One Republican after another lined up and went on record claiming they had knowledge that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had nothing to do with it, including President Bush. This turns out now not to be the case. The president said he would fire anyone involved in the leak. Now that we know Rove and Libby were intricately involved, the president flip-flopped and refuses to fire them. The president has repeatedly said he wants to get to the bottom of it. All he has to do is walk down the hall of the White House and ask Karl Rove, “What happened?” or “Why did you do this?” It would not be that hard if the president was really a man who meant what he said and not a man with a shifting moral compass.
Better yet, given the facts we know, no explanation is needed from Rove or Libby, they should be summarily dismissed. But the president is showing the American people that to him and the GOP, the war on terror is a political game they pay lip service to in order to get a political advantage, not a real issue they care about. How else could one explain the president keeping these men in their positions requiring security clearances when they have already undermined the war on terror, and are essentially enemies of the state? Further, how else could one explain the Republican-controlled Senate, voting along party lines, refusing to revoke the security clearances of two men who have used those clearances to undermine the war on terror simply because they are Republicans?
These serious offenses would be expected to elicit anger by all Americans, specifically when you analyze the Republican response to the actions of Sandy Berger, a fine patriot who was helping the 9-11 commission do its job, at a time that Bush and Cheney were fighting against it and stonewalling it. Mr. Berger took a copy of a well-known and readily available document out of the National Archives to help him prepare for the hearings, something that was not permitted technically under the law. Yet such a minor infraction by a man who is helping strengthen national security evoked cries of treason and wild false rhetoric against him unjustifiably including “he stole a secret document” and “he stuffed the documents down his pants," both statements provably false.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - GPW
Balletshooz:
What we now know is that various people have provided contradictory testimony to the Grand Jury, not who is lying, as you claim in this piece. Rove says one thing, Cooper says another. Libby says one thing, Novak says another. Fleischer says one thing, some unnamed government leaker says another. This is a "he said/he said" debate in which it is not yet clear who's lying. Please don't claim otherwise. You may, of course, be right. But if you are, at least have the courtesty to wait for the indictments before you hang the criminal. Or at least remember the adage, "innocent until proven guilty." The lynch mob on the left has the rail, tar, feathers, and rope all ready to go, but we're not even sure who committed the crime. Indeed, I'd go further and suggest that we still don't know what crime"if any"has been committed. You suggest a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in the revelation of Valerie Plame's name. Perhaps, but even the media doesn't think a crime has been committed there, if its amicus curiae briefs on behalf of Judith Miller are any indication. And, as I said, if perjury is the issue, until the indictments are handed out, we're not sure who's perjured himself (or herself).
You write, "Yet in an act of desperate and petty retribution, it appears Libby, Rove, and potentially other Republican officials blew the cover of this agent, by outing her to the media in an attempt to strengthen their false argument that we needed to invade Iraq immediately because they might nuke us." First, you're assuming facts not in evidence, namely, that Libby, Rove, et al did the leaking (as Cooper claims) rather than Cooper and Novak (as the White House claims). Again, at least wait for an indictment. Second, you make the demonstrably false statement that the WH argued "we needed to invade Iraq immediately because they might nuke us." I dare you to provide documentation of this. And read "The Imminence Myth" by Stephen F. Hayes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/713rhzvm.asp).
This paragraph is BS from start to finish: "The act of blowing this agent’s cover undermined national security and is a serious criminal offense under a number of criminal statutes. An undercover operation spanning the globe to root out terrorists and weapons of mass destruction is now out of commission. Spies throughout the globe who had contacts with terrorists are now compromised and endangered. America is in a worse position because of it, and the terrorists have been given a big gift from seditious individuals within our own government. This petty retribution bordered on treason and certainly emboldened our enemies in a real way...." How did it undermine national security? Prove that the law was in fact violated. Show how this revelation put the global war on terror "out of commission." And quit using phrases like "seditious individuals." No one has committed treason, which is punishable by death, by the way. At worst, someone may have violated the IIPA, which is punishable by jail time.
