It depends on what the meaning of ‘fired’ is

July 13, 2005

I should know better than to be surprised by anything coming from a Fox News “journalist,” but this one even startled me.

When it comes to finding out who was responsible for the Plame scandal, the White House has said, on more than one occasion, that the responsible leakers would be fired. This isn’t particularly controversial. At a June 2004 press conference, a reporter asked Bush if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame’s identity. The president said, simply, “Yes.”

Likewise, several months earlier, Scott McClellan said, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame’s identity], they would no longer be in this administration.”

Pretty straightforward, right? Not for Fox News. From the July 11 edition of Fox News’ Special Report With Brit Hume:

Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron: Early on in the leak’s probe, the president himself said those responsible would be held accountable.

Bush (clip): If there’s 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.

Cameron: The president never actually said the word “fired,” but that is what some reporters and Democrats seemed to expect.

Yes, it’s all reporters and Democrats’ fault. Everyone is putting words in the president’s mouth, expecting Bush to keep his word.

Even by Fox standards, this is just sad.

I seem to remember that the last time Bush used the phrase “taken care of” he meant whacked. Maybe that’s what he meant in that clip.

  • Perhaps he meant “taken care of” in the same way his dad took care of the Iran-contra malefactors with pardons, and the way he has taken care of the same gang with jobs in his administration.

  • I seem to remember that the last time Bush used the phrase “taken care of” he meant whacked.

    You know, I’ve often compared the Bushes to an organized crime family. When Tony Saprano talks about having people “taken care of,” he means shot.

    Maybe you’re onto something here, paperwight. Using this line of reasoning, Bush has not only threatened to fire Rove, he’s threatened to kill him.

  • Come on, we know that different rules apply for Bush’s friends than for everyone else, and there are lots of people helping Fox carry the water for these thugs. Sad, yes, but certainly well within character.

    Hell, even the Wall Street Journal today has an editorial calling Rove a “whistleblower” and thanking him for his service to his country!?! The RNC talking points have taken firm and deep roots with the CCCP (Compliant Complicit Corporate Press), with the WSJ saying that Rove was “correcting WILSON’s lie” to Matt Cooper about who it was that sent him to Niger!!

    Stunning in their hypocricy and willingness to excuse and cover up treason for mere partisan political gain. Sad, indeed.

  • Time to send Karl out to pasture. He should have never held any post other than campaign manager, and once that was done, he should have been paid his handsome fees and sent on his way.
    An aside to this issue: if the proper thing to do in the spirit of not blowing the cover of a CIA agent was not to draw undue attention to Plame, then even her own husband screwed her. He should have talked to a reporter, who would guard his identity, rather than writing his own editorial for all the world to see. Surely he knew that any journalist worth his salt would have looked into how he knew what he knew about African yellowcake investigations and taken at least a cursory look at the people he associates with- starting with his family.

  • Just to be cautiosly cynical,if Bush holds true to form, he’ll “take care of” Rove by promoting him or securing a better for him position somehow… e.g. Rice, Wolfowitz, etc.

  • Scott McClellan spoke of “firing” or comfirmed the concept of “firing” to the media prior to 2005–and prior to Bush saying “if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.” Typically, the Republicans certainly like to spin the facts and chop up the timeline.

  • An aside to this issue: if the proper thing to do in the spirit of not blowing the cover of a CIA agent was not to draw undue attention to Plame, then even her own husband screwed her. He should have talked to a reporter, who would guard his identity, rather than writing his own editorial for all the world to see. Surely he knew that any journalist worth his salt would have looked into how he knew what he knew about African yellowcake investigations and taken at least a cursory look at the people he associates with- starting with his family.

    This is a fun game. Let’s ignore that Mrs. Wilson had a cover so that she could operate in the “normal” world with only a very select group of people knowing her true “identity”. Let’s pretend her status wasn’t classified. Let’s pretend that leaking classified information is a crime. Let’s try to blame the husband for being in the public sphere. Let’s ignore that Mr. Wilson was in the public sphere before as part of the diplomatic corps. Let’s even ignore the fact that the outing of Mrs. Wilson had no purpose except as an attack on Mr. Wilson’s credibility, and a baseless one at that (whatever attacks you want to make on what he said are different).

    I changed my mind, this game is no fun. It reminds me of someone who might say, “Well, we wouldn’t a had to beat up that Negro if he was going around dating a white woman.” Pathetic.

  • I hereby restore Analytical Liberal his cursing privleges. These guys are a bunch of lowlife [expletive deleted]heads. The only difference between Rove and Bush, and the guy down the street from me that is selling drugs is a thousand dollar suit.

    • Comments are closed.