Moving The Goalposts (Back To Their Original Position)

The goalposts were moved while Scott McClellan, White House spokesfolk, wasn't even watching.  We need to find Scott!

Here is the AP reporting on Bush's latest pronouncement on the Plame investigation:

President Bush said Monday that if anyone in his administration committed a crime in connection with the public leak of the identity of an undercover CIA operative, that person will "no longer work in my administration." At the same time, Bush again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter.

The AP sees a discrepancy:

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

Asked at a June 10, 2004, news conference if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

We have belabored this already.  In Sept 2003, Bush said that "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."

In June 2004, a reporter asked if Bush stood by a pledge Bush had not previously made, namely, to fire anyone "involved" with the leak.

Now, if the reporter had asked Bush to revise his original pledge, Bush would clearly have assented to a modification of his original pledge.

However, since the reporter did not note that he was misrepresenting or revising Bush's pledge, it is perfectly reasonable to recast their exchange as follows:

Reporter:  Do you stand by your original pledge?

Bush: Yes.

Now, Bush should have avoided this verbal trap (as if!) by answering something like, "I made my position clear last fall".  With any luck, the next questioner would have let him move on without forcing him to try and remember what his position was.

But don't play "Gotcha" with the President.  And let's exhort the AP to do their homework - even the Times noted Bush's Sept 2003 statement, although they generally ignore it.

UPDATE:  Ramesh Ponnuru of The Corner gracefully splits the difference.

MORE:  The WaPo wants to leave the goalposts where the reporter moved them:

President Bush today appeared to raise the threshold for firing any White House official who leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent, saying he would dismiss anyone who "committed a crime" in the case.

...In June 2004, Bush replied "yes" when asked if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.

In other statements, Bush has pledged to "take the appropriate action" if anyone in his administration leaked classified information.

Wow, is that disingenuous!  The "take the appropriate action" line is also from the Sept 20 2003 press avail - how did the WaPo find one and not the other?

And, in what I can only describe as a "I can blog it, but I can't make them read it" moment of headbanging aggravation, I see that not even Scott McClellan of the White House can get the darn spin story straight:

During a White House briefing today in which he was peppered with questions about the Plame case and Bush's remarks, McClellan disputed the view that the president had set a new, higher standard for dismissing someone over the leak.

"No, I disagree," McClellan said when a reporter asked why Bush added a "qualifier" -- committing a crime -- that had "never been part of his standard before" when addressing the issue. "I think that the president was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration; that if someone commits a crime, they're not going to be working any longer in this administration," McClellan said.

The spokesman refused to try to reconcile his own past statements with what Bush said today.

"I know well what was said previously," McClellan said. "You heard from the president today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the president said at this point. . . ."

I wonder if McClellan does know well what was said previously?  Well, if the White House transcript [now here] shows him citing the President's Sept 30 statement, and the WaPo buried that, then the WaPo will flee before me, and I will hear the lamentations of their copy editors.  Or something. [Or, having read the transcript, nothing.  Can SOMEBODY PLEASE get McClellan to look at the Sept 30 2003 President's press avail, currently concealed on the White House web site?  Please...]

STILL MORE:  The NY Times leads with "President Bush changed his stance today...".  Groan.

[UPDATE:  But it looks like reality, or the critics, got inside the Times editorial cycle - the lead on the website has now been changed, and the story mentions the Sept. 2003 statement.  So does the Times front-pager by Sanger/Stevenson.  Scary.  Well, the Times did note the Sept. statement last week.  And there is an extended excerpt of the original Times piece at Media Matters, which is on the opposite side of this from me - they whine when a media outlet gets it right.]

BUT WAIT: Brief contact with reality at, you'll never guess, the LA Times!  In a story that precedes Bush's statement, they tell us that "Bush said he would fire anyone responsible for any illegal leaks."  Let's see if they follow up with a story about raising the bar - yes, they oblige here:

Last year, [Bush] had said he would fire anyone who had leaked such information. Thus, his remarks today appeared to shift his standard, allowing continued service in his administration until the commission of a crime had been established, rather than simply the determination that classified information had been leaked.

A beautiful Patterico moment.

ALMOST THE LAST GASP:  I probably ought to have an official editorialposition.  Very well - there are three issues here - (1) what has Bush actually said over the years; (2) how has the press reported his statement, and is Bush lowering the bar in a surprising late shift?; and (3) what is the "right" position?

