When Karl Rove is in prison

[miajag81]

Do you envision him being a rapist or a bitch?

[Victor]

1000:1 he doesnt go to prison
100:1 he isnt indicted for anything.
10:1 he isnt dismissed from his position.

its called "plausible deniability" and hes been perfecting it for years. hes taught the republicans how to do it very well also.

also, the dems do it too so dont try to attack me for being leftist (if i even am)

[Malachii]

I voted bitch, but then it occured to me a guy that manipulative would figure out a way around the traditional rapist/bitch relationship. Maybe he could charm his way into being a fluffer?

[lastchance]

I think it's possible (20% at least) he's dismissed. Very unlikely that he's going to be indicted. And it'd take a damn good prosecutor get him convicted of anything.

[Exsubmariner]

What do you mean liberals do it too?
Liberals who don't want to be held accountable for lying/cheating/stealing invented it. They really can't stand it that someone like Rove is in on their scam.

[Malachii]

[ QUOTE ]
Liberals who don't want to be held accountable for lying/cheating/stealing invented it. They really can't stand it that someone like Rove is in on their scam.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because Democrats allegedly violate the law, it's okay for Republicans to do it too? Clinton gets a blowjob and the Republicans spend millions of dollars investigating him and trying to convict him of perjury, and they're just defending the sanctity of the White House. Rove leaks the name of a CIA agent in a move which puts her and her husband in mortal danger, and you don't think it's a big deal?

This is such bullshit line of reasoning that it doesn't even merit the reply I just gave you.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
They really can't stand it that someone like Rove isbetter at their scam.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[Broken Glass Can]

Rove can't go to prison because Plame does not qualify as a person who you can not reveal her identity. She doesn't fit in the law about undercover agents who are protected.

[ptmusic]

He may not go to prison, but Broken Glass - don't you agree that Rove is an opportunistic jackass who should be fired?

Just kidding; I know your response.

-ptmusic

[Broken Glass Can]

Do you know how many leakers there are in both parties?

Has any leak ever been so overblown in US history? Heck, he didn't even mention her name.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how many leakers there are in both parties?

Has any leak ever been so overblown in US history? Heck, he didn't even mention her name.

[/ QUOTE ]

No/who cares, Yes/Deep Throat comes to mind, and BS/saying "Plame's wife" is unmistakeable.

-ptmusic

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Heck, he didn't even mention her name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok this isn't a very good arguement now is it? If I say your wife is a slut, I can't very well say you shouldn't get upset because I didn't use her actual name. Now can I?

[Exsubmariner]

But But..... /images/graemlins/confused.gif....This is the politics forum. I can use any line of reasoning I want and you have to respect it in the interests of fairness, equal protection, and diversity, right?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If I say your wife is a slut, I can't very well say you shouldn't get upset because I didn't use her actual name.

[/ QUOTE ]If you say his wife is a slut, the worst thing that can happen to her is that she'll be getting a lot of giggles behind her back from her female acquaintances and a lot of admiring stares from the male ones. But for calling her a slut, you could go to prison or pay a heavy fine!

If you say his wife works for the CIA, the worst thing that could happen to her would be to get assassinated. But you would not get even prosecuted for this, the way things are.

[renodoc]

If he is indicted he will be pardoned in Jan '09

tit for tat, or is it tat for tit?

[Malachii]

There's a difference between leaking something that could embarass a political rival and leaking something that ends someone's career and could potentially result in their death.

[BCPVP]

I vote for option C, which is that Rove doesn't go to jail because he didn't break the law. If you need further explanation, check out the other Rove thread.

[whiskeytown]

I am astonished at how the cries of "fire the guy who caused the leaks" has become "it's not that big a deal" -

Once the golden boy is caught with the hand in the cookie jar, the will to punish goes way down - funny how hypocrites work that out sometimes -

RB

[slamdunkpro]

A couple of facts being glossed over (or outright omitted) by the press.

Aldrich Ames admitted revealing Plame to the Russians in 93. She was recalled at that time for her safety. At this point her covert career was all but over.

