To: ChinuSFO who wrote (55 ) 7/27/2005 3:15:13 PM From: Dan B. Read Replies (1) | Respond to I LOVE the bolded, though I certainly don't need to read the lie in there again. It'd be fine, except that Even for a Dudhead, Bush still noted the "guilt" requirement from the very beginning, in deference to your "bolded" text. This was definitely appropriate, ahem, just in case innocence exists(I know this is hard for you to fathom, LOL, but is the American Way), even all the way back to 1776, let alone all the way back in 2003 when again, he suggested the same standard which he has in '05. Yes, the SAME DAY back in 2003 when he offered essentially to "fire any staffer found to be involved in a leak," he also stated it in terms of legal guilt, as he essentially has on at least one other occasion again, in the interim between '03 and your bogus 'claim of an '05 flip. That makes three consistent public displays of intent over 2 years, by President Bush on this issue. All of his statements in fact, remain wholly consistent with firing "any staffer found to be involved in a leak." There is no beef in your claims on this issue at all. All marshmallow.