This post has focused on (1) and (2), with theme that press coverage has been deplorable.  As to (3), I did not care for the Clintonian standard, which seemd to be, if they can't indict, it's alright.  (No, the final Ray report on Whitewater was not "exoneration.")  By that light, a foolish consistency would guide me away from the "violated the law" standard set by Bush in Sept. 2003.

On the other hand, the June 2004 standard, summarized as "fire anyone involved", sets the bar absurdly low - surely it matters whether the leak actually affected national security, a point still to be determined.

Time will tell.

UNRELATED BUT INTERESTING: Here is the .pdf file of the amicus brief filed by news organizations arguing that the elements of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act are not present in this case.  The stock rebuttal is, the CIA filed a criminal referral and the Special Counsel is clearly working on something.  However, the CIA gets trounced on p. 35 of the .pdf file - their standard referral just doesn't address the key points.

Comments

[gt]

Tom, you make Clinton seem open and straightforward by comparison.

Is this the new talking point threshold? Only of a crime can be proven?

Sorry, Bush said what he said in June 2004. If he had wanted to clarify it he could have or his spokesman could have. He didn't.

[SaveFarris]

More goalpost moving ... from our good friends at Media Matters:

In his July 18 nationally syndicated column, U.S. News & World Report senior writer Michael Barone accused The New York Times of "outing" a CIA-operated airline in a May 31 article. This accusation is baseless, however, since the Times reportedly submitted the information in the article to the CIA prior to publication, and the CIA raised no objection to the story at the time or after its publication.

You mean as long as you check with a CIA Official beforehand and they don't wave you off, you're in the clear?

Good to know, MM!

[gt]

Nobody is accusing Novak of breaking any laws AFAIK.

[TM]

Sorry, Bush said what he said in June 2004.

Yup - he said he stood by his original pledge.

Otherwise, the reporter's question is meaningless - "Do you stand by your pledge" does NOT mean "Will you make a new pledge".

And what the reporter said in June 2004 was clearly *not* what Bush said in 2003.

[TexasToast]

"No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates."

Scott McClellan

Scott has nothing to do with setting the goalposts? Does he, as press spokesman not speak for the President in clarifying what the President’s remarks meant? Or does he only speak for the President when moving the goalposts after the fact as cited in this post?

Yep, you are correct that those goal posts are moving. You just have the wrong folks moving them.

[me (and TCO)]

Is it just me...or does anyone else get the impression that people are starting to repeat points rather than analyze and drill down to finer points of agreement, disagreement, conjecture?

[ArminTamzarian]

TexasToast:

See any difference between "leaked" and "involved in leaking?"

Might wanna go back to your grade school English exercises.

[ArminTamzarian]

me:

Sure. The points of disagreement are that one side says the other deliberately committed a felony as political retribution that seriously damaged national security because someone questioned its lying and deceitful rush to war and has been lying about it and attempting to cover it up ever since, with the connivance of the press and Judith Miller.

The other side says it didn't.

I think that's as narrow as it gets.

[J Mann]

As Rove might say, Tom, I wouldn't get too far out in front of the amicus brief. Yes, the amici argued that if the CIA just used the standard leak form, then they haven't certified the elements of the crime, but:

1) The amici are obviously speculating;

2) Fitzgerald would look awfully foolish if he spent a year and untold millions without asking the CIA if there was basic evidence of a crime, and there's no evidence that he's in the habit of looking foolish; and

3) The amicus brief lost.

So you might be right, but "trounced" is a little strong.

[Appalled Moderate]

me:

Last Monday, we knew that Karl Rove had lied when he said he was not involved in the leak. The Friday leaks and Cooper's article do not change this fine point, and also do not provide any additional information about wrongdoing. (They provide Karl's alibi from legal wrongdoing)

This Monday, we still know Rove lied. And not much else. The story, in order to live, requires oxygen. Bush "moving the goalposts" is one way to have a story. Cooper's first person tale is another. Since none of these changes the lay of the land, they also don't serve to change minds and achieve that synthesis you hope to find.

I'd love to know Miller's story. That may be the thing that could move. Of course, Novak could also do a public service, and write the column that tewlls all.

[ArminTamzarian]

For once, can someone please define "involved?"

[TM]

3) The amicus brief lost.

So you might be right, but "trounced" is a little strong.