She was working in an overt job at the CIA for the last 9 years . She was most recently posted in a management position (overt) at CIA headquarters.

Therefor – Rove revealed nothing classified or did nothing to expose a “covert agent”.

Still if the President is true to his word Rove should go.

[Broken Glass Can]

Senator Leahy leaked classified information in the past. Have you called for his resignation?

A lot more Democrats have leaked to the press (because they see each other as brothers in arms after all). When they resign or are fired for leaking, then I will take politically motivated calls for Rove's resignation more seriously.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Senator Leahy leaked classified information in the past. Have you called for his resignation?

A lot more Democrats have leaked to the press (because they see each other as brothers in arms after all). When they resign or are fired for leaking, then I will take politically motivated calls for Rove's resignation more seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course everyone leaks info to the press on both sides. That is not the issue.

The main issue is that a boss (GWB) said he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked in this particular case. The other pertinent issue is that the White House repeatedly said that Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak.

Quit trying to skirt the issue by talking about whether it was a crime or not (which was not part of Bush's promise to fire), or by whining about what other the Dems/liberals have done (when no one promised to fire anyone).

-ptmusic

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


The main issue is that a boss (GWB) said he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked in this particular case. The other pertinent issue is that the White House repeatedly said that Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. The President is the one who determined this was a fireable offense

[BCPVP]

A question to all: If the press already knew that Plame was CIA (she wasn't covert), then is what Rove did still considered a leak? In that case, all he really did was clarify who it was that sent Wilson to Niger. Hardly worth a media witch hunt.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
A question to all: If the press already knew that Plame was CIA (she wasn't covert), then is what Rove did still considered a leak? In that case, all he really did was clarify who it was that sent Wilson to Niger. Hardly worth a media witch hunt.

[/ QUOTE ]

You MAY have a point there. If the investigation turns out that not only did Rove not commit a crime, but he ALSO did not even leak ANYTHING at all, then I'm okay with Bush not firing him. But I really don't think that's how it is, considering that the Time Magazine reporter just told the grand jury that Rove was the leak.

I think what you are suggesting is the result of the spin machine already in high gear. If the White House continues to spin it that way, but Rove was in fact the leak, then Bush is going to lose a whole lot more credibility, even from some of his supporters. Rove isn't worth it.

Buh bye, architect.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But I really don't think that's how it is, considering that the Time Magazine reporter just told the grand jury that Rove was the leak.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cooper's email said that Rove said she was the one who recommended that Wilson go. If Plame's working for the CIA was common knowledge (and I've seen it mentioned that it was among media types, fwiw), then what's the "leak".

Look at it another way. How is the administration supposed to answer the question of why was Wilson chosen for this assignment? Especially when you have Wilson claiming Tenet and even Cheney asked him to go, which both deny. What then? Would this stonewalling not induce further media scrutiny, which if Plame's identity was common knowledge, would have been discovered eventually? That this is being billed as some sort of "payback" for critizing the administration seems silly to me because the payback doesn't do anything. It's mildly embarrassing for Wilson, having claimed that his wife didn't recommend him, but it's also true.

Anyway, I think the WH is handling this interestingly. They're not going to throw Rove to the wolves because libs want them to. They'll make the decision on their own terms, which means after all the evidence is in.

I also think this whole mess has really just been revealing for libs. If Rove did "leak" something, it was the truth; that Wilson was recommended for the job by his wife, and not out of the blue, and certainly not handpicked by Tenet or Cheney. Since when did liberals get all up in arms about the truth being leaked? I think it has more to do with libs/dems wanting to see Rove go down, no matter how, than it does with what actually happened.

[MtSmalls]

Well, I see that BCPVP got Mehlman's talking points memo.

Valerie Plame WAS a CIA agent, and this fact was NOT public knowledge. Her 'cover' employement was with Boston based, CIA front company, something that also became public knowledge after the Novak column was published.

