Posted by Jesse Berney on July 12, 2005 at 06:25 PM George Bush campaigned as someone who would "restore honor and integrity" to the office of the Presidency. As President, George Bush told his senior staff that they must "avoid even the appearance" of ethical violations. Recently it has become clear that this was all empty rhetoric. Karl Rove, one of Bush's closest friends and Senior Advisor potentially violated the law when he disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Ever since the leak was announced in 2003, the White House has defended Karl Rove. They have called the claims Rove was the leak" ridiculous." At the same time, George Bush was saying that if there were a leak they the leak would be "taken care of" and criminal charges would be filed. Now, President Bush has a tough choice to make: does he protect the man who constructed his rise to power, or does he keep his promise to the American people? Bush Pledged to Restore "Honor And Integrity" to the Presidency When Bush Came Into Office He Pledged to Restore Honor and Integrity to the Presidency. George W. Bush, upon being elected, promised to "restore honor and integrity to the office to which I have been elected." [Boston Globe, 12/3/00] When Rove Was Sworn In Bush Stressed That His Administration Must Avoid Even The Appearance Of Ethical Problems. Bush at Senior Staff Swearing in Ceremony: "[W]e must remember the high standards that come with high office. This begins with careful adherence to the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems. This means checking and, if need be, double-checking that the rules have been obeyed. This means never compromising those rules. No one in the White House should be afraid to confront the people they work for, for ethical concerns. And no one should hesitate to confront me, as well." [Public Papers of the Presidents, 1/29/01] Bush Said Rove Would Bring Good Judgment and Advice to The White House. President Bush: "Karl Rove has agreed to serve as the senior adviser and assistant to the president. Karl has got a fantastic mind. He is one of the reasons why I was elected governor, and one of the reasons why I was elected the president. He comes to Washington with a wonderful sense of history, a great understanding of the presidency as an institution in America. He will bring good judgment, good humor and good advice to the White House." [FDCH Political Transcripts, 1/4/01] From the Beginning, the White House Defended Karl Rove McClellan Said It Was Ridiculous To Think Rove Was To Blame for Leak. "There's been nothing, absolutely nothing, brought to our attention to suggest any White House involvement ," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan... McClellan dismissed the suggestion and said the White House would cooperate with a Justice Department probe. But he said it was "ridiculous" to blame Rove." [Daily News, 10/30/03] McClellan Said He Spoke With Rove Personally, And That Rove Denied Being the Leak. Press Secretary Scott McClellan said political advisor Karl Rove, Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby, and National Security Council member Elliott Abrams have each denied being the source of the leak. Said McClellan, "I've spoken with each of them individually. They said they were not involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it." [The White House Bulletin, 10/7/03] McClellan Said It Would Be Absurd To Suggest Anyone In The White House Would Punish Someone Speaking Out With A Different View. "It is absurd to suggest that this White House would seek to punish someone for speaking out with a different view," McClellan said, adding: "It's perfectly acceptable when someone makes statements that aren't based on the facts to correct that information." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/8/03] Bush Promised to "Take Care Of" Criminal Responsible for Leak if They Were Ever Found Bush Said That If There Was A Leak In His Administration They Would Be "Taken Care Of." President Bush: "if there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of...And so I welcome the investigation...I have told our administration people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. [FDCH Political Transcripts, 10/30/03] Bush Said If They Find The Leak They Will Be Punished. President Bush: I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it. And we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing." [FDCH Political Transcripts, 10/30/03] Bush Threatened Criminal Action If CIA Leak Came From His Administration. When asked about the severity of the CIA Leak George Bush Said," this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action." [Federal News Service, 10/6/03] Bush Believed That We Would Never Find Out Who the Leak Was Because Reporters Would Not Reveal Leaks. Asked today if he believes the DOJ investigation will uncover the leaker who identified a CIA operative, President Bush replied, "You tell me. How many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or had been exposed? Probably none... And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official... I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out." [White House Bulletin, 10/7/03] http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/07/empty_rhetoric.php
Yeah, and Bush used to say he was a uniter, not a divider. I haven't heard that phrase in a while. I think he even gave up on that one. .
