Bush Vows to Fire Anyone Convicted of Leak

[cal04]

President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." At the same time, Bush yet again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter.

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here and it's being played out in the press," Bush said at an East Room news conference.Bush spoke a day after Time magazine's Matthew Cooper said that a 2003 phone call with Rove was the first he heard about the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson apparently working for the CIA.

A tempest has swirled around the leak of the CIA agent's name, apparently by Bush administration officials, in July 2003. Some Democrats have called for Rove, whose title is deputy chief of staff, to be fired. They have suggested that he violated a 1982 federal law that prohibits the deliberate exposure of the name of a CIA agent.

"It's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts," Bush said. "I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071800157_pf.html
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050718/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation_18

[Media_Lies_Daily]

1. So, is The Great Poo-bah going to fire himself?

[kanrok]

2. He's backtracking like a mo-fo

Now the standard is "convicted of a crime". Before it was "anyone involved in this will have no place in my administration."

[livinginphotographs]

3. So if what they did was unethical but not criminal

He won't fire them?

He's just covering his ass. Rove isn't going anywhere unless he actually gets charged.

[Brooklyn Michael]

46. Thank God Bush promised....

...that his staff would avoid "even the appearance of impropriety".

Watch Junior shuffle, stammer, evade and diss(ass)emble as he tries to walk the line between Karl not actually committing a "crime" per se, and trying not to explain how what he did do was ethically lower than whale shit.

:argh:

[okieinpain]

106. I would imagine that whale shit is pretty high up the chain, how about

rat shit.

[Ellen Forradalom]

107. That's a vicious calumny

against self-respecting rats.

[krkaufman]

56. Yep. It's as though there is no separate "ethical" threshold

Now that Bush has commented in this way, *post* McClellan saying nothing should be said, the White House Press Corps should feel licensed to grill McClellan on whether Bush has no separate ethics-related criteria for employment.

So long as his employees are not CONVICTED of crimes, then they're A-OK with him.

[rodeodance]

73. slimeball!!

[MiniMe]

114. Then they would be promoted, just like in the corporate world. n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Oh, so now they have to be "convicted"!

That person or persons can continue in his administration till the jury hands down a guilty verdict?

What an arrogant, outrageous thing to tell the American people!!!

[Rose Siding]

13. Grab a shovel; time to lower the bar again

How low can he go....

[rodeodance]

79. actully, Jr raised the bar--now need to be a 'criminal' before dismissed.

[tishaLA]

92. "If they're given the death penalty...."

After their sentence has been carried out, they will no longer work in the White House.

[UpInArms]

33. "Who cares what you think" GWB 7/4/01 Philadelphia, PA ... eom

[Rainscents]

5. OK... I am still waiting, Mr. Bush. When are you going to fire Rove?

Read My Lips... I will NOT tell lies. :eyes:

[Lorien]

6. If a President doesn't know "the facts" related to his top officials

he should resign. I wonder; will he be asked to testify?

[Mad_Dem_X]

99. If so, he'll have Dickie Boy holding his hand

like last time.

[rurallib]

7. Just needs the go-ahead from Karl Rove.

[stray cat]

8. Bush doesn't condemn the leaker unless he is convicted.

Obviously the persons guilt is not important only whether the person is actually convicted and is on their way to jail.

[brentspeak]

9. Hard to work in the WH when you're already in jail, you know

Real "tough talk" from Bush.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

103. The obvious point that needs to be made.

[tuvor]

10. Fucking flip-flopper

He wanted to fire the leaker--before he didn't want to fire the leaker.

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

48. Great Talking Point

Great Talking Point. :)

[WinkyDink]

11. It's comforting to know...

that when Rove is actually in a prison cell, he won't be part of the Administration.
These high standards are so impressive!

[Dudley_DUright]

27. Of course his next fall back position will be

that Karl can have a phone and fax installed in his cell and easily maintain his effectiveness. :eyes:

[redqueen]

12. Before he said he'd fire anyone who had anything to do with the leak...

NOW he says he'll only fire them if they comitted a crime.

