You are herecontent / Did Bush Lie Under Oath?

Did Bush Lie Under Oath?


The President's Story: Take Two

By the Anonymous Liberal

http://www.anonymousliberal.com

A new article in the New York Daily News lays out an entirely different version of what the President knew about the Plame leak and when he knew it.

An angry President Bush rebuked chief
political guru Karl Rove two years ago for
his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources
told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a
presidential counselor told The News. "He
made his life miserable about this."

The article goes on to say:

Other sources confirmed . . . that Bush was
initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his
deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked
to the press about the Plame leak.
And finally:

A second well-placed source said some recently
published reports implying Rove had deceived
Bush about his involvement in the Wilson
counterattack were incorrect and were leaked
by White House aides trying to protect the
President.

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and
others as believing that they handled it in a
ham-handed and bush-league way," the
source said.

(sidenote: do you think that, many years from now, people will mistakenly think that the term "bush-league" is actually a reference to the world-class incompetence of this particular administration?)

Anyway, it's clear that the "Rove misled the President" talking point is no longer operative. That may have just been a trial balloon. The new story is that Rove came clean and was privately admonished by the President in 2003. This new story raises some interesting questions, though.

First, as Rep. John Conyers points out at the Huffington Post, this new story doesn't explain why President Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone found to be involved in the leak. And if Rove came clean in 2003, was that before or after Scott McClellan told the press that he was "not involved" in the leak?

More importantly, if this story is true, particularly the part about this disclosure taking place in 2003, there is a potentially far more serious problem. Let's go back to Murray Waas' Oct. 7 article in the National Journal, which was one of three articles that leaked the "Rove misled Bush" story. Waas wrote:

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove
personally assured President Bush in the early
fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone
in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an
administration critic, was a CIA employee,
according to legal sources with firsthand
knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and
Bush independently provided to federal
prosecutors . . .

In his own interview with prosecutors on

June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove
assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a
CIA employee and had said nothing to the
press to discredit Wilson, according to sources
familiar with the president's interview. Bush
said that Rove never mentioned the
conversation with Cooper.

So if this new story is true--Rove "came clean" to Bush in 2003--and Waas is also right, doesn't that mean that Bush lied to Fitzgerald in June 2004?

Moreover, it has previously been reported that Rove failed to mention his conversation with Cooper in either his initial FBI interview or his first grand jury appearance. Only after finding his email to Hadley did Rove come forward and correct his prior testimony. Now, the conventional wisdom is that this email was discovered in 2004, after Fitzgerald took over the case and issued subpoenas. If that's true, then the fact that Rove "came clean" to the President back in 2003 (presumably before the email was discovered) does not look good for Rove. It could mean that Rove made no effort to correct testimony he knew to be misleading until the discovery of the Hadley email forced his hand.

Given all these questions and potential inconsistencies, I expect we'll see a third, clarifying version of Bush's story emerge in coming days.

LINK TO ORIGINAL

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe Bush was under oath when he talked with fitzgerald.

Many of us worked hard to counter the "stealth" campaigns to elect anti-choice folks, back in the old days before mud-slinging became more fun and one didnt have to be stealthy any more.

All of this in answer to the prospect of another clarification that will only be another manipulation for political gain.

One thinks of the teapot dome scandals, but we now have a nuclear kettle hanging over us. CDJ

Yes, "Bush" league will soon come to mean exactly what it is... incompetence to the point of criminal behavior and beyond.

The fact that Bush would know the correct and proper way to smear someone in the press is not surprising, but interesting.

We should be getting a rash of "credible" new terrorist plots against us very soon.

Didn't Bush and Cheney agree to testify only if it was behind closed doors and NOT under oath? Or am I confusing this with yet another scandal in the White House? If I'm right, this helps to show why they refused to take an oath and risk the same trigger that got Clinton impeached. OTOH, I doubt it will shield them from the hindering of justice charge.

For Citizen Spook's latest...

http://www.citizenspook.blogspot.com

Great commentary about Bush packing the SCOTUS, too.

Alas, I do not believe Bush was under oath when he was interviewed by a team of federal prosecutors on June 24, 2004.

Bush did not testify under oath before Fitzgerald---not that an oath would mean anything to Bush

Bush has lied from the start,he lied under oath , Bush should be brought up on War Crimes,there money grabbing thugs, also Dick Cheney and the rest of that clan ,they should all be brought up on charges,what ever happen to Ken Lay??? ,,,another thing Bu$h is trying to get his people into Supreme court 'so if he is ever brought up on charges he will have people in his court, its time to make them pay for there crimes,the world has suffered enought for there crimes and sins.

I am waiting for one of the famous "Wag the Bush" terror moments...Those are lies too, and used as propaganda to manipulate citizens through fear and change votes...Isn't that against the law?

What I read several months ago is that Fitzgerald interviewed President Bush, but that Bush was not under oath.

I think you are all remembering the 911 hearings. Bush and Chenny held hands.

Bush told his first lie as President on Jan 20, 2001... the day he took the oath.. (Bushspeak? oath? the booosjies think of an oath as pretty much blackmail. Ya' gotta' say that stuff to the job!)

Bush swore to uphold and defend the Consitution...we all know how that turned out.

These new-CONS...must believe in a God... they know they're not in any way responsible for a dearth of terror attacks since 9/11. Except for the anthrax, etc.

Bush told his first lie as President on Jan 20, 2001... the day he took the oath.. (Bushspeak? oath? the boooshies think of an oath as pretty much blackmail. Ya' gotta' say that stuff to get the job!)

Bush swore to uphold and defend the Consitution...we all know how that turned out.

These new-CONS...must believe in a God... they know they're not in any way responsible for a dearth of terror attacks since 9/11. Except for the anthrax, etc.

Can't you feel the terror grip you in the gut? Every one I know is talking about bird flu and are totally ignorant if you say the name Plame.

I think you are talking about the 911 hearings. Bush and Chenny would not have been allowed to testify under oath together before a federal prosecutor.

They refused to answer any questions if they were seperated or under oath. Hell a store gets robbed and cops have all the people sitting away from each other so their story don't get changed by what they hear the other person say. They've had time to come up with a viable lie. So who was the one they were a afraid would mess up the lie. That's right Bush he's famous for mis-saying something.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.