And regarding your little foray into Clinton's offenses. It was never about sex. At first it was about real estate, for which Ken Starr ultimately secured more than a dozen convictions, including one of Arkansas governor Jim Guy Tucker. The impeachment was always about perjury. It just so happened that Clinton had perjured himself about sex with a WH intern. (Why didn't the Left decry the sexual harassment of a young employee?)
Look, events may prove that Libby, Rove, and other WH officials perjured themselves. I sincerely doubt they violated the IIPA. Then again, events may show that Cooper or Novak perjured themselves. Until we get some indictments, quite claiming to know what we do not in fact know or what we in fact know to be false.
2 - WTF
I seriously doubt Bin Laden gives one iota of a hoot about American politics. He seems a bit more focused than that.
3 - GPW
Yeah, more focused on evading the Pakistani and American forces out to get him.
4 - Balletshooz
I give GPW props for being thorough, but dont you strain your credibility by asking for me to be precise with my wording and asking me to withold judgment until the indictments come, then in the same comment saying:
"The impeachment [of Clinton] was always about perjury"
When exactly was he indicted for perjury? I guess I missed that one.
5 - billy
i dont think osama has any problems, he is safely in pakistan with his gold robes being protected by our "ally", he only appears every once in a while on TV at the perfect time to boost Bush's approval rating or election chances.
6 - George Paul Wood
Let me be exact: House Report 105-830 contains a resolution to impeach President Clinton for perjury. Go here. Each of the four articles of this resolution mention "perjurious" testimony. He gave that testimony in the course of being investigated for sexually harassing Paula Jones. Sorry for the imprecision of my terminology. Now, will you concede that Clinton was impeached for perjury?
7 - GPW
And not for sex with Monica?
8 - baba
GPW,
I actually think you did a good job arguing your case... but the arguments only hold if we aren't allowed to be thinking people. What you say is true, that, "What we now know is that various people have provided contradictory testimony to the Grand Jury, not who is lying, as you claim in this piece."
Likewise, if we know that you have made the above statement, and that this is a post about Rove, we of course don't know for certain that you are a Rove supporter... But I think it's a pretty good deduction.
Likewise, we know what everyone has said, and we know that only the Bush team had access to the Secret information, and so it's a pretty good deduction that the leak came from them, and not the other way around. To say otherwise is to say that water in the river is actually flowing backwards.
In light of this, the rest of your post is pretty weak.
9 - Balletshooz
Clinton was not convicted, and the partisan Congress was certainly no criminal case, so according to Bush's own standard, Clinton is just fine.
Will you not admit, Rove and Libby's alleged acts, if found guilty, dwarf anything Clinton did, and did not justify 6 years of investigation and focus at the very time Al Qaeda was building up to attack us.
Our Republican politicans should have focused on terror when it counted, not after we were slaughtered for them taking our eye off the ball.
10 - GPW
Baba:
I'm not so much for Rove as I am against the Left, or at least the Left that Balletshooz speaks for. In the end, Rove, Libby, and others may be indicted on criminal charges, although we don't know for what yet. And, if there's a trial, they may be convicted. But, Balletshooz's hysterical rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, no reasonable person has charged Rove, Libby, or others with treason. At worst, they're guilty of violating the IIPA, which is not a treasonable offense, as I understand it. Of course, if they're guilty, so are the reporters who conveyed the information publicly. Less worse, but still bad, they're guilty of perjury. At best, no offense has been committed except in the perfervid minds of Leftist nutjobs. If Rove et al are guilty, then they deserve whatever punishment they have coming. My larger problem with Balletshooz's treatment of this story is its incredibly unwarranted assertions about national security being threatened and spies becoming unsafe and the global war on terror spinning out of control, solely because of the revleation of Valerie Plame's name. Frankly, that's just ridiculous. And it will continue to be ridiculous even if Rove et al have committed a crime.