Good point. However, I spent the weekend listening to the Yankess play the Red Sox (but *NOT* on Friday night).

[Appalled Moderate]

Involved, per Merriam-Webster onlie:

2 a : to engage as a participant b : to oblige to take part c : to occupy (as oneself) absorbingly; especially : to commit (as oneself) emotionally

[ArminTamzarian]

Your lexicographical skills are astounding. Now, perhaps you can do something useful and explain the difference between "leaked" and "involved in leaking," since apparently this makes all the difference in the world to you?

[RiverRat]

Involved in what?

Blowing the cover of someone one hadn't been under NOC since '97 because the a Russian and the CIA blew her cover?

Nope! They were not involved in blowing her cover.

[RiverRat]

But you could say they were involved in repeating previously unpublished publically known info about a former NOC agent whose cover was already blown.

[BumperStickerist]

This is the Press equivalent of asking, Clouseau-like:

'Does your doggie bite?'

Rove saying 'No'

~ dog bites ~

Press; I thought you said your dog does not bite.

Rove: That is not my dog.

-----------------------

Rove was asked if he *leaked* the information, participated in a leak, et cetera, et cetera.

Well, the answer would appear to be 'no'.

The press's inability to ask non-prejudged questions is certainly a problem here.

As for the issue of Novak being asked not to release Plame's name - the whole issue changes (for me) when I learn that the CIA does not want any publicity that they botched the NOC-status of one of their operatives.

[me (and TCO)]

Armin1: thanks man.

Jman: good points.

Appalled moderate: Agreed. And there have been some on the right (National Review) that have gigged Rove (and the spokesmodel, can't remember his name). I also agree that we need more facts to get to the bottom of this and breathe some more oxygen into it. FYI: Novak did write a column regarding the "outing issue" that does not go into all the details of analysis that we want, but has some general information...at least says that the story was not being shopped (which would imply a lesser degree of offense--still wrong to let something slip in gossipy conversation...but not same as deliberately or recklessly outing her). Here is the Novak story. Sorry I'm repeating content available:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=194063

[me (and TCO)]

A bit off topic:

What is the theme of this blog, who runs it, etc.? I can't find an "about page" or FAQ.

[Appalled Moderate]

Armin:

Since Rove is clearly Novak's second source (based on the Friday leak), there is no way you can say he was not "involved" in the leaks to Novak. Period. Don't go there.
It's like suggesting Clinton did not have sex with that woman.

Whether Rove should be fired for that -- your mileage may vary. Clinton, after all, was not fired for lying about having sex with "that woman", and he did lie under oath -- something nobody yet has accused Rove of having done. Rove's lie, however, probably averted a political firestorm that may have necessitated his resignation. So I'm not real sympathetic to his staying on. Big deal; I didn't vote for his boss the last time anyway.

[SamAm]

Not only did the media's brief lose, but the judges involved in the case seem to have been taken aback by the specifics of the case and the 8 pages we don't know, Miller is currently sitting in jail, and she's also facing criminal contempt charges. Weightier stuff than a brief that lost.

[ArminTamzarian]

And now we're back to the question of what Rove actually said to Novak, which kinda matters.

[RiverRat]

And now we're back to the question of what Rove actually said to Novak, which kinda matters.

See last Friday's Times article. Twas leaked that Noval told Rove about Plame and Rove said "Yeah, I heard that too."

[SamAm]

Heh, I thought that's what Libby said to Cooper too.

These guys are so on message they've got the exact same word choice.

[ArminTamzarian]

"I heard SamAm and Martin are gay."

"I heard that too."

Not sure what to make of that.

[RiverRat]

Either that or it's the same confidential source doing the leaking; or words to that effect.

[MaDr]

I'm still waiting to hear from Rove's lips, what he said. We've heard speculation and what Cooper says what happened, but alas, there's some inconsistencies in what he's (Cooper) told the public vs what his released email implies (I guess).

[gt]

Tom,

As TT notes it wasn't just what Bush said.

But the more important point is that this WH is pretty good at getting its message across. If they had wanted to make clear that firing would only happen if and only if a crime had been committed they could have done so.

But they didn't. Between Bush and McClellan they left the impression (actually more than that) that just being involved in the leak would be enough. And that makes sense.

That's probably why only right wing supporters are pushing this idea and not even the WH, AFAIK, is trying to say this directly.