:eyes:

[dissent1977]

42. Not quite

He is saying they have to be convicted of a crime, a much higher bar then merely commiting a crime. So basically as long as they are not in prison they are welcome in his administration. Bush knows very well that a conviction is unlikely to come for monthes, if not years.

[Pystoff]

59. Ok fine then

About this time next year would be good. Right on schedule for the 06 elections. :evilgrin:

[Dulcinea]

82. Here's some video

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

Go down to the little green box that says "Watch Free Video" & click on "Bush on the CIA Leak Investigation."

Note the smirking.

[smoogatz]

14. So, even if Rove, Libby, et al are indicted

they'll still work in the Bush misadministration, AND retain their security clearance? Wow. These assholes have no ethical standards AT ALL. But I guess we already knew that.

[halobeam]

15. WP didn't call out the "change" in Bush's policy.

Poor reporting as usual. Wimpasses.

[Rose Siding]

78. That's AP wire copy- NYT nails it: "Bush changed his stance today..."

WASHINGTON, July 18 - President Bush changed his stance today on his close adviser Karl Rove, stopping well short of promising that anyone in his administration who helped to unmask a C.I.A. officer would be fired.

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," Mr. Bush said in response to a question, after declaring, "I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts."

For months, Mr. Bush and his spokesmen have said that anyone involved in the disclosure of the C.I.A. officer's identity would be dismissed. The president's apparent raising of the bar for dismissal today, to specific criminal conduct, comes amid mounting evidence that, at the very least, Mr. Rove provided backhanded confirmation of the C.I.A. officer's identity.

http://nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18cnd-rove.html?ei=5094&en=2663df379f95d150&hp=&ex=1121745600&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1121705828-QgkM3lE8A56NV5Nmgq/53Q

[rateyes]

93. And, my question of Bush is...

"Why the hell don't you know all the facts...you are supposed to be the effing President of the United States...and, you tell us that after two years of this shit, you still don't know all the facts...are you really that damn stupid, or that damn lazy?

[Sydnie]

16. So we have gone from "fire anyone that leaked" to

"fire anyone that is convicted"? Sounds like a Delay move to me. Just change the "rules" to suit your needs, no one will notice, right?

Worst. President. Ever.

[54anickel]

72. Guess that's what all that spin was about not prejudging. Suddenly,

they pull the "innocent until proven guilty" defense. Tell that to the folks in Gitmo.

And this from the f*ckers went to war without any proof or conviction.

[liberal N proud]

17. Convicted? That a good one, Didn't he say anyone involved

before Rove was implicated?
I thought the word was that he would fire anyone in his administration who was involved in the leak.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

18. Back-Pedal!! All Ahead Stern!!!

Bush: I will fire anybody convicted on a Thursday and whose nick-name isn't "Turd Blossom."

[Beetwasher]

19. Ahh, So Now It's If They Committed A Crime, Huh? And The WP Doesn't Point

out the moving of the goal posts, as usual.

[bettyellen]

20. on the msnbc report they said a good follow up would be "indicted or

convicted" ?
yes, it would have been.

[alkaline9]

25. maybe someone in the press will be wise enough...

...to ask Scotty about that today at 2PM.... He can't say it's part of an ongoing investigation since shrub brought it up 3 hours earlier! My popcorn is ready and waiting!

[anotherdrew]

21. 3 - 3.5 years to conviction I'm sure, then it's pardon time baby!

[mbperrin]

22. Convicted and all appeals exhausted and no pardon issued!

THEN they'll be fired, right?

[Ian David]

23. Actually, he originally said "INVOLVED IN" the leak...

He never said "convicted" or "anyone who has done something naughty."

He said, "involved."

Rove has admitted that he is "involved."

And now Bush is saying, "convicted of leaking."

What if he's convicted of perjury, but not leaking?

What if Bush pardons him and he never has to stand trial?

Damn, I hate that fucker.

[goforit]

24. The weight on his shoulders is getting heavier and heavier......

Let him keep Rove......

He will ultimately prove he is a lying SOB to the world!!!

Hell if he steal thew election 2 times in a row,
he can rule with only 1% approval rating.

The big question is can the military continue to sacrifice themselves
for dishonorable idiocracy?

