Today on Blogcritics
Home » Unanswered Questions Plague Rove Affair

Unanswered Questions Plague Rove Affair

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

While many things remain unclear in the Karl Rove leak scandal, one thing is certain: Rove was one of the sources that Time reporter Matthew Cooper nearly went to prison to protect. Rove’s leak outed covert CIA operative Valerie Plame (even if not by name) thus compromising an agent engaged in undercover WMD work, presumably a high-priority area for the US Government in the War on Terror.

It is not yet known whether Rove’s leak was intentional—if so, Bush’s top advisor could face 10-years in a Federal prison. The Rove Affair dredges up a far more troubling question as well.

If the leak really was an honest mistake, then why didn’t Rove come out immediately, admit it and throw himself on the mercy of the president? Instead, two years have passed with nary a peep. Meanwhile, in his silence, Rove blithely allowed one reporter to go to jail and another to be dragged more that halfway there, all to protect himself. These don’t appear to be the actions of an innocent man. If he really did nothing wrong, then why all the obfuscation?

It is unspeakably arrogant of Rove to behave in such a manner, but, if White House reaction is any indication, he has every reason to do so. Rove denied involvement in the leak when asked by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan back in 2003. Now McClellan refuses to talk about that denial. Also in 2003, after the story broke, President Bush promised to fire anyone in his administration who was the source of the leak. Yesterday, however, McClellan said, “any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president.” Thanks to President Bush’s “loyalty,” it looks like Rove has nothing to fear. It makes one wonder exactly how much Bush and other White House officials knew about Rove’s involvement.

Conservatives are, as one would expect, on the offensive, wailing about partisan attacks against Rove and the Bush administration. Let’s try a little thought experiment. What if the tables were turned and a prominent Democrat on the Intelligence Committee had leaked the name of a CIA agent engaged in covert WMD work in order to punish an outspoken supporter of the Bush administration? The Republicans would be crying treason, measuring their rope and looking for the nearest low-hanging branch.

So, how will Bush justify going back on his word and not firing Rove? Well that’s one whopper that he’s going to have to let “Bush’s Brain” think up.

(parenthetical remarks)

Powered by

About parenthetical

  • gracefulboomer

    Do we know for certain if Miller’s source is the same as Matthew Cooper’s?

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    Nope, but I’ll bet you five bucks!

  • Maynard

    Here’s how they get away with it. Bush said he would fire anyone that leaked the name. Rove identified Plame by saying “Wilson’s wife” and then said publicly he didn’t mention her name.

    I would bet that the technicality of not actually saying her name was part of the plan, Bush being specific about stating he woudl fire anyone that leaked the name would get fired was part of the plan and that any statement Rove gave, being specific about the not saying the name was part of the plan to insulate against Bush’s statement.

    Now, the federal law is abou trevealing the identity, which saying “Wilson’s wife” does violate, if push comes to shove, Rove will get a presidential pardon and never do a day of jail time, no matter what.

    If it gets ugly, expect him to resign “to spend time with his family” and the matter to disappear.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    Assuming his family would want to spend time with him

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Last I checked our jurisprudence system is based on intent. Nothing yet, not one shred of evidence, even circumstantial, would point to Rove desiring to out Plame.

    Therefore, in order to be guilty of a leak of the name, you would have to intend to leak the name. If he didn’t intend to leak a name, then Bush would have no reason to fire him.

    If, as the evidence points to, his intent was to keep wrong info from being published, then his intent was honorable.

    In order to show intent in this case, we would want proof that he knew she was undercover, that he made an effort to actually undermine her, and that she actually was not known to be an agent.

    No evidence of these at this time.

  • Maynard

    The name is irrelevant, the law states the identity, intent is immaterial, the law states knowingly. Try not being a blind whore for the republicans , think about this shit and look up the facts.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    Well, the intent was to discredit Wilson and possibly damage his wife’s career in the process. Sounds farfetched, maybe, but that’s child’s play for Rove.

