I think because they are going to play a Clintonesque word parsing game. "I will fire whoever leaked _CLASSIFIED_ info" was the jist of Bush's statement.
And I think they are going to say, without a conviction, that there was no crime, and if there was no crime, there was no leak of classified info. Good thing they are restoring honor and integrity to the White House. On 7/13/05, Matthew Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was thinking about the substance of the case this morning, and it may be > that a crime was not committed, or at least not committed intentionally, > which I guess is the same thing. But the real question here is: Why did the > White House offer to fire the person responsible for the leak if it's not a > crime? Why are they backing down from that stance now? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164604 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