11 - GPW
Balletshooz:
Impeachment is a kind of criminal case, insofar as it can only be undertaken for "high crimes and misdemeanors." And, although no criminal court tried Clinton for perjury, if I remember correctly, the Bar revoked his license to practice law because of his perjury. Certainly that would indicate the legal profession looked dimly upon Clinton's actions, even if no Congress or court ever convicted him. That's why the final phrase of your first paragraph is so bizarre: "so according to Bush's own standard, Clinton is just fine." If by Bush's standard, you mean that a non-indicted or unconvicted person should not be treated like a criminal, then I guess your right. I just wish you'd apply Bush's standard to Rove et al.
You write: "Will you not admit, Rove and Libby's alleged acts, if found guilty, dwarf anything Clinton did, and did not justify 6 years of investigation and focus at the very time Al Qaeda was building up to attack us." Given that Rove's alleged criminal acts took place in 2003, I'm not sure how they could possibly justify "6 years of investigation and focus," four years of which haven't yet occured. I think what you mean is that Clinton's acts did not justify 6 years of investigation. Given the number of convictions arising out of those years of the Special Counsel's investigation, and given what seems to me to be the plain fact of Clinton's perjury, even though he was not "convicted" by the Senate, I'd say that those investigations were quite revealing. Justified? I don't know. If Clinton had simply told the truth, I'm sure quite a few months could have been shaved off the tail end of Starr's inquiries. So, blame Clinton for thwarting the investigation and delaying the process.
I find it downright silly that you blame Republicans for "6 years of investigation and focus at the very time Al Qaeda was building up to attack us." President Clinton could have gone after Al Qaeda more aggressively. He didn't. Blame him for national security lapses. If he hadn't been so busy diddling an intern, perhaps he could have focused like a laser beam on national security.
"Our Republican politicans should have focused on terror when it counted, not after we were slaughtered for them taking our eye off the ball." You mean during the Clinton Administration? We should hold Republicans responsible for national security lapses during a Democratic administration? Don't you guys on the Left take any responsibility for your own actions? What about Democratic politicians? Do they bear no blame for the terrorism that happened while their guy was president? Once you've stopped blameshifting for the Clinton administration, why don't you rejoin the debate.
12 - George Paul Wood
Balletshooz:
I failed to answer your one direct question: "Will you not admit, Rove and Libby's alleged acts, if found guilty, dwarf anything Clinton did...?" If they violated the IIPA, which the mainstream media and I think is doubtful, then yes, their offense is greater than Clinton's. But if they merely perjured themselves, then they committed the exact same crime as Clinton. Given the vehemence with which you argue Rove et al's guilt, I look forward to seeing you just as vehemently"if somewhat retrospectively"argue that Clinton should have been punished for lying. I mean, what's sauch for the goose, right?
13 - George Paul Wood
BlogCritics needs spell checking. That last line shoudl have read: "I mean, what's sauce for the goose, right?"
14 - mjh
It is amazing how much propoganda has infiltrated the American media. It was very clear to the outside world that none of the claims related to Iraq were correct-thus, the lack of support for the invasion in the so-called "mother of all alliances". It is also, and remains, very clear that everything that your government is doing is fueling the generation of new "terrorists". Perhaps you should reflect on your own history-a nation founded by "terrorists". You call these "terrorists" heroes, much like Bin Laden and colleagues are viewed throughout the middle east. Perhaps if America didn't continue to intervene in the activities of sovereign nations for reasons that are clearly NOT related to any ethical or moral high ground, there wouldn't be a need for a disinformation campaign to obscure the truth. You have to be a fool to believe that 1) this story did not originate in the White House and 2) as head of the disinformation campaign that has characterized the Bush government, Rove is innocent in all of this. By the way, it is illegal even to confirm the information in question. Hence, it only matters that Rove and Libby spoke to these reporters and acknowledged the accuracy of their information.
15 - Branwen
>>My larger problem with Balletshooz's treatment of this story is its incredibly unwarranted assertions about national security being threatened and spies becoming unsafe<<
As I understand it, Plame worked for an organization in Europe that was a front for CIA opperatives. With her cover blown, everyone in that organization will now be suspect. I don't know if it puts their lives in danger, but it certainly derails an intelligence operation that had been in existence at least 15 years. That could have an effect on national security. I don't have a print source on this, but the information was given by a former CIA agent interviewed on MSNBC.