    Even if his intent was honorable (and not, as it appears to actually be, underhanded), he still outed a CIA agent. Why doesn’t the right get it? He should be fired if he broke the law, or if he didn’t because he did damage no matter what.

    If a Dem outed a covert CIA agent you guys would be screaming for blood.

  • balletshooz

    quite true about the name issue and intent. rove’s intent does not matter. just that he knew she was a cia operative. it is a real stretch from what is known right now to make the case he didnt know she was a cia operative.

    however rove’s real problem is not the democrats. his real problem is the grand jury of his peers. if they decide he might have committed a crime then all hell will break loose.

    moreover, it is hard to see how a journalist is sitting in jail right now if the prosecutor is not after some blood. rove is toast.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    knowingly = intent. Am I right?

    Law says she must have been undercover at some time during past 5 years. She wasn’t.

    From what we know right now, the press called him on unrelated issue, and his intent was to help the reporter. Keep him from falling in a trap. Show me any evidence he intended to hurt the woman. Not by inference or just because you think so. They will need more than that.

    Most importantly. If we now lose our jobs because public opinion comes to the wrong conclusion, its time to move to another country. Not sure where, though.

  • JR

    Randy Kirk: Therefore, in order to be guilty of a leak of the name, you would have to intend to leak the name. If he didn’t intend to leak a name, then Bush would have no reason to fire him.

    So if intend to show up to work on time, but I accidently oversleep, my boss has no reason to fire me. I mean, hey, it’s not like anybody’s going to die, right?

  • balletshooz

    Knowingly does not equal intent. It is a subtle difference and it works against Rove.

    All Rove needed is to KNOW she is undercover AND leak her name (regardless of intent).

    it could be a mistake, a slip up, a good faith “correction” to an article, he might not have intended to give her name out, he might have intended to be mother theresa and wipe out hunger.

    it just has to be shown :

    1. he knew she was undercover

    and

    2. he leaked her identity

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    If you accidently oversleep one time, and your boss fires you, he’s an idiot. And I write books on running businesses and have owned businesses for 30 years.

    If you are an incredible contributor to the company and you oversleep every day, I probably wouldn’t fire you unless it was going to kill somebody.

  • Maynard

    You know, Randy, I can’t decide if you are sincere, or just brain damaged. I will go with sincere. There is no such thing as a synonym, look up knowingly and intent.

    Here’s the fucking law
    “Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 which states that
    “Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

    You see anything about 5 years in here?
    Like i said, stop vomiting up what you hear on AM hate radio, and look shit up yourself.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Evidence that he knew she was undercover, please? He just said she worked for CIA. That job was not covert.

    The rest is arguing in circles. He can’t leak a name if the name is already known to be an agent by everyone in town.

  • Maynard

    Nice to see you got all the talking points this morning. Dilute, Distract, Deny and swarm.

    Up to the Grand Jury, but the CIA DID state that she was a covert operative, and that is why there is a fucking grand jury in the first place.

    Nice try at lying, now I know you aren’t the sincere type.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Nice to see you got all the talking points this morning. Dilute, Distract, Deny and swarm.<<

    I assume they just have Daily Kos set up as their default page when they open their browser so they can get the latest positions to take straight from moveon.org.

    Dave

  • JR

    Randy Kirk: Most importantly. If we now lose our jobs because public opinion comes to the wrong conclusion, its time to move to another country. Not sure where, though.

    You should move to Virginia. Maybe Georgia. The blue states should secede and form a new nation where reason, competence and justice hold sway. And you can run your Christian nation however you like, without interference from us annoying “liberals”. You can call it “The Absolutely Truly Great and Holy United States of America, Best Nation Ever To Exist In All of Creation, Especially Compared To Those Heathen Scum Next Door Who Tried To Oppress Us Lo These Many Years, Even Though It’s Obvious They Are Wrong and We Are Right”.