[Ian David]

30. Next: Bush will fire anyone who is convicted and EXECUTED for treason

Just because someone's convicted and in a jail cell doesn't mean they're really guilty, and it doesn't mean that they can't be productive citizens.

They're just a "bunch of folks" who happen to live in cement rooms with bars.

Of course, once he's dead, Bush will fire Karl Rove.

[goforit]

50. LOL!!!!

But...Ido believe Jon Stewart had it right all along....

A Promotion and a medal of honor will be given to Rove!!!

[bushisanidiot]

26. Translation: Fitz is working for KKKarl

AWOL Bush knows he has nothing to worry about with the fox guarding the hen house.

[wli]

35. interesting idea

They've had a stranglehold on the media before and it's not been explained how and why the sudden turnaround happened. So, what else supports/contradicts this?

[Mz Pip]

28. And I can guarantee there

will be zero cooperation from the WH if any of this does go to trial. They will fight every request for information with the "executive privilege" mantra. They will stonewall and have their spin machine out discrediting everyone who dares speak against them. Sort of like now. Only more so.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[dArKeR]

29. How can Bush handle Terrorism he can't handle this simple case!

Why not just ask Rove and Liddy yourself, you D- student!

[Ian David]

36. He had less clear evidence for the war in Iraq

This is as if Saddam's lawyer had said, "Saddam admits that he has been involved in a WMD program, but only to correct misinformation in the media that he had a doomsday device."

Bush couldn't investigate his way out of a paper bag.

[rateyes]

94. Excellent point!! eom

[Garbo 2004]

31. George, ask Gonzales: due process is for sissies. n/t

[dArKeR]

40. Is Lyndie busy this week?

[WilliamPitt]

32. 'Convicted.'

[yvr girl]

51. There might be some pesky rule about a felon working at the

White House. I hear a criminal record can wreak havoc with your security clearance.

[bunny planet]

34. Chimpy, something tells me this will not add points to your tanking

Do you think the Preznit is honest polls? Seems like pretty obvious weazel words to me. Wanna bet the majority of the American people will think so too?

[DainBramaged]

37. BuzzFlash has it right; say Rove and treason together.....

In the same sentence. We want this to drag out as long as possible. We want the world to see the * misAdministration for what it really is. We want them to deny and cover up every day. We want Scottie made a fool of every day while he squirms. And we want the word RNC and traitors linked forever.

[catmandu57]

38. QUOTE

"If there is a leak out of my administration I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of". (g.w. bush sept. 03)
Taken care of, given a pardon and a cush job in defense.
Is it too late to storm the fucking whitehouse?

[dissent1977]

39. The key word here is "convicted"

Bush knows that it is going to be a long time before anyone is going to be convicted. First the grand jury has to report back, and then they have to go to a criminal trial. Their lawyers know how to delay the process and it could easily be a couple years or more before anyone is convicted.

The facts of this case show that Rove was clearly involved in the leak however, his lawyer has even admitted as much. He is a national security threat and he needs to go now, we don't have time to wait for a conviction.

[fob]

101. Where does he* say "convicted"? The quote I see he* says "committed".

So far he*s moved from "involved" to "committed" and I'm sure a move to "convicted" isn't far off but did he actually go there already?

[dissent1977]

104. I was going off the title of the piece

The title is "Bush vows to fire anyone convicted of leak". Now it is possible the title is misleading, but when Bush talks of this "ongoing investigation" it appears that it may accurately reflect Bush policy.

[fob]

105. So bush* does the flip-flop and the media helps him along with

an additional bit of wordsmithing on their own. Typical.

[Rose Siding]

41. There's a short video clip at the Yahoo link- Junior's getting testy

To the left, under the picture

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=Ak_cLotaswWmWFAr5bJM0sGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[rodeodance]

76. link says Bush wants to know all the facts!--well, Jr--why not ask your

advisors???


from your yahoo links.

"It's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts," Bush said Monday. "I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

It was the second time that Bush, when asked specifically about Rove's involvement in the matter, passed up an opportunity to come to his adviser's defense.

