Timeline Q--What did the President Know & When did he Know it?

[MidnightWind]

From Craig Crawford's blog--a poster has raised these interesting questions:http://crawfordslist.blogspot.com/

The following comment really caught my eye.

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13550470&postID=112169374493589350&isPopup=true

"From Marisa:
Okay folks, so in all the discussion of the "moving goal posts" today, I noticed something in a diary over at dkos that I had not noticed before.

The post lays out a timeline of the changing Bush administration statements over the past 2 years:

(1)"if anyone in the administration was involved in it" (McClellan, Sept. 29th, 2003)

(2)"if the person has violated the law "(Bush, Sept. 30th, 2003)

(3)"anyone who had anything to do with leaking the name" (Bush gives passive "yes", June 10th, 2004)

and today, July 18, 2005... "If someone committed a crime" from Bush himself.

It seems to me that the goal post was moved on Sept. 30, 2003. Maybe I'm going crazy but I don't think I've heard this mentioned by anyone. Has anyone else noticed this, or heard it talked about? Craig?

I mean, it appears, that President Bush's statements from September 30, 2003 ("if the person has violated the law ") were clearly intended to officially correct the record from McClellan's statements the previous day ("if anyone in the administration was involved in it").

What did the President know and when did he know it?

Seems to me that by September 30, 2003 he clearly knew enough to understand he needed to make the distinction between "involved in" and "violated the law."

[clydefrand]

1. And now, he's saying if someone committed a crime...well,

violated the law isn't quite the same to him as committed a crime, I guess. Rove can violate the law, but if the violation is covered up or lied about in some way, then he can't be a committed criminal.

[MidnightWind]

2. and yet this was the same party which seemed to have such a huge

frickin' problem with what the definition of "is--is". Unbelievable.