  • Maynard

    You got me all wrong , Dave. I’ve never been to either of those websites. This is the first and only political site I’ve been to, and that’s only because somebody I trust and respect hooked me up and told me it was important to learn. Maybe the lesson is that for the most part, trying to talk sense to some people is a hopeless cause.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Sorry Maynard, you mentioned talking points, and disinformation – “dilute, distract, deny” – so I assumed you were referring to the many leftists who come on here fresh from Kos and blabber the canned nonsense that they use instead of rational argument.

    Dave

  • Maynard

    I understand, give me enough benefit of the doubt to read my shit and I’ll return the favor. Why I mentioned talking points is that it is all over the articles on Google News about the White House sending out a memo about how to deal with this mess. A memo most likely written by Rove, the top strategist in the Republican party. The three D’s I spoke about are right form the memo, the swarm bit is a tactic I have noticed from the AM radio and Fox types, co-ordinated efforts to hit it all, also right form the memo. And Randy is hitting on all cylinders.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    I just said if you can lose your job…. I love it here. Its the lefties who are always saying they’re going to leave, then don’t.

    And this isn’t a Christian issue, its a legal one.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    Thanks for the input Maynard, but chill a bit on the language. This is a family site.

    Randy: I thought only Democrats threatened to leave the country if things didn’t go their way ;) guffaw

    And Maynard’s right, there’s an investigation for a reason, and it’s not because of Kos or MoveOn. Unless you think the CIA is a left-wing org?

    Rove did one of two things: He broke the law or he screwed up. The gov. will take care of the consequences if it’s the former. Should there be no consequences for the latter?

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Folks, when you ASK someone to “chill” and “moderate language”, it’s nice to add the word “please” to your request.

    Otherwise, it comes off as a command – and the folks who can issue a command like that aren’t involved in this discussion.

    Randy, you might want to re-read the Official Comment Policy; the f-word is not a pejorative.

  • Maynard

    Thank you DrPat.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    Please :D

    I just don’t want this to devolve into yet another slag-fest on the politics page. Trying to do my public service since I threw the first punch.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Sorry, Randy, I meant to direct Pete to the Policy statement.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Potential consequence if what is now in the public knowledge base turns out to be true: to wit, Rove gets call from journelist, journelist brings up Niger, Rove says that CIA wife of Wilson was the one who suggested him for trip. That he (the reporter should probably not go with his Wilson’s story.) If that’s it and Rove didn’t know she was covert, or she wasn’t covert, or many in Washington already knew she had been covert.

    Consequence. Sincere apology for giving unintentionally giving the appearance of bad political judgement.

  • Maynard

    Objection your Honor, speculative. Move to redirect.

    How could Rove not know the status of the operative if he knew such intimate details such as her being the one that authorized Wilson to take the fact finding trip? How could an operative authorize such? Was this material classified, and did revealing it to someone not authorized for classified material violate the federal law quoted above?

    Apology doesn’t cut it, tell that to the reporter in jail covering for his pasty white ass. I’ll wait and see what the grand jury has to say, the actual evidence made public so far shows enough to implicate anbd continue the investigation. So spare us from the rest of the talking points, ok?

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Lets get the whole act up so no one can continue to speak with their head ….

    Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
    undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
    sources

    (a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
    classified information that identifies covert agent

    Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
    information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
    information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
    authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
    information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
    United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
    agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
    not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    (b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
    agents as result of having access to classified information

    Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
    information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
    discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
    individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
    that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
    the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
    agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
    not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

    (c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
    activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

    Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
    identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
    activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
    the United States, discloses any information that identifies an
    individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive
    classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
    identifies such individual and that the United States is taking
    affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified
    intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more
    than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    Pay special attention to this line

    ***and that the
    United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
    agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States,*** Could be important.

  • Maynard

    Your Honor, I charge the defendant with violating sections A and B, section C being immaterial since it pertains to counter espionage and not the details in this case.