I doubt parsing words is going to help Bush or Rove here, no matter how much you and others try to help them. Most people instinctively understand what's at stake which is why the polls are where they are.

And doesn't it strike you as strange that Bush has to say that criminals will not be allowed to work for the WH? Shouldn't that be obvious? And wouldn't it be redundant? A criminal would be in jail so I don't see how they could work for Bush.

[SamAm]

MaDr,

Not sure to what you're referring to by that, but I'd like to hear what you mean.

[RiverRat]

"Between Bush and McClellan they left the impression (actually more than that) that just being involved in the leak would be enough. And that makes sense. "

You're wrong! See the transcript of the 30 Sep 03 Press Conference.

The freaking lying Press left that impression; at the worst the Dubya was ambiguous. See Tom's timeline for the link.

[ArminTamzarian]

gt:

Please define "involved in the leak."

[me (and TCO)]

Give me the blog background!

[me (and TCO)]

darnit.

[me (and TCO)]

This is getting boring. I want more info even if it is bad for our side. Can't stand not having juicy stuff.

[Gerry]

"Give me the blog background"

Patrick Henry, you are not.

[me (and TCO)]

or give me...

[ArminTamzarian]

What really worries me (and I don't know if I said it here before or not), is that the last time we had a summer with the press fixated on nothing was when we had shark attacks and Chandra Levy.

[RiverRat]

The louder the MSM screams it is more likely they'll live to regret it.

This smells more and more like a Rove-a-dope with the MSM as the target.

If some of us are right on the Miller role in this we've got RatherGate (tm) redux.

[Toby Petzold]

Since the CIA confirmed to Novak that Plame was with the Company, is it possible that Fitzgerald is actually looking into that? That certainly sounds like a leak to me. Tenet referred the one thing to the FBI because he was statutorily obligated to, but Fitzgerald might be going further afield to find out more.

[ArminTamzarian]

Ooooh, nice catch Toby. If she was covert, the CIA guy is definitely criminally liable.

[fixed]

To quote The President: "The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it."

[ArminTamzarian]

"I work for the CIA. I am a spy. I don't just read books!"

--Valerie Plame Wilson

[fixed]

forgot to source it: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050718-1.html#

[RiverRat]

Good evaluation at The Corner

Miller is going to be the key.

[Toby Petzold]

It's true, Armin. Novak has said that a "spokesman" at the CIA said plenty about her.

Why isn't that guy catching hell?

[RiverRat]

Toby

"Tenet referred the one thing to the FBI because he was statutorily obligated to, but Fitzgerald might be going further afield to find out more."

Do you have evidence it was Tenet? I thought he was gone by the time of the filing. I know he was lame-ducking it while this whole scandle-in-a-bottle was bobbing around the beltway.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'explain the difference between "leaked" and "involved in leaking," '

Very good point, but it'll forever be lost on GT.

What we seem to have is McClellan going to Rove and Libby and asking; 'Did you leak Wilson's wife's CIA job to Novak?'

They each answer, 'no.'

Later a journalist asks if Libby and Rove are the leakers, and McClellan answers; 'They weren't involved in it'

Those are simply the vagaries of the English language, gents. These aren't questions and answers in a discovery procedure, but in a press briefing.

But, given what happened to Martha Stewart, a vindictive and ambitious prosecutor might try to make something out of it.

[RiverRat]

Well said, Patrick.

[richard mcenroe]

Slightly off topic, but on the matter of integrity...

today is the 36th anniversary of Ted Kennedy killing Mary Jo Kopechne in an act of drunken philandery, when he drove her off the Chappaquiddick Bridge and left her to drown.

If you want to congratulate the Senator on this milestone...

http://kennedy.senate.gov

[Seven Machos]

Karl Rove will not be indicted here. Scooter Libby will not be indicted here. No one remotely close to Bush or even on his side will be prosecuted. This is because no one remotely close to Bush or even on his side did anything legally or ethically wrong.

If anyone is to be indicted, it will be Joe Wilson or a mid-level nobody at State or CIA who leaked to the press. Or Valerie Plame herself.

Note that Fitzgerald is continually called a "Republican prosecutor." This is so that Big Media and the Left can start caterwauling about out-of-control, right-wing prosecutors when anyone who is NOT a Republican is indicted.

However, in the event that Rove or some Republican were to be indicted (which won't happen), well, the bastard simply got what was coming to him.

It's all quite sickening.