If this wasn't a reprehensible, and illegal, act, why is Scotty boy doing the "i can't talk it about" dance in front of the media all day? Why did Rove, McClellan et, al lie about Rove's involvement in it 2 years ago? Why is the rest of the ReThuglican guard running away from this as fast as they can?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Valerie Plame WAS a CIA agent, and this fact was NOT public knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]
She was NOT a COVERT agent, which is what is required for a crime to have been committed.

[ QUOTE ]
If this wasn't a reprehensible, and illegal, act, why is Scotty boy doing the "i can't talk it about" dance in front of the media all day?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. I can only speculate. Perhaps the WH doesn't want to taint an ongoing investigation? Who knows.

Let me turn this around. If what Rove did was illegal, why did he release Cooper's confidentiality? Why incriminate himself? I would hazard a guess that he didn't do anything wrong and is cooperating because he has nothing to worry about.

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the rest of the ReThuglican guard running away from this as fast as they can?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't aware of this. I have, however, seen numerous debunkings of Joe Wilson and this entire "scandal" as nothing more than a Democrat witch hunt. You guys don't give a flying [censored] about whether Rove broke the law, and you know it. You just want him to go down and you'll stop at nothing do so.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
If what Rove did was illegal, why did he release Cooper's confidentiality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Asked and answered in this forum already. One possibility is what you speculate. Another is that it was clear that Rove was going to named, so he decided to avoid a further cover-up and to try to give the appearance of not hiding anything.

Why didn't he (and the White House) release Cooper's confidentiality a long time ago? One possible reason: because he thought he could get away with it.

When you go running to your mommy to tell her you spilled the milk, it's probably because you don't want to get into even more trouble by hiding the fact that you did it. Especially when it's obvious mommy is going to find out very soon anyway.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

WaPo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071301989.html)
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050714/a_rove14.art.htm)

The MSM is, albeit as slowly as possible, starting to get it that Rove did not break the law. This article just reiterates what I've already mentioned for a while now; that if Plame was not stationed outside the U.S. within the last 5 years prior to the "outing", then she does not have covert status and therefore does not fall under the protection of the intel identities law.

Doesn't this seem like a fairly relevant detail to this whole story? Why has it taken the MSM this long to figure out that this "outing" was not an outing at all? It couldn't be because 1) they wanted to exaggerate and milk this story and 2) they hate Rove, could it?

The reason I think some in the press and dem leaders are up in arms is because they think the might be able to bring Rove down, something they couldn't do at the ballot box, twice. The context of this "leak" is especially revealing. People have asked the obvious question of why Wilson was sent to Niger, and the only way to honestly answer that is that he was recommended by his wife, and not hand-selected by Tenet/Cheney as Wilson more or less claimed. This is far from the portrayals of some in the media of Rove sinisterly planning to have Valerie Plame executed by foreign spies, or whatever. He was simply explaining the answer to the question of "why Wilson?". And because he answered this question, honestly nonetheless, the Dems want him to burn. So much for the "public's right to know"...

[bobman0330]

I'm surprised you could even consider that the media would try to blow a story out of proportion to hurt a republican administration. The very suggestion is shocking.

Karl Rove works for al-Qaeda (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/treasongateitsnotjustkarlrove;_ylt=Alf62MvPUvrH.Wj rrZ6t9Cb9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCU l)

[BCPVP]

The more I read about this Plame thing, the more typical Dems responses become. You've got people like Alan Colmes who thinks Wilson is a saint. People like this won't be convinced of anything. Then you have people who, without adequate information, label Plame a covert agent and jump to the conclusion that this "leak" was intended as reprisal for critizing the admin. Then you have people who just want Rove fired and don't particularly care if the facts of the matter fit their interpretation. Notice how this thing started as a "Rove committed treason" to "well...Bush said he'd fire the leaker, so he has to fire Rove". The more info that comes out, the more idiotic the Rove-haters look.

[ptmusic]

That's a pretty funny/insane article. I couldn't figure out who the author works for?

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

Few people on this forum and in the so-called "mainstream media" have said that Rove committed the specific treasonous crime. Point them out, and I'll lower them in my credibility list. But even in the USA Today article you linked, there is talk of other possible crimes.