[rodeodance]

77. Bush: Any Criminals in Leak to Be Fired (yahoo headline)---you need to

be convicted of a crime before he will dismiss them.

[Whoa_Nelly]

43. Where's Cheney????

Oh! Here he is!
http://tinyurl.com/co9b4

Voices of restraint give way to Bush hawks beating war drums ever louder
By Peter Hartcher
July 19, 2005

When John Howard called on Dick Cheney and Richard Armitage in Washington yesterday, he was seeing champions of the two opposing forces in the Bush Administration's first term. Cheney is the arch-hawk of the Administration. He may be the US Vice-President, but on many issues of foreign policy he is the driving force.

"The invasion of Iraq was in many ways Dick Cheney's war," wrote a close student of the Administration, James Mann, in Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet. Armitage, with his boss and alter ego, the secretary of state, Colin Powell, was the voice of restraint in the Administration.

<snip>
"A lot of people who support the President are really not interested in the facts on the ground," Campbell says. "There really is a faith-based belief in the President as a person and in his ability to remake reality."

So where others believe the Iraq adventure has clarified the limits to US power, the Bush Administration believes it illustrates the need for the application of yet more power. Brzezinski sums up: "To put it simply, if we weren't in a mess in Iraq we would be repeating it in Iran or Syria."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

44. What a meaningless statement.

Unless you want Rove to do his job from jail, you'd sure as hell better fire him. Of course, you'll pardon him immediately afterwards, I'm sure.

[blue northern]

45. Backpeddling

Maybe that's why * falls off his tricycle so often.
The neocons are trying to spin and shape this to protect Rove. {surprise, surprise :sarcasm:}

From a 2003 WH press briefing:

Q: Scott, has anyone -- has the president tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?

McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

>snip

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html

[iamjoy]

47. Sorry, Dubya, Your Credibility Is Nil With Me

I don't believe you'd really fire him if convicted, you have deceived me too many times before.

Of course, I don't think you'd go so far as to pardon him, but you will find a way to slither out of this statement as you have so many others.

[onehandle]

49. "If anyone is prosecuted, convicted, and executed..."

"...they will no longer work in my administration."

Thanks for clearing that up, asshole.

[4_Legs_Good]

52. Unless their zombie is particularly qualified

or a good friend of mine, in which case, maybe they can still have a job.

I hope the media covers the backtracking.

david

[unblock]

53. PREDICTION: rove to become outside 'consultant'

[Norquist Nemesis]

55. That's what I'm thinking, too

Rove will "walk away" and become with "honor in service to his country". Meanwhile, back at the ranch...with no oversight that would be required in the status of WH staffer, he's running the show with absolute freedom.

The only way is to get Rove out WITH someone(s) who are higher than he is...Hmmm could that be his BOSS, maybe?

[Ganja Ninja]

54. He may not get the chance to fire anyone if he waits too long.

He may be indicted right along with them. It would be hard not to draw the conclusion if the Vice President and Bush's own top adviser are both indicted that he isn't part of a conspiracy.

[Doctor_J]

57. Convicted?!?

When will that be, 2020?

What a waste a protoplasm.

"There's a lot of 'Senior Officials' in this white house. I may never find out who leaked".

[Gregorian]

58. Come out with your hands up!

Just kidding. Kegger dude! Come on Rove, let's light our farts and have a kegger party. Dow's up; Baghdad's ours; Life's goooooood! Burp.

Sorry. I'm in exhuastion overtime. Can't believe this is our new reality. Even if temporary.

Ignore this post. We now return you to your regular intelligent DU programming.

Kegger dude! Kegger dude! (fading into distance) kegger dude.......

[gulliver]

60. I'm kinda glad he didn't say "indicted." Makes me think...

... maybe they are expecting indictments of people they don't want to fire. In any case, he will never get away with "conviction" as a standard. Will he?

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

61. "I would like this to end as quickly as possible...

...so's ah kin git back to the business of KILLIN', y'all...Cuz ah'm a WAR PRESIDENT."

[Miss Chybil]

62. "Convicted" is the operative word, here.

He must be confident that's not going to happen to be making such a "vow."

