Newsweek: Rove was the leaker

[MoreWineII]

Of course he'll be cleared. He's still a piece of [censored] though.

[[censored]]

interesting post.

a note -- my belief that Rove should resign as nothing to do with anything liberals or democrates are saying. I could care less. I only feel this way based on my own judgement. I hate that democrates are going to derive pleasure from it.

[[censored]]

Yes.

Does it matter?

Not really.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is true, then Rove did not break the law. Plame would have had to have served outside the U.S. within the last 5 years to qualify as a covert agent.

Whether Rove should be fired, I don't know. It's not like he still couldn't give Bush advice on political stuff if fired even if he didn't have the official title.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


Whether Rove should be fired, I don't know. It's not like he still couldn't give Bush advice on political stuff if fired even if he didn't have the official title.

[/ QUOTE ]

precisely.

[Malachii]

If the positions were reversed, the Republicans would be pressing their advantage equally hard. Actually, they would probably be pressing harder, since they seem to have a much more organized and well funded political flak machine.

[Mike Gallo]

If they ever find out who leaked the story, will that individual(s) face criminal charges?

The individual would face the same fate as American pop idol Michael Jackson.

[Mike Gallo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If true, Rove has to go to prison.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

People said the same thing about Michael Jackson.

[US Conservative]

nm

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
First, all Presidents are against leaking and will come out strongly against it in an attempt to reduce them.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'd have to know absolutely nothing about politics to believe this. All Presidents encourage, condone and participate in leaking information. You think that Bush gets upset every time he reads (or has read to him) any of the daily stories that quote "White House officials" describing the progress of the war and other information based on classified reports?

[ QUOTE ]
[The White House Press Office] are there to share what the President wants to say. If the President wants to remain quiet, that is his right. The press can ask all the questions they want, but there is no obligation that these questions be answered.

[/ QUOTE ]
A public servant should be free to refuse meaningful communication with those for whom he is supposed to work? This is valid only in despotic governments, and indeed only to those who sympathize with such systems. Your candor is a good example of how Republicans are increasingly uncloseting their latent fascism.

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, a truly neutral press would look at the law and not be in attack mode. They would just ask "Do these leaks concern you?" and that would be all.

[/ QUOTE ]
The notion of the press in an "attack mode" is of course delusional. The interesting point you make is that the press should condone apparent law breaking involving national security -- as defined by those who invoke it most often -- unless it palpably "concerns" the rest of us. As shown by the U.S.'s subversion of the UN Charter, torture proscriptions and other legislation, "rule of law" by the Republicons is just another slogan they use to screw people.