    I understand now, you don’t think we can read.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    I have a hard time with this. He outed her in a job that was not covert. There is no one saying that he had seen her file or knew that she was ever covert. He didn’t tell a reporter, here’s the name of a covert agent I’d like to out. He didn’t get on the phone and start calling a bunch of reporters to tell them the name or relationship or anything. Where is the smoking gun. Even a cocked trigger would be nice.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Randy, if Rove didn’t do anything wrong, why has it taken 2 years and one reporter to go to jail [and another on his way] before he acknowledged any involvement?

    He could have cleared up his involvement two years ago but chose not to. He chose to wait until Cooper was threatened with jail time.

    Why, if there is nothing wrong with what he did?

    It’s like the Martha Stewart case: he’s acting guilty of something.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    There is a grand jury investigation into the leaking of the identity of a covert CIA agent. Are you saying it didn’t happen?

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    There was a grand jury investigation into the molesting of little children by Jackson. A jury decided it didn’t happen.

    Why he chose to not talk about it for two years. Oh! Let’s see. Maybe the way the press and the opposition party ave dealt with it. Maybe because there were legal and ethical issues with regard to the reporters.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    But the CIA thinks it did happen. Are they part of the vast left-wing conspiracy that tries to trip up upstanding citizens like Karl Rove and Michael Jackson?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    There was a grand jury investigation into the molesting of little children by Jackson. A jury decided it didn’t happen.

    No they didn’t. They decided there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened. Some of the jurors believe that it happened but that the prosecution didn’t provide a strong enough legal case.

    Maybe the way the press and the opposition party ave dealt with it.

    Baloney. He minced words: he said he never revealed her name. He acknowledged that he spoke to Cooper and discussed Wilson’s wife without mentioning her name.

    Maybe because there were legal and ethical issues with regard to the reporters.

    Um, no. If HE’s the source, he has no legal or ethical problem revealing himself. Unless he’s done something wrong, that is.

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    He acknowledged that he spoke to Cooper and discussed Wilson’s wife without mentioning her name.

    Whoops. Make that “he NEVER acknowledged” ….

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    I believe the grand jury is looking into WHO released the identity of a CIA agent, covert or not.

    Are you thinking that Rove was “coerced” into giving his consent to reveal him as the source for the NY Times reporter who DID go to jail? Because that’s the reason she gives for continuing to conceal her source, that the permission to reveal her source was invalid because it was not voluntary.

    That’s bizarre, and so illogical it completely misses being useful as ammunition agaist Rove.

  • Maynard

    CIA says she was a covert agent, as was pointed out above. Go back to the talking points, I know they tried to cover everything Randy, but some people ain’t falling for that shit anymore.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Where is the link on the CIA saying she was covert? Did they say currently? Did they say that her day job at the desk mentioned by Rove was covert? Did they say that the CIA was unaware that her name was all over town prior to this as CIA? Did the CIA say they were still actively trying to conceal her identity? Did the CIA say that any harm to her or US would come from her being outed as a desk jocky?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    It’s general CIA policy to consider the identity of all their agents a low-level secret. In reality their identities are disclosed all the time if they work at Langley, of course.

    Dave

  • gracefulboomer

    Matt Cooper agreed to testify before the grand jury because his source called him on the way to the court house and specifically released him to reveal his identity .. he left his home that morning expecting to be jailed.

    If both Cooper and Miller shared the same source- why did that source release Cooper and not Miller?

    Both reporters – Miller and Cooper- have stated that they did not consider the blanket release signed by all White House employees to cooperate fully in the ongoing investigation into the leak sufficient enough to release them from their promise as it was too general.

    The MSM has used the ‘two sources’ rules for annon reporting for years.

    So…?

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    Randy: All of her past work for a CIA front would be exposed and thus destroyed.

    Grace: Maybe Rove didn’t call poor Judy Miller. And after all of the shilling she did for the administration…

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Pete,

    I’m not even trying to be partisan here, but just get to the root. Aparantly (I don’t know this for sure) she had a desk job that was not covert in addition to any covert work she did? Isn’t this correct? I have two friends who work for similar agencies and they tell everyone.