16 - M Paulding
Sometimes it's helpful to take a look back at the road that got us from there to here.
President Most-remembered for
Kennedy being assassinated
Johnson Viet Nam War
Nixon Watergate
Ford Pardoning Nixon
Carter Teheran hostages
Reagan Iran-Contra
Military aid to Osama
Military aid to Iraq
Bush I Iraq War
Clinton Cigars as Sex Toys
Bush II Phony Iraq War
I'm not adding the fall of the Soviet Union to Reagan's list of 'achievements' because CIA was already forecasting the Soviets' demise when Reagan entered office.
As far as Rove is concerned, I'll believe that Bush decided to do something about Rove when they find him bound and gagged on the sidewalk in the sixteen-hundred block of Pennsylvania Avenue wearing nothing but a dog collar and a light stick up his ass.
Maybe we should have a draft. If we did, on the day after Matt Cooper's appearance on "Meet The Press" last Sunday there probably would have been 100,000+ in front of the White House with torches demanding Bush's resignation and Rove's balls.
17 - The Duke
M. Paulding makes an interesting case… my point of view differs somewhat.
Kennedy being assassinated---Bay of Pigs, starting Viet Nam conflagration
Johnson Viet Nam War---Escalating the Viet Nam war
Nixon Watergate---Ending the Viet Nam war, ending the draft and keeping my ass out of Viet Nam, and saving my brothers ass, by bringing him home early.
Ford Pardoning Nixon---Ford hitting people on the head with golf balls
Carter Teheran hostages---Great human being, to soft hearted for the job
Reagan Iran-Contra---Freeing eastern Europe (ask any East European, he’s a hero)
Military aid to Osama---Busting the economy of the USSR with a Starwars ruse
Military aid to Iraq---Busting Iran’s balls over expansionism in the region
Bush I Iraq War---Not going far enough into Iraq and grabbing the oil
Clinton Cigars as Sex Toys---Foolish sociopath, needed prozac, an embarrassment
Bush II Phony Iraq ---Smacked upside the head with a major terrorist event on U.S. soil, responded in kind. Didn't employ nuetron technology
Oh did I mention that I didn't vote for any of them? Just to let you know where my loyalties lay....
18 - 59million americans and republican haters
To take a quote from bush "you are either with us or against us." NOW THAT THE FACTS ARE KNOWN ABOUT BUSH/ROVE TREASONIST BASTARDS - IF YOU STILL SUPPORT BUSH - YOU ARE A TRAITOR TOO!!
19 - lefty
bush should do the right thing and suspend their security clearances until the investigation either clears them or produces indictments.
20 - Righty
Not to mention, putting Sandy Berger behind bars for lifting classified documents.... if he was an enlisted military puke he would have been hung.
21 - lefty
i guess you were asleep. he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a fine, sort of like a speeding ticket. keep dreaming. the 9-11 commission already had the document, so whats the harm. rove endangered thousands of cia agents lives and he will be hung for real, not just in your twisted mind.
22 - Anthony Grande(if there were 59 million republican hater then way did Bush mop the floor with Kerry
If Bush and Osama were best freinds then why did Osama endorse Kerry during the election.
The Karl Rove thing is not damaging. He is part of a liberal witch hunt. As long as they go after something they have no chance of getting then the rest of the republican party is safe.
23 - billy
i dont remember seeing that endorsement. i just remember osama appeared and bush's approval rating jumped like 3 points. osama is evil but he isnt stupid, he wouldnt do that if that is not the result he wanted.
24 - Righty
I guess I was asleep. But that's not uncommon if you work 2 jobs and are finally finishing up an MBA after 15 years away from the books.
I would have put his lame ass in lock up. Stuffing classified documents in his flippin' socks, that theft of classified information. Who the hell slapped his wrist?
25 - Anthony Grande
Oh yeah, I am so sure Osama would rather have Bush fighting him than Kerry.