But I'm not concerned with the crime at this point; hopefully the investigation will get out the truth. I am concerned that our President claimed
1. that Karl Rove had nothing to do with all of this, and

2. that anyone in the administration involved in this would be fired (committing a crime was not a requirement).

So if Rove was involved, even if he did not commit a crime, then the President needs to admit he was wrong about Rove's involvement and fire him.

You are probably correct about many people salivating over Rove's potential demise. But I don't care what the liberal or conservative media has to say about the matter; I care what the President has to say about it.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Few people on this forum and in the so-called "mainstream media" have said that Rove committed the specific treasonous crime.

[/ QUOTE ]
Some here have claimed this. Usually they make the jump that Rove committed a crime and that this crime constitutes treason. Look no further than this thread title. Ask people like AC Player and Mt. Smalls. David Corn and Bill Press are other examples of media types saying Rove's committed a crime. It's out there. You just have to open your eyes and ears.

And it seems to me that the only people Bush needs to try and convince are moderates and Republicans. Lefties will not like Bush one iota more if he gets rid of Rove. They'll just celebrate and continue trying to pick at Bush. I think that the context of this "leak" needs to be considered before the Prez fires Rove. Somehow I don't think that Bush meant that anyone who was trying to clear up the matter of why Joe Wilson was sent to Niger (and was honest about it) should be fired for it. I think the context was that someone who committed a crime by leaking a covert agent (which at the time, people may have thought Plame was) identity. But Rove didn't break the law and, moreover, was right in what he did; which was expose a case of nepotism at the CIA. He should be commended, not fired.

[ptmusic]

I agree that, politically speaking, Bush shouldn't worry about those that don't like him.

But I don't agree with the context you are suggesting. Perhaps Rove simply made a mistake, but it is a big one, and he should be fired for that even if Bush didn't promise a firing. Since Bush did make a promise, he should keep it, regardless of politics. But losing moderates and republicans isn't going to help his politics either.

On top of that, it is debatable as to Rove's true intentions. Even if you assume that he simply made a mistake about revealing the CIA agent (and I'm inclined to believe it was a mistake), the whole point of the email was political opportunism. That is Rove's job. You call it blowing the whistle on nepotism, I call it discrediting an opponent. In either case, it was not some grand and noble mission he was on.

Whether it was a mistake or a crime that was made, it was made during the process of a political maneuver, so I have no sympathy for Rove.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But I don't agree with the context you are suggesting. Perhaps Rove simply made a mistake

[/ QUOTE ]
Hold up. You don't agree with the context I suggest and counter by saying "maybe Rove made a mistake"? Is that all you've got?

What was this "mistake", btw? The question asked was why was Wilson sent to Niger and the answer is that his wife at Langley recommended him. The intention, imo, was to show that Wilson was not, as he claimed, selected by Tenet or Cheney, but in fact offered up by his wife. What if Cooper didn't find out that fact and instead let his employer embarrass itself by printing something that wasn't true?

I'm still not sure why you continue to call Plame an agent. She certainly doesn't fit the bill of a covert agent, which is the type of agent covered under the law in question. So naming her as the one who recommended Wilson for the job is not illegal, or even wrong. It was the right thing to do. The only other option would be to lie.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I don't agree with the context you are suggesting. Perhaps Rove simply made a mistake

[/ QUOTE ]
Hold up. You don't agree with the context I suggest and counter by saying "maybe Rove made a mistake"? Is that all you've got?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's your "context": "Somehow I don't think that Bush meant that anyone who was trying to clear up the matter of why Joe Wilson was sent to Niger (and was honest about it) should be fired for it."

Here's another context: Rove/Bush/etc. didn't like what Wilson was saying about Iraq, so they did their best to discredit him. They would not have cared about the nepotism at all if Wilson was making favorable statements. Nepotism is everywhere in the Bush administration, as I'm sure you know.

Is nepotism all YOU'VE got?