    In her covert life, did she use another name? If she used her real name, why? Wouldn’t that expose her to serious potential problems downstream?

    If she did use her real name, was she telling her friends and family that she worked for somebody else when she left to go to the office each day?

  • http://xraystyle.blogspot.com Bryan McKay

    Randy, even if she had a desk job in addition to her covert work, this doesn’t make exposing her covert work okay. It’s one less agent the CIA can have in the field.

    I don’t know whether or not she used another name. It doesn’t seem to me as if that’s important or not. Once she’s been exposed, she’s been exposed, fake name or no fake name.

    And as far as I know, immediate family is generally privy to covert operations, although not to the nature of them, but there is often a “cover” that these agents display towards those outside of this “inner circle.” Although, this could be completely false. I’m going on limited knowledge here. I suppose it’s hard to really know such a thing, seeing as it’s meant to be covert and all…

  • gracefulboomer

    Comment #40 Randy.

    A little less Ludlum and Ian Fleming, as a basis for your knowledge of Intel work, please.

    ‘And after all the shilling she did for the administration’- Pete Blackwell

    Yes, excellent point. Have you read New York Times Review of Books ” Now They Tell Us”? Informative preview.
    A google search typing in Now They Tell Us will get you to the missouri.ed web site which has it cached
    About 7,000 words well worth reading. The book is on my purchased haven’t read list. Summer reading.

    Are you suggesting that Judith Miller is doing a self imposed penitence for prior poor reporting?
    Interesting concept that.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    As has been pointed out elsewhere, Miller’s source is most likely not Rove since he revealed himself as Cooper’s source.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    >>If the leak really was an honest mistake, then why didn’t Rove come out immediately, admit it and throw himself on the mercy of the president? Instead, two years have passed with nary a peep.

    Ding. ding. ding. This is absolutely correct. He’s been willing to let an awful lot of !@#$% go down while he sails above it all.

    >>Are you suggesting that Judith Miller is doing a self imposed penitence for prior poor reporting? Interesting concept that.

    I believe that to be true, though whether it makes any sense for her or not I have not decided.

    Randy your assertions fell into, “I don’t know for sure-isms.” That wasn’t quite fair to yourself. It makes your previous comments – in this thread – all but meaningless.

    How can anyone think Rove is any good? – He was fired by George Bush Sr. and by Reagan in previous campaigns — for leaking to Robert Novak (and other activities). I guess he felt he had the political cover NOW to be so stupid as to take that morally-challenged behaviour way into criminal activity.

    And there seem to be an awful lot of people who want to prove him right on that account – on partisan grounds – and swallow behavior and criminal activity. Why? For what?

    In fact Rove’s pissing (taking that leak) in a pot.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Why would Miller go to jail to protect Rove when Rove waived confidentiality almost 2 years ago?

    The question is, who is SHE protecting because it sure isn’t Rove.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    This should be the closer. It comes from Hugh Hewitt if you wish to look up the actual documents.

    Believe the 36 “major news organizations and reporters’ groups” that filed an amici curiae brief in the D.C. Circuit on the question of whether Matt Cooper and Judith Miller should be compelled to reveal the identities of confidential sources. (HT: Beldar).On page ii of the brief, the lawyers for the media groups assert: “In this case, there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the “Act”) in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper. If in fact no crime under the Act has been committed, then any need to compel Miller and Cooper to reveal their confidential sources should evaporate.” Among the amici –ABC, employer of one Terry Moran, outraged member of the White House press corps, CNN, CBS, FoxNews, and NBC Universal –employer of David Gregory, another of the “hang Rove” crowd. The Washington Post and White House Correspondents are also signatories to the brief that notes “Plame was not given ‘deep cover’ required of a covert agent…She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington — not stationed abroad– for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name.”

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Now, it’s obvious someone is lying although I can’t tell who and don’t see how anyone else can either. Everyone is just taking the words of those they believe or have allegiances to without any actual proof. He said; she said.

