Leakgate continues.... How do explain this?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Today Bush finally spoke. He has now narrowed the phrasing of his words so that he promises to fire anyone in his administration who has committed a crime. Before, he didn't specify "crime", just involvement in the leak.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's funny. I distinctly remember me saying something to this effect and how that is probably what Bush meant. People shouldn't be fired if they didn't do anything wrong. I know liberals wanted so desperately to play the gotcha game by trying to pin Bush to this one statement, so this must take some wind out of their sails.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still predict that someone besides Miller will be indicted, ...

[/ QUOTE ]


When was Miller indicted?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right - I should have said indicted and left Miller out of the sentence. But you get my point - someone else is going to get fried over this (is my prediction).

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Today Bush finally spoke. He has now narrowed the phrasing of his words so that he promises to fire anyone in his administration who has committed a crime. Before, he didn't specify "crime", just involvement in the leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "leak" we mean "revealing Plame's identity" it's still not clear that there WAS a leak, much less a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that turns out to be the case, then as I've said before, I'm fine with Bush not firing anybody. But if there was a leak, but it wasn't a crime, he should still fire away.

-ptmusic