[ QUOTE ]


What was this "mistake", btw?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mentioning Plame's wife. At the very least it was a mistake - look at all the bad publicity Rove and Bush are getting because of this!! If it wasn't a mistake, then it was something far more sinister. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was just a mistake. I may be proven wrong by the investigation, however.

[ QUOTE ]



The question asked was why was Wilson sent to Niger and the answer is that his wife at Langley recommended him. The intention, imo, was to show that Wilson was not, as he claimed, selected by Tenet or Cheney, but in fact offered up by his wife. What if Cooper didn't find out that fact and instead let his employer embarrass itself by printing something that wasn't true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something is true doesn't mean you are obliged to tell it to a reporter. Rove had an agenda. He could and should have kept his mouth shut.

[ QUOTE ]


I'm still not sure why you continue to call Plame an agent. She certainly doesn't fit the bill of a covert agent, which is the type of agent covered under the law in question. So naming her as the one who recommended Wilson for the job is not illegal, or even wrong. It was the right thing to do. The only other option would be to lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there was another option: he could have chosen not to talk/leak to any reporters about the subject. And he could have chosen to not mention any CIA agents. And I don't know why you keep insisting she was not an agent - she may not fit the criteria for the crime, but she was an agent working for the CIA, period.

Why do you think Bush was so angry when he heard about the leak and promised to fire anyone in his administration involved? We're not talking about your summer job here; we're talking about a CIA agent.

-ptmusic

[[censored]]

IMO. Rove wasn't the one who made the mistake but rather it was The President for the "should be fired" statement and The White House for not figuring out a year ago that she was not a covert agent and therefore no laws were broken, how they could have be so incredibly stupid is beyond me.

[ptmusic]

Alright, that's fair to say the Pres made a mistake (maybe even the bigger mistake). But I also think Rove made a mistake; like a good MTT player, he should have waited for a better spot for his political maneuvering. And we all know he is VERY good at that.

I'm sure he leaks stuff all the time, just like everyone else, and I'm sure he didn't think this would be a big deal. Hence, it was a mistake in judgement on his part - and them's the breaks.

And dare I suggest that Rove also made a mistake by not telling Bush (and everyone else) what he did right off the bat? Bush is probably steaming at Rove as we speak.

-ptmusic

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, that's fair to say the Pres made a mistake (maybe even the bigger mistake). But I also think Rove made a mistake; like a good MTT player, he should have waited for a better spot for his political maneuvering. And we all know he is VERY good at that.

I'm sure he leaks stuff all the time, just like everyone else, and I'm sure he didn't think this would be a big deal. Hence, it was a mistake in judgement on his part - and them's the breaks.

And dare I suggest that Rove also made a mistake by not telling Bush (and everyone else) what he did right off the bat? Bush is probably steaming at Rove as we speak.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it was a mistake to give that insignificant worm Joe Wilson any attention at all. Nobody but those who follow politics for sport was paying attention to anything he was saying and he was basically a nobody until this "leak" story happened.

If The White House was going to comment on Wilson they should have done so through an official and on the record statement pointing the many basically lies Wilson was claiming. At the point it is game, set, match,

The whole thing has been and continues to be botched.

[JimBob2232]

First of all, Rove will never go to prision. Even if everything alleged is true, he has commited no punishible crime. (Now if lying under oath or something comes out of it, thats a different story).

Secondly, Even if he is convicted of some crime, the president will pardon him before he leaves office.

Third, connect the dots.
-Judith Miller of the NY Times is in Jail for not revealing her source.
-Matt Cooper refused to reveal his source, until he was facing prison time.
-Both Cooper and Miller have the same source
-Cooper got a release of confidentiality from his source and he went public saying it was rove.
-Miller still claims she cannot release her source.

Now, why, if rove granted a release of confidentiality to one jornalist, woulndt he do it to both?