it's all just hypocrisy for the bush administration. bush was hoping it would be someone like the deputy secretary of urban development who leaked the name of mrs. joe wilson to the journalist. but when sources pointed to karl rove, bush got worried. without karl rove to hide behind whenever something went wrong, what would bush do? think. bush would think. and a lot of thinking. he realized he had to stop thinking for the right and start thinking of what is right. that's why he went to the library of congress and checked out all of the books dealing with political theory, theories on the constitution, the history of justice, and even a clifford the big red dog book for when he got bored. he read up until his eyes bled pus and plasma. he often gave up going to church so he could study up on what he should do with karl rove. then, he realized it was clear. he had to fire karl rove for his crimes, and also because he was a man who wanted a seperation between the red and blue states. so he fired him and then became a man of the people. he finally grew a brain and a spine. he eventually grew wings also, and flew to different countries, solving problems and poverty. he became known as bushman, and he had a sidekick named dick boy. his power was that he could command his organs to stop functioning when his body was under great amounts of physical stress. that's what i think will happen
LOL. The Bible says that Christians are to avoid even the appearance of evil. The Karl Rove Scandal is just one of many instances of the Bush' admin going far beyond the appearance of evil. "I want to be a uniter not a divider" Our country hasn't been this divided since the Vietnam War and Civil War eras. "I want to be a uniter and not a divider". This guy went to Yale? Does bad grammer run in the Bush family?
how much good to teh world do you think the CIA guy would have made? if anything, exposing the CIA benefits the world since american power is what is destroying us all. there would not be terrorism if there was no opression.
I hope you're being sarcastic. If you aren't, you really need to read up on some world history, my friend. Name one time that the US was "oppressive" to Arabs, and then state how that directly caused the Jihad pillar of Islam to be written 1,000 years before the US became a country. We'll go from there. *crickets chirping*
how about the us-uk led sanctions on iraq after gulf war 1 that was responsible 4 the death of many thousands of iraqis, mostly children under 15? or how about the indiscriminate bombing of afghanistan by the usa after 9/11, often killing ppl and destroying villages that were not only not responsible for the twin towers carnage, but often didn't even know the event had occured? oppression does not need to be proved retrospectively in order to justify its qualification 4 jihad in the original text. in the same way that committing a crime after the law has been proclaimed is no immunity from its penalties.
Innocent people dying is a tragic side-effect of war, sorry. Still doesn't show how we created terrorism by being "opressive." Yes, I do understand that the US funded Al-Qaida at one time to help them fight the Russians, but times were different and we didn't know much about them, so don't give me that as an answer please.
i've a much better idea, instead of me doing ur critical thinking 4 u, how about u prove that america doesn't oppress muslim countries. yes, i do understand that the us invaded iraq to spread democracy and mobile telephones to the peasentry, but 2 years later there's still no potable water and fulltime electricity in baghdad, so don't give me that as answer please.
Someone made a wild accusation that the US is the direct cause of terrorism/jihad, I struck it down, now I'm asking anyone who thinks they can, to defend it. Don't turn the tables out of desperation, it makes you look... well, desperate. And about the water and electricity in Baghdad: not everything is going to happen instantly, but when it does. I guarantee you won't care when it does. Bush has laid out a general timeline for Iraq (even though the left/democrats are attacking him for not doing) when his timeline comes to pass accurately, no one notices/cares, goes on the the next thing. Example: Bush said the elections in Iraq would happen in January, and... they happened in January. (With better results than we thought, but again, no one noticed/cared).
i'm not. i answered ur original comment which u simply waved away as unfortunate deaths in wartime. there'd be no arguing with such a viewpoint and i get sick of these bush-lovers making everyone else justify every critical thing they might say: it's time u were made to jump through the same monkey hoops. which of course, u won't. america shouldn't be in iraq in the first place. ur army's (u use the royal 'we')destroyed the entire infrastructure of the place and bush has no intention of fixing it up. let's not forget that the us invaded a sovereign nation 4 their own selfish reasons and now they pretend to everyone like they care about iraq and the iraqis. plan or no plan, timetable or no timetable, the only honourable thing 2 do is get out of iraq now.
The U.S. bombed Iraq all through the 90s. Desert Storm, Desert Shield, Desert Fox, engagements in the U.S.-proclaimed no-fly zone, etc. Some of it just wasn't in the U.S. news as much back then. .
Hell yes we destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. It was created by Hussein and was corrupt. In case you haven't noticed, we're building it back up properly. The majority of Iraqi's aren't complaining-- they would agree that it was fucked in the first place.
The Iraq infrastructure was ok before. It's just that the U.S. bombed it to pieces all through the 90s because Saddam was no longer politically aligned with the U.S. like he was during the 80s when Rummy was special envoy to Saddam. And now it's cost the U.S. taxpayers about $300 billion to blow it up one more time during an invasion and try to put it back together again. Did they really have to use all those gigantic shock and awe bombs? So what happens, say, in 2015 when someone else gets 'elected' and takes control of Iraq and who's not politically aligned with the U.S.? Or is the U.S. going to keep its military there indefinately to make sure it doesn't happen? To keep going like this at over $300 billion a pop doesn't sound very good. .
Haven't heard much about Burger lately. He did take some documents out of a library unauthorized. There were copies of that document elsewhere in DC, though. The public had the impression he destroyed documents that could never be reproduced. The Rove factor: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8632319/ .
