[Q So I understand your reluctance to talk. Now, Mr. Rove's attorney, Mr. Luskin, spoke to reporters a few days ago. Would you be willing to allow your attorney to speak to reporters about these matters? MR. McCLELLAN: Next question. I'm not going to get into discussing the investigation at this point. Q Scott, back on -- to turn it back, the President has confidence in everyone who works for him -- MR. McCLELLAN: You're making an assumption that I wouldn't make either. So -- go ahead. Q That you have an attorney? MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.] HAHAHAHAHAHA......this stuff is classic....dude got machete'd to pieces today
Rove lied. Period. All this bickering about this and that. Rove initially said he had no part in the leak. Now we find out he did, in fact, have something to do with the leak. He will probably get off on a technicality because their needs to be proof that Rove knew Plame was undercover...this will be nearly imposible to get because everybody is in CYA mode. I'm not holding my breath that info will ever get unearthed. Rove either covered his tracks after the fact or was smart enough not to leave evidence that he "knew" she was undercover. Fact remains, Rove said publically he wasn't involved. He lied. Legally he'll probably get off but that doesn't make it right.
basso, that piece is just as credible as the speculative piece you posted, unless you are wearing GOP colored glasses that is.
She sees the world through rose-coloured glasses Painted skies and graceful romances I see a world that's tired and scared Of living on the edge too long Where does she get off telling me That love could save us all, save us all. She takes my hand and leads me to nowhere town. No matter where I stand it's always neutral ground, And in the cool of the evening blue I feel so tired and alone Where does she get off telling me That love could save us all, save us all. And it's day after day I keep hanging around can you tell me why Night after night, yeah I know I should leave But there's something in those eyes That keeps me hanging on, I'm hypnotized It breaks my heart and I don't know why Tell me why, tell me why
two things: a) being a liberal that is completely looking at this from a political viewpoint (i hate this administration and the current republican party...i have no qualms about being absolutely biased) i want this to drag on. i dont want rove to resign/be fired. i want this to be the news story for the next two weeks. to snowball and weaken this administration. i want a grand jury investigation to completely trash rove. for him to be tried. all the while the white house standing by their man (one quality which bush has thats admirable is loyalty...its not seen around the beltway often). let this drag on. i can't wait. b) i hate that damn indian reporter who always bails out scotty. my god. stop asking the same bloody question everyday. im sorry but goodness. shut up man. stop being scotty safety blanket. c) mad props to the white house press core that finally gained some balls.
My contention is that exposing an NOC CIA operative who specializes in WMD while we have troops engaged in a war that the administration believed held WMD could certainly be called intent to injure the U.S. It doesn't mean he believed he would injure the national security of the U.S. and our nation would become vulnerable to foreign take over.
A point that hasn't been made yet. Everyone I hear from today says that the White House is going after Joe Wilson hard in their background conversations with reporters. Apparently Karl Rove himself. Their main hit apparently is that it was Valerie Plame who authorized Wilson's trip to Niger or was the one who sent him -- which is as false today as it was two years ago. Now, that's as much an attack on Plame as it is on Wilson. Actually, even more of one on her since the subtext is that she was either engaging in nepotism or advancing some private political agenda. So now we know that Karl Rove started attacking Valerie Plame to get his boss out of the soup. And now two years later he continues to attack her. True to form to the last. And every reporter in town knows it. -- Josh Marshall http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
actually mc josh, it's not false. tenet has said he didn't authorize it, and it didn't come from the WH. the trip was planned by personnel in plame's dept. plame's husband went. it seems reasonable to assume plame elle mem had a hand in it.
so which is it? was there an intent to injure the US or not? if there was, how is that inconsistent w/ national security? if there wasn't, how does the statute apply? you can try and go all clintonian on my ass, but ultimately you can't have it both ways. either i'm right, and the statute does have a national security angle, or i'm wrong and there is no crime. which is it?
I don't think there is any doubt that she mentioned her husband was qualified. That is significantly different than saying she authorized it. There are CIA sources on record, and I've posted it before that say it was not Plame's decision, and she isn't the one that made the decision. It is also logical that since plame's specialty is WMD, and it was a matter of WMD's that the department who Plame also happened to be a part of would be part of the equation.
I explained how there was a difference. Someone can hurt the U.S. by exposing an NOC operative involved with WMD's while we are fighting a war abroad involving WMD's. However our national security was never an issue in that war.
Ok, forget for a moment the particulars re: mens and actus rea, and let;s talk in the absolute moral terms that hard line Repubs prefer. Simply put: was the divulging of a national secret (however minor) anrd the potential danger that might put people in, directly or indirectly, and/or compromise the gathering of information at a time of war for the sake of political gain a morally good or morally bad act?
An interesting and unbiased look at the Rove scandal... _____ In CIA leak case, eyes on Rove csmonitor.com "This excites the Washington community, because Rove is the political nerve center not only of this administration but also the Republican Party," says Marshall Wittmann, a former Republican activist and now a senior fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council. "At this point it's a disturbing distraction, for the administration, for the president. However, if Rove was actually indicted, it would become a calamitous disaster." Working in the administration's favor is that most Americans have never heard of Karl Rove. At this highly partisan time, much of the public will likely glaze over at the appearance of yet another bout of wrangling in Washington on an issue that does not directly affect them. "If anything, the attacks by Democrats could enhance [Rove's] stature with the people he deals with," says Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont-McKenna College in Claremont, Calif. full article
i was going to suggest that no one could be that obtuse, but then macbeth reappeared today, so anything's possible.