I think there is more here than meets the eye. Something is fishy. I think bush is doing the right thing right now. He is taking a step back, not publically supporting Rove, but at the same time not saying anything to the contrary. He wants to know what happened (as we all do), but as I said before, he did nothing illegal, but legal does not mean right. Its time for everyone to take a deep breath. If in fact he did what is alleged he should be fired, and I think bush will do so. But its too early to know right now. Democrats once again have jumped the gun when they thought they had a chance to bury a republican.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't know why you keep insisting she was not an agent - she may not fit the criteria for the crime, but she was an agent working for the CIA, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contrary to the popular image, not everyone who works at the CIA is an "Agent" Valerie Plame is a manager who does not handle field personnel. She handles overt analysts. There is a difference

As I said in a previous post – Aldrich Ames admitted exposing Plame to the Russians after his arrest in 93. At that point she was “outed” and no longer able to be in a covert position. In fact she’s one of the lucky ones – a lot of people Ames exposed in the 80’s “disappeared”.

One possible scenario is this: Wilson is lying his ass off to the press (more or less proven). Someone gets ahold of this in the White House and tells Rove. In a conversation with Cooper, Rove tries to warn him off of Wilson as a crackpot source. When Cooper asks Rove if the Vice President sent Wilson to Niger, he answers, “no, his wife did”. Cooper goes back to Wilson who, to avoid admitting he’s a liar goes “Oh my God, my wife is a CIA agent and the White House just blew her cover!!!!” The press then blows this up to “White House source exposes CIA agent.” Someone at the White House reads this in the Post and tells the President who, in a fit of angers says, “Whoever leaked this information that exposed a covert agent will be fired. Later The President is informed that there was no exposure – she is and was an overt employee.

Rose-colored glasses? – Possibly. More like a Marx Brothers movie with the press running around trying to stick it to the White House.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another context: Rove/Bush/etc. didn't like what Wilson was saying about Iraq, so they did their best to discredit him. They would not have cared about the nepotism at all if Wilson was making favorable statements.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's what's wrong with your theory. If Bush wanted Rove to leak this in order to discredit Wilson, why would Bush issue this threat to fire the leaker? He would be forcing himself to either fire Rove or lose a lot of face by not keeping his word. That doesn't make any sense. My theory, however makes much more sense. Obviously Rove said what he said in order to combat the lies that Wilson was telling (that Cheney/Tenet sent Wilson to Niger). But this was the right thing to do. Combat lies with the truth. What you're asking Rove to do is combat lies with more lies. And the truth has been blown way out of proportion by the liberals in the media and Democratic leadership. j

[ QUOTE ]
Mentioning Plame's wife. At the very least it was a mistake - look at all the bad publicity Rove and Bush are getting because of this!!

[/ QUOTE ]
The mistake then is underestimating the power of the dems and some in the media to twist this into a "scandal". Mentioning who sent Wilson to Niger was intentional, and it was intended to discredit Wilson. And it was also not only legal but the right thing to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because something is true doesn't mean you are obliged to tell it to a reporter. Rove had an agenda.

[/ QUOTE ]
He should tell a reporter if a bush critic is also a habitual liar. Especially if that reporter would otherwise print a false picture of the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
He could and should have kept his mouth shut.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, he shouldn't have. WE have a right to know if someone who is critizing the WH is lying through their teeth. Plame is not in any more danger because of Rove and the democrat hack, Wilson, is exposed for what he is; a liar.

[ QUOTE ]
No, there was another option: he could have chosen not to talk/leak to any reporters about the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
This would be almost as bad as lying because the media would have the wrong idea of how Wilson was chosen for this trip.

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't know why you keep insisting she was not an agent - she may not fit the criteria for the crime, but she was an agent working for the CIA, period.

[/ QUOTE ]
Janitors at Langley are not considered "agents" simply because they work at the CIA. They're janitors. Plame was an analyst. She was not a covert agent at the time and had not been for some time. Therefore, leaking that it was Plame who sent Wilson, and not Cheney or Tenet, was completely legal and moral, period.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think Bush was so angry when he heard about the leak and promised to fire anyone in his administration involved?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because he probably heard it in such a way as to make it seem as though the leaker had done something illegal or wrong. What Rove did was not illegal, and it was not wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
We're not talking about your summer job here; we're talking about a CIA agent.

