Most of the press says that Bush has lowered his ethical standards: he had said that he would fire anyone who had leaked classified information, or involved in leaking it, but is now saying he will fire only those guilty of criminal wrongdoing. Tom Maguire says it’s the press that has moved the goalposts. I think you can make a case either way, but that the ambiguity in this situation tells in the president’s favor.

Maguire provides links to Bush’s statements, which is handy. Let’s review.

Sept. 2003: Bush says, “[I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.”

June 2004: Bush is asked, “[D]o you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name? . . . [A]nd do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?” Bush answered, “Yes.”

Today, Bush said, “If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”

Here’s how Maguire reads it: Bush originally said he would fire anyone who committed a crime in leaking Plame’s identity. Bush was then asked a question with a false premise: that he had said he would fire anyone who had leaked Plame’s name. He said that he stood by his earlier pledge, but unwittingly seemed to accept the reporter’s unwitting modification of it. He is now restating the original pledge.

It seems to me that the original comment was ambiguous: If you read “leak classified information” to include non-criminal leaking of classified information, and read “take the appropriate action” as a euphemism for firing, you can say that Bush was pledging to fire the leaker even if no crime occurred. The June 2004 question could then have been a question designed to reduce the ambiguity in the original statement.

So my tentative conclusion is that the press’s version of the president’s words and Maguire’s version are both a bit too definite. But the ambiguity is tougher for the press’s version, since it tries to portray the president as breaking a pledge.