[54anickel]

63. "Committed a crime" - that explains all the hashing of whether it was

illegal or simply unethical. Guess the WH is pretty sure it can't be considered a criminal offense by the book.

[Maeve]

65. Great game of "Find the Weasel Word"

From the Yahoo link, AP story...

"President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration."

No "crime" (Liddy talking point), no penalty...not proven til after 2008 or Karl decides to "spend time with his family", no penalty....move Karl off-staff, no penalty....

[54anickel]

80. Hey there Maeve! Yep, they're playing weasel word here, and

whack a mole in Iraq. Ever wonder about their pre-occupation with rodents?

[Maeve]

89. Rodents are what they know...and what they are... eom

[JRob]

64. I'm not holding my breath...

[UCLA Dem]

66. Trying desperately to keep KKKarl.. they must not think he'll get convicted

I think though, if we keep the pressure on, he may have to backtrack this little remark as well.

[Megahurtz]

67. Convicted?

I bet he will make sure no one is convicted.

[osaMABUSh]

68. Bush says NOTHING; no shit you'd fire somebody if convicted

of a crime. Where they going work from? The jail cell? What a moran!!!

[Megahurtz]

71. Ha Ha!

:7 That's funny!

[catmandu57]

83. Work release

He gets out every morning at eight, but, has to report back to his cell by five.

[katty]

69. Fire ALL of them!

[daleo]

70. If he pardons them, are they still "convicted"

Always be on the lookout for slippery language.

[rodeodance]

74. Jr. 'raised the bar' for dismissal!!

[rodeodance]

75. only if a crime was committed was the Repug talking point this weekend.

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. 1) Convicted of violating the Intel Protection Act (not perjury) AND

2) a finalist in America's Next Top Model

will be asked to leave immediately....

:eyes:

[skip fox]

84. To the best. The longer W. keeps him, esp. if indicted, the better.

Rove could be the first large visible case to the public of the Republicans' methods and can begin to change public opinion from the "party of personal responsibility" to the party with some human (not corporate or private) sense of values.

[54anickel]

85. Cripes, check out this "so sue me" look on * face. Looks like he's

pretty confident that this will appease the masses.

http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=94342

[Hosnon]

86. This is BAD news for us. The only way that Bush would issue

such a clear statement is if the Administration has determined that Rove is in the clear.

This is the type of statement that is hard to bob and weave around and Rove is not stupid enough to let Bush say this witout reason.

[54anickel]

87. Guess it depends on whether Fitz is going deeper or not - did Rove

lie to the GJ?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aagJweX0XNCQ&refer=us

July 18 (Bloomberg) -- The fate of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove may rest with the old Watergate question: What did he know and when did he know it?

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the leaking of a Central Intelligence Agency agent's name is now focused on how Rove, one of President George W. Bush's closest advisers, and other administration officials dealt with a key fact in an equally key memo.

snip>

Others see difficulties in these arguments. They note the contradiction between Rove's testimony to the grand jury that he learned Plame's name from Novak and his statement to Novak during the July 8 phone call that ``I've heard that, too.''

Potential Problem

This points toward a potential problem for Rove in the direction of Fitzgerald's investigation. It now has expanded beyond its original mission -- to determine if the 1982 law was violated -- to encompass whether any White House officials, including Rove and Fleischer, have testified falsely about the case or obstructed justice by trying to cover up their involvement in the leak, according to people familiar with the case who cite a pattern of questioning by Fitzgerald.

In addition, there is strong reason to believe that Fitzgerald is hunting big game, according to several legal experts. They say that is demonstrated by the fact that he has done something that no federal prosecutor has done in 30 years: send a reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, to jail for refusing to divulge with whom she spoke about the Wilson-Plame case.

[rodeodance]

88. it is great to see Rove/Bush on the front pages for another day!!

[rateyes]

I think it is politically a good thing for us...

Rove has finally become an albatross around this administration's neck--I mean if the Democrats aren't smart enough to showcase these two inconsistent statements--"I'll fire anyone involved," and "I'll fire anyone who has committed a crime." and show it as a flip-flop--immoral, etc.---then, Dems don't deserve their jobs.