[/ QUOTE ]
No...we're talking about an analyst with no covert status. I believe Plame still works for the CIA. She's felt secure enough (even having been "outed") to have Vanity Fair do a photo shoot with her and her husband. Clearly the gov't wasn't worried about anybody knowing who she was. So what's the problem?

FWIW, here's an article from the WaPo that suggests that no one will be charged with breaking the intel identities act, but someone may be charged with perjury. Bear in mind that it's a little dated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32380-2005Apr6.html

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
One possible scenario is this: Wilson is lying his ass off to the press (more or less proven). Someone gets ahold of this in the White House and tells Rove. In a conversation with Cooper, Rove tries to warn him off of Wilson as a crackpot source. When Cooper asks Rove if the Vice President sent Wilson to Niger, he answers, “no, his wife did”. Cooper goes back to Wilson who, to avoid admitting he’s a liar goes “Oh my God, my wife is a CIA agent and the White House just blew her cover!!!!”

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the info we have now (including cooper's notes), this seems likely to be pretty close to the truth. Yawn.

[ptmusic]

If your scenario were true, and this is all really a non-story, then why didn't Rove and the White House nip this in the bud when the story first broke nearly two years ago?

-ptmusic

[ptmusic]

You're right in that I should have said that Rove/Bush/etc. didn't like what Wilson was saying about Iraq, so Rove did his best to discredit Wilson. Then Bush heard about this and promised a firing.

"Because he probably heard it in such a way as to make it seem as though the leaker had done something illegal or wrong."

Boy, you sure make the West Wing sound like a house full of confusion. Why didn't Bush get good information on the subject? Especially since one of his TOP aides was a central figure!!!

And again, if this is such a non-story, why didn't it go away nearly two years ago, AND why is there a special prosecution at all? And why is someone in jail over this right now? And why won't the White House and/or Rove speak out about any of this?

Clearly, there is danger lurking for at least Rove. He probably won't go to jail or even get fired, but that's not because he did such a good thing, as you say. You are talking like he should be praised for his patriotism during all this. He's a politician, not a patriot (in this case), who made a mistake.

What if it turns out that he obstructed justice, or lied to the President? Will you still defend him then?

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right in that I should have said that Rove/Bush/etc. didn't like what Wilson was saying about Iraq, so Rove did his best to discredit Wilson. Then Bush heard about this and promised a firing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two points:
1) You think this is the "best" Rove could do to discredit Wilson? Cooper called Rove and Cooper changed the subject to Wilson. Rove's answer was very short. This hardly proves that Rove was actively trying to discredit Wilson. All we know is that Rove gave a truthful answer that happened to show that Wilson was a liar.
2) This theory still doesn't make since. If Bush knew/wanted Karl Rove to leak this, why would he "promise a firing"? He would essentially be firing Karl Rove or losing face for not doing so.

[ QUOTE ]
Boy, you sure make the West Wing sound like a house full of confusion. Why didn't Bush get good information on the subject? Especially since one of his TOP aides was a central figure!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Bear in mind that we're all speculating here. But why do you believe that the President knows all the facts at all times? Is it possible that Bush didn't know all the facts of this, so when it's suggested to him that a senior admin official "leaked the identity of a CIA agent", he might be understandbly P.O.'d, but now that we know more about what happened, it's clear Rove didn't do anything wrong, and shouldn't be fired for doing the right thing.

[ QUOTE ]
And again, if this is such a non-story, why didn't it go away nearly two years ago, AND why is there a special prosecution at all?

[/ QUOTE ]
1) Liberals have been fuming over the Bush election and re-election and see this as a chance for retribution. So they'll stop at nothing to take him down, piece by piece.
2) If you'd read the WaPo story I posted, you'd see that the special prosecution is probably not going to indict anyone for breaking the covert agent identity law, but may be trying to find evidence of perjury.

