A lame duck flip flopping!

I heard two audio clips of Bush statements and in each of them he mentioned criminal conduct in association with being kicked out of the administration. So as far as I am concerned there has been no change of position unless there is an audio clip I am not aware of.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/19/BL2005071900947.html

Here is the text of Bush's remarks at the swearing-in ceremony for senior members of the White House staff on Jan. 22, 2001.

An excerpt: "We have all taken an oath, and from this moment on it is our jobs to honor it. . . .


"[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 definelegal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems. This means checking and, if need be, doublechecking that the rules have been obeyed. This means never compromising those rules."


come on bush not only moved the goal posts for
karl rove he moved the entire stadium..sheesh

the truth is bush needs rove to function without
him he really goes down the tubes ..eventhough
I think Karen Hughes could step in a rescue
him..she is that good.

 

Good thing Bush didn't have Bill Clinton part of his administration. He would have had to quit right after being sworn in.

 

Excellent! And since no one has proven that Karl Rove has caused any of the problems that used to be in the top of the news until Roberts was nominated, Rove can stay. No one should be forced out of an administration merely because his political opponents attempt to smear him or her.

 

But don't forget, back on the last page, he admitted that he doesn't even care whether or not Rove actually did anything.

 

If President Bush stated he was going to paint his fence blue, then the next day told a reporter he was going to paint it teal blue, the press would jump all over him for lying.

 

It's true. Bush said he'd fire anyone in the WH connected to Treasongate.

His press secretary changed that to "only if a crime was committed."

It will be interesting to see whether Bush or his press secretary calls the shots in the WH.

 

Uhhh-guys there are audios of President Bush using the descriptors "violated the law" and "criminal act". Unless the entire liberal press (I know that is almost 100% redundant) has been on a trip to Mars (no such luck) it would appear that Mr. Rove has not been proven guilty of any crime. What ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty. Or would you rather have a convicted perjurer, admitted adulterer, and known pervert like Willie Clinton there?

 

That is not true, Galatian. I have heard the audio clips of President Bush speaking.

 

And an amazingly stupid flipflop to boot.
The administration said from the beginning they would fire anyone involved with leaking her identity. Why would the administration say they would fire anyone leaking an identity if it would not be a crime, or that is, if the person in question was not undercover. Is the administration so incompetent that they did not check such an important response, to a very serious crime, without checking out that the person in question, Wilson's wife, was undercover. Well, of course not. The administration, in rapid contact with the CIA must have confirmed that and that is why they came out and said "anyone involved with leaking the identity of Plame would be fired. The Republicans and Bush supporters can twist and turn it everyway they can but the Bush administration would not have said a leaker would be fired if the agent in question was not covert. If Plame was not covert then this administration is one of the most incredibly incompetent in history.

 

And an amazingly stupid flipflop to boot.
The administration said from the beginning they would fire anyone involved with leaking her identity. Why would the administration say they would fire anyone leaking an identity if it would not be a crime, or that is, if the person in question was not undercover. Is the administration so incompetent that they did not check such an important response, to a very serious crime, without checking out that the person in question, Wilson's wife, was undercover. Well, of course not. The administration, in rapid contact with the CIA must have confirmed that and that is why they came out and said "anyone involved with leaking the identity of Plame would be fired. The Republicans and Bush supporters can twist and turn it everyway they can but the Bush administration would not have said a leaker would be fired if the agent in question was not covert. If Plame was not covert then this administration is one of the most incredibly incompetent in history. </font>[/QUOTE]When has it come out that Rove "did it". As Ken H. noted, there are audios that show that Bush did say in the first quote the leaker would be fired if he had violated the law. No flip and no flop here, just more liberal half-truths, quarter truths, one-eight truths, and outright lies.

The libs lost the election. Live with it. If they keep on the way they are now, they will also lose the next election.

 

And an amazingly stupid flipflop to boot.
The administration said from the beginning they would fire anyone involved with leaking her identity. Why would the administration say they would fire anyone leaking an identity if it would not be a crime, or that is, if the person in question was not undercover. Is the administration so incompetent that they did not check such an important response, to a very serious crime, without checking out that the person in question, Wilson's wife, was undercover. Well, of course not. The administration, in rapid contact with the CIA must have confirmed that and that is why they came out and said "anyone involved with leaking the identity of Plame would be fired. The Republicans and Bush supporters can twist and turn it everyway they can but the Bush administration would not have said a leaker would be fired if the agent in question was not covert. If Plame was not covert then this administration is one of the most incredibly incompetent in history. </font>[/QUOTE]When has it come out that Rove "did it". As Ken H. noted, there are audios that show that Bush did say in the first quote the leaker would be fired if he had violated the law. No flip and no flop here, just more liberal half-truths, quarter truths, one-eight truths, and outright lies.

The libs lost the election. Live with it. If they keep on the way they are now, they will also lose the next election.
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, that is a response to my post but it appears to be a response to MP's previous post,avoiding the point I made. Just who should be laughing here?

 

Under the law, Mrs. Wilson was not protected. Mr. Wilson lied about his efforts.

Bush is not a lame duck because he just got CAFTA passed.

 

President Bush may have used up the last of his political capital to get CAFTA passed.

 

Are you kidding? If it wasn't for lies and half truths, liberals would have to take a vow of silence. </font>[/QUOTE]Lies, exaggerations, and distortions are a hallmark of the liberals!

 

Are you kidding? If it wasn't for lies and half truths, liberals would have to take a vow of silence. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Gosh you just sound angry that the public executions were cancelled.

 

You should pray on that mp.

 

Right on! MP this is a debate/discussion board
on politics and not a confirmation bobble head
up and down board...plus some pretty good satire
and captions from time to time.