    They were those on the right who blindly defended Rove before the truth came out. Rove was suspected because he has been involved in dirty tricks before, but the big circumstamtial piece was that he was fired from the Bush ’92 campaign for leaking info to Novak, who was involved in this latest fiasco. And after numerous denials, it turned out to be Rove. What he did is no longer called “a leak” and they are in full damage and spin control.

    Sinc Rove has been caught, the new game afoot for political junkies now appears to be who Miller is protecting because it is obviously not Rove.

    Since we have no info, let’s look at circumstantial evidence again. We need to figure out who in the administration had a relationship with Miller and would find it beneficial to give her this information.

    If Wilson is telling the truth, who had a serious desire to see him discredited? Who had a serious desire to go to war with Iraq? And who had a relationship with Miller’s paramour, Ahamd Chalbi? Who is the administration not trotting in their full court press?

    My guess: VP Chaney.

    Before you call me traitor, I’m only making a guess and have no proof. I just find the circumstances interesting and think Miller must be protecting someone bigger than Rove. She wouldn’t be doing for some lowly department worker.

    I don’t need you to refute my guess because I will state I have no evidence. Besides, I think Chaney is to smart to get caught.

    So what’s your guess?

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    My guess would be Bill Clinton. Or Hillary. This would be along the same line as some of the ideas proposed by the deposed head of the dems during the last election cycle.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    Randy,

    Here’s some commentary from someone who actually knows (presumably) what he is talking about.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    Here’s some commentary from someone who actually wrote the bill and spearheaded its passage: World Net Daily article

    I read the commentary you recommended Pete. The guy is so obviously biased I’m surprised you offered him as testimony.

  • Maynard

    White HOuse press secretary McClellan is on the record as saying he talked to Rove and others in the WH staff, and they denied having anything to do with the whole leak thing. Now we know that that ain’t true. This issue was raised, and the exact quotes given earlier this week at the press conference as is shown in another thread here on BC which has smoe of the transcript and links to the rest.

    This means, if nothing else , either Rove lied to McClellan and sent him out there to tell it to the press, or McClellan is in on it. Either way, there is a blatant lie on the record between the WH official spokesman and the american public via the WH press conference.

    But you know the WH ain’t gonna have the balls to appoint a Dem special investigastor for this particular thing, you know, the way Slick Willie did with Ken Starr.

    So, much as i personally loathe both of them, at least Slick Willie showed he had more balls, and morals.

    What’s going to happen next? We will see, I guess.

  • http://www.biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Democrats want Karl Rove stripped of his security clearance. I’m having a very difficult time processing the fact that Mr. Rove has maintained a major security clearance throughout the Bush Administration. A political operative such as Mr. Rove should not have access to those things most delicate in nature. Ponder the ramifications, if you will, of how serious it is that Mr. Rove possesses knowledge of things that covert agents have died for. Mr. Rove is far more dangerous by possessing thse covert secrets, my friends.

  • http://parentheticalremarks.blogspot.com Pete Blackwell

    I offered it for his obvious insider view of the CIA and personal knowledge of the case. Not because of his political stance. Stick with your “unbiased” sources if you like. How’d ya like that WSJ editorial? More up your alley?

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    But Pete, his insider view was even tainted. Check out the loaded words he uses during and just after his description. He never mentions that she was out of the field for 9 years for example.

  • balletshooz

    So, simply because this woman is out of the field for a few years. did the terrorists give up and go home? All of her contacts still in the field fighting the war on terror have been endangered and outed too. The war on terror has been undermined by Rove. Even if he gets out of this on a technicality, he should be frog marched for sedition.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    That isn’t the law or the intent of the law. Check out the law’s authors statement above.

    The way I see it, those who want to hang him want to hang him even if he was trying to help out this reporter with vague info about a women who was not known by Rove to be undercover, who had not been undercover for 9 years, and who was known by others to be CIA? Based on what we actually know today, that would be some stretch.