Bush once said that he would fire anyone ON THE SPOT if they were found to have leaked Plames name to the media for revenge against her husband for pointing out that the documents which is the reason why we went to war with Iraq was forged. Libby has been the fall guy. So will Bush now stand by his word and resign because he was involved? What about Chaney and Rove?
2007-03-11 07:50:11 · 13 answers · asked by hera 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
According to Libby's trial, YES, Plame was very much COVERT! That is what is at the heart of all of this.
2007-03-11 08:08:51 · update #1
George W. Bush is I claim motivated by power-seeking, a wish for imperial presidential dictatorial powers; prompted by a pseudo-religious belief in his party's infallible rightness vested in a final-deciding "leader" of mystical holiness. Seven years of hideous and unbroken failures have apparently not altered his false belief on that score. No, I suggest that he may not keep his word. no, he will not choose ever to give Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove to the authorities. No, he will not cause Mr. Libby to serve his sentence. No, he has never kept his word--whatever his personal qualities might have been in that regard; and so long as he is the head of a statist--read fascist--style--collectivized postmodernist reality-ignoring "dictator over the obedient slaves" party, I suggest he never will. If you disagree, wait one year and see if I'm perhaps right.
2007-03-11 08:09:42 · answer #1 · answered by Robert David M 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
When it comes to 'formal prosecution' Bush rather loses his authority to 'fire' anyone. Libby 'maybe' was the fall guy, but we'll never know for certain. Besides the one that created the leak should be fired, but that HAS to be proven in a Federal court of law. You just can't make accusations...and not have a trial.
Face it...Libby spoke out when HE should have kept his MOUTH SHUT. He didn't have any right commenting or telling the media anything. AND that conviction was an honest one because Libby said one thing to the media, and LIED in court. It's called Perjury. You have no clue what was in the documents...so WE cannot judge Chaney of ANYTHING. It is improper, by standards of the law to make false accusations of any other government official. You have NO POSITIVE PROOF that would stand up in court against the Vice President. If you so have that proof, then bring it forward. You have no proof or evidence that Bush was involved either.
I don't understand where you people get information from. Legally, when CIA people are named, they are then taken out of service for 'security' reasons. They've been exposed. Whoever exposed the person is the guilty party, but it still has to be taken to a Federal Court.
2007-03-11 08:04:15 · answer #2 · answered by chole_24 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
As the former anchor of the CBS nightly news said today in his commentary after "Face the Nation," Bob Schaffer(?), they haven't even proved that Libby leaked anything. All they proved and all he was convicted of is lying to a grand jury, ala Clinton, and obstruction of an investigation. They never proved that he leaked any information whatsoever, nor have they proven that anyone else did either. They never actually establish that Valerie Plame was covered by this law since they never established whether or not she was an undercover operative. Therefore, no word has been broken, unless you'd prefer to have people fired without actual proof?
2007-03-11 08:06:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
at the starting up, you are able to tell me how McCain is different from Bush?. economic guidelines, same as Bush's. overseas guidelines, same as Bush's. family members guidelines, same as Bush's. the U. S. is now in this deep mess because of Bush's 8 years of failed guidelines. How could McCain declare that his guidelines will make united statesa. more suitable positive, even as they are no diverse from Bush's?. Ever because the completed campaign began, properly as a lot as this second, I particularly have in no way seen any evidence or action which indicated that McCain is different from Bush.
2016-12-01 20:21:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should Bush start keeping his word now? He's never done so in the past. Besides,if he did so, he'd also have to keep his word about firing anyone caught breaking the law in general. Which means the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI--for starters.
2007-03-11 09:51:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
He said he would fire anyone who illegally leaked the name of a covert agent. Valerie Plame was not covert, and it was Richard Armitage , Iraqi war critic, who leaked the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. Sorry, but read up on the facts.
Does it bother you that Joe Wilson lied to the American people when he said he uncovered no evidence of Saddam attempting to purchase Uranium from Niger. He did. Even the bi partisan Senate Intelligence Committee figured that out.
2007-03-11 07:58:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Bush and stand by his word is a contradictions in terms.
Like Disneyland and spontaneous self-combustion.
2007-03-11 08:00:35 · answer #7 · answered by who8mycookies 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Bush is a phony, and a liar, just like his father.
And I'm a conservative. Now switching from republican
to nationalist.
2007-03-11 07:59:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Lol... yeah, and i will live to 500.
I doubt Bush remembers which word he gave...he has never stood by anything yet...
2007-03-11 07:56:14 · answer #9 · answered by Debra H 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
NO, he never does; it's all just show bravado to make the right wing conservatives happy with him.
2007-03-11 07:57:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