[rateyes]

90. Ok, all you RW, religious right trolls reading this post...

tell us again how moral this president is.

[maddezmom]

91. more flip flops from the *administration

:puke:

[0007]

95. Look in the mirror and then have a debate with yourself

and then fire the stupid Commander in Chief.

[rateyes]

96. Is it just me...or

does Bush now look SO Nixonian. "Karl is not a crook."

[damntexdem]

97. He's a flip-flopper, flip-flopper!

Oh, yes, bringing integrity back into the White House. ;-)

But integrity has to use the servant's entrance and is limited to menial labor, certainly having no influence on decisionmaking.

[Disturbed]

98. Saddam should still be Prez. of Iraq.

He has not been convicted of any crimes.

[billyoc]

100. Only if it was in the study, with the candlestick.

wtf is bush playing at, "If he's *CONVICTED*"?! No shit, I already know you can't work in the white house if you've been conv...

Oh, wait, I guess you can. Weren't all the death squad guys from the '80s resurrected for this new cabal? Why doesn't anybody ever mention that? :shrug:

[ecdab]

102. What a two faced piece of.............

[candy331]

108. Well why the hell has OJ been treated like shit since he was not

found guilty of a crime. I do hope this is really " the straw that breaks the camel's back".

[WinkyDink]

109. oj

Daniel Petrucelli might disagree, re: OJ.

More pertinently was the point about our languishing, tortured prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Egypt, etc. Guilty without a trial.

[antonialee839]

110. So President Stupid wants to know all the facts?

What's the matter with walking ten feet down the hall and asking Benedict Karl what went down?

[chomskysright]

111. KICK ASS MR. WAXMAN: Pres obligated to enforce Exec Order 12958

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_22933.shtml

Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet

Monday 18 July 2005

Dear Mr. President:

In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. <1> Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime." <2>

Your new standard is not consistent with your obligations to enforce Executive Order 12958, which governs the protection of national security secrets. The executive order states: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified." <3> Under the executive order, the available sanctions include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions." <4>

Under the executive order, you may not wait until criminal intent and liability are proved by a prosecutor. Instead, you have an affirmative obligation to take "appropriate and prompt corrective action." <5> And the standards of proof are much different. A criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is investigating, requires a finding that Mr. Rove "intentionally disclose" the identity of a covert agent. <6> In contrast, the administrative sanctions under Executive Order 12958 can be imposed without a finding of intent. Under the express terms of the executive order, you are required to impose administrative sanctions - such as removal of office or termination of security clearance - if Mr. Rove or other officials acted "negligently" in disclosing or confirming information about Ms. Wilson's identity. <7>

I have enclosed a fact sheet on Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement and its legal implications, which provides additional detail about the President's national security obligations. I urge you to act in compliance with Executive Order 12958 and your responsibility to safeguard national security secrets.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member



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

<1> Press Conference: President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders (Sept. 30, 2003).
<2> Bush: CIA Leaker Would Be Fired if Crime Committed, Reuters (July 18, 2005); Bush: Any Criminals in Leak to Be Fired, Associated Press (July 18, 2005).
<3> Executive Order 12958, sec. 5.5(b)
<4> Id. at sec. 5.5(c).
<5> Id. at sec. 5.5(e).
<6> 50 USC sec. 421(a).
<7> Executive Order 12958, sec. 5.5(b).

[chomskysright]

112. THANK Waxman: ph here:

In Washington, D.C.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

[chomskysright]

113. BURY the White House in e mail: [e-mail]

July 18, 2005

Mr. President:


'Appropriate sanctions' would be in order pertaining to Mr. Rove's behavior pertaining to the outing of a CIA agent who was involving herself in out national security.

Please fire, Mr. Rove, Mr. President.

Sincerely,



Per Mr. Waxman's letter to you today, Mr. President:

"Your new standard is not consistent with your obligations to enforce
Executive Order 12958, which governs the protection of national security
secrets. The executive order states: "Officers and employees of the United
States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they
knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons
information properly classified." <3> Under the executive order, the
available sanctions include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal,
termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified
information, or other sanctions." <4> ..."