[ QUOTE ]
And why is someone in jail over this right now?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question. Especially since Rove has released all reporters from confidentiality.

[ QUOTE ]
And why won't the White House and/or Rove speak out about any of this?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe Fitzgerald, special prosecutor, asked the WH not to.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly, there is danger lurking for at least Rove.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems that the only danger Rove is in now is of having perjured himself. In won't defend Rove in committing perjury.

[ QUOTE ]
You are talking like he should be praised for his patriotism during all this. He's a politician, not a patriot (in this case), who made a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]
He should be praised for clarifying who it was that sent Wilson to Niger and refuting the fantasies of Joe Wilson. Again, I fail to see this mistake, unless it was of underestimating the lengths to which some will go in order to see him fall.

[ QUOTE ]
What if it turns out that he obstructed justice, or lied to the President? Will you still defend him then?

[/ QUOTE ]
Then he should be fired. I have no particular attachment to Rove. I, unlike many democrats in the previous decade, will not try to circle the wagons around someone who is guilty of a crime (like perjury /images/graemlins/smirk.gif).

[EricOF]

Said Wilson with Wolf Blitzer:

"WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

If true, that pretty much ends that.

[EricOF]

[ QUOTE ]
Look at it another way. How is the administration supposed to answer the question of why was Wilson chosen for this assignment? Especially when you have Wilson claiming Tenet and even Cheney asked him to go, which both deny. What then? Would this stonewalling not induce further media scrutiny, which if Plame's identity was common knowledge, would have been discovered eventually? That this is being billed as some sort of "payback" for critizing the administration seems silly to me because the payback doesn't do anything. It's mildly embarrassing for Wilson, having claimed that his wife didn't recommend him, but it's also true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be what the Wilsons were hoping for. Use her position at the CIA as a shield to make false statements about the genesis of his trip to Niger. Wilson piles up the lies and when the WH dares to set the record straight, accuse them of revealing too much information about Plame. We really don't need CIA employees using their jobs to launch political broadsides.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at it another way. How is the administration supposed to answer the question of why was Wilson chosen for this assignment? Especially when you have Wilson claiming Tenet and even Cheney asked him to go, which both deny. What then? Would this stonewalling not induce further media scrutiny, which if Plame's identity was common knowledge, would have been discovered eventually? That this is being billed as some sort of "payback" for critizing the administration seems silly to me because the payback doesn't do anything. It's mildly embarrassing for Wilson, having claimed that his wife didn't recommend him, but it's also true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be what the Wilsons were hoping for. Use her position at the CIA as a shield to make false statements about the genesis of his trip to Niger. Wilson piles up the lies and when the WH dares to set the record straight, accuse them of revealing too much information about Plame. We really don't need CIA employees using their jobs to launch political broadsides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clealry Joe Wilson is not the good guy here. I would hope nobody is argueing as much.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
We really don't need CIA employees using their jobs to launch political broadsides.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also think we really don't need to be trying to punish officials who expose these people who misuse their positions.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
According to Luskin, Rove is in no danger of criminal charges, reports Roberts. Luskin told Roberts that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald assured Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Whether the disclosure of the e-mail exchange with Cooper changes this remains to be seen, but Luskin insists that there is nothing in the e-mail that Rove has not already discussed with prosecutors and the grand jury.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/12/politics/main708293.shtml

So it seems the only question left is whether Bush will/should fire Rove for his involvement in this case. I think he won't and shouldn't because the context regarding the leak was an honest and legal one. Had Rove disclosed the identity of an actively covert agent in order to discredit a critic, I'd ask for Rove's head too. But clearly that's not the case and all the dems have left is to try and play the hypocrit card. But Rove shouldn't be fired over semantics. If he has to be fired, it should be because he did something wrong.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
If your scenario were true, and this is all really a non-story, then why didn't Rove and the White House nip this in the bud when the story first broke nearly two years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the big problems with government, especially in the White House arena is that there are A: too many people in the communication chain and B: Very large egos.

It reminds me of the prison grapevine scene in “Johnny Dangerously”