who upholds affirmative action laws and policies (55 percent). However, 50 percent think Bush would be making a mistake if his choice changes the court’s balance on Roe v. Wade. “There are chunks of people who are certainly right-to-life who are willing to leave [Roe v. Wade] alone,” McInturff explained.

The poll also notes that 41 percent (vs. 30 percent) want Bush to appoint a strong conservative to the court, while a nearly equal proportion (40 percent to 25 percent) would like for him to take into consideration the views of secular and liberal groups.

Mark Murray covers politics for NBC News.
© 2005 MSNBC Interactive
Bush honesty rating drops to lowest point

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 7/14/05 at 12:34am

George, do your own investigation and ask Karl Rove and then tell the American public the truth.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/14/05 at 6:13pm

Okay, this is a little off-the-wall, so only read if you're really into Plame-gate conspiracy theories. If so, let me know what you think.

I think John Bolton is in play.

If Bush fails to recess-appoint Bolton, it can only mean that Bolton's stock has plummeted.

My theory is that Bolton is the one who discovered Plame's covert status. He was angry at Wilson for denying the Niger story in the Times--which Bolton had championed, Now, Bolton has always had "anger-management problems" with dissenting voices.

So Bolton hatched the plan to out Plame's covert status, and (this is the wacky part) he SOMEHOW PERSUADED CHENEY AND ROVE TO GO ALONG.

None of the three of them realized they were committing a felony--or, more likely, none of the three thought they'd ever get caught. (This is what happened with the Watergate burglary.)

Okay, then Fitzgerald comes in, thinking he'll investigate and maybe nab an underling and--bingo!--instead he realizes he had Bolton, Rove and Cheney.

But he still needs multiple sources of proof to make it stick. So he subpoenas Novak, Cooper and Miller. Novak and Cooper's source is Rove. But then he realizes that Miller's source is...

Bolton? Or Cheney? Or both. That's big. Really big. But she won't talk. So he sends her to jail. He's got the goods on Rove, but he still lacks sufficient proof for Bolton or Cheney.

But why would Bush want him as UN ambassador if he's the Bad Idea Bear in the bunch?

Maybe Bolton is blackmailing Bush--because Bolton could testify as to what the president knew and when he knew it.

Possible? Or the plot of a bad spy novel?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/14/05 at 9:22pm

if judy's source was a dep. cos or higher (vp) she would have talked by now. the times would not have gone to the mattresses to protect her if she was protecting a key member of the administration, i.e. rove or cheney. in fact, if it was, as she stated, a "coerced" release that was afforded her by her source and it was either of those officials, then the coercion could only have come from one oblong office. so either she's alleging that gw was forcing them to give her a release, or her leaker is elsewhere.

nor do i think that karl, dick and johnny boy would have concocted this without thoroughly considering the ramifictions, legal and otherwise. they might be arrogant enough to think they could get away with it, but they're not stupid enough not to cover their own a**es. remember this is the same guy who orchestrated rather's downfall by suckering cbs into using forged documents (according to some around here). bolton might be vindictive enough to try it, but if he did the sourcing, anonymous as it was, would have been different. the times isn't protecting a whistleblower and neither is judy. it's time for them to release her info and it's time for judy to testify.

as far as bolton going to the un, while the title is more impressive, it's really a demotion in terms of power. he's being moved out of the state department where he has the opportunity wield real influence on american policy and into the un which is a morass of a bureaucracy where he can't do much real damage. i mean realistically, can the un's opinion of the us get any worse? ok, now say it with a straight face. everybody knows that an ambassadorship is usually the g'night kiss to close a career, so they're offering him the least smelly of the turd blossoms.

Updated On: 7/14/05 at 09:22 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/14/05 at 11:44pm

Always-on-target Josh Marshall:

--

If Rove et al. didn't do anything wrong, why have they spent two years lying about what they did? No law was broken? Then what is Fitzgerald looking at? Why is a grand jury investigating Rove? A prosecutor like Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, wouldn't be throwing journalists in jail unless he thought he was investigating a serious crime.

What's their answer to that? They have none.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 12:14am

PJ - it is coming soon!

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 9:08am

yeah, but when the press turns on the people who've been leading 'em around by the nose that something good is not going to be quite what you think it is. somebody got played and played bad and the ramifications politically are going to be worse than indictments. think a free hand in the scotus noms, think landslide in '06, think a really pissed off white house press corps that feels they got duped. oh man, the left is so screwed.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 9:34am

I love, Papa, that you actually foresee a landslide victory for Republicans right now in '06.

I also think that Judy went to jail precisely to protect a higher-up source...why would she do the reverse?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 10:21am

think about the logic of it, bway. if judy's source is higher up than rove, who gave his permission, who is it? cheney? if so, then who could have coerced him into giving her the ok for her to testify? that's what she said. she said she got the ok to testify from her source, but that she felt that it was coerced and therefore invalid. so, thee only person who has the authority to coerce cheney was bush. so, bush is orchestrating a cover-up while coercing cheney to give the ok to judy?