I think the CIA should show they mean business, that they're not all deskbound suburban types - and arrange an "accident"
So it turns out that Newsweek has no problem publishing it? Whatever happened to 'Rove owns the media'? Well, if the investigation points to him, then he should be charged as a lawbreaker. To tell the truth, I don't know which law he broke, specifically, but I imagine it must be against some US law to give the name of a secret CIA agent to a journalist. It is just wrong.
Well, since it is shark month - when there's obviously blood in the water, just like sharks, the media cannot ignore it and go into a frenzy biting friend and foe alike. I'd wager that the overall news media is not "owned" by Rove. They know he's a smart and ruthless manipulator, who has played them for chumps before, came out opn top and made the media lose prestige. Obviously they would show caution before jumping to conclusions (CBS). But once the evidence mounts, its payback time from the media for every slight they've received. FWIW - I hope the media are damn sure and 100% positive on this one. Rove is always 2-3 steps ahead of the media, and would surely come out as the winner if he is given an inch. I wouldn't be surprised if it was not Rove, or a secret plea bargain was used, and Rove would then crow about how the accusations were never proven and therefore, false and baseless liberal lies and slander.
Did you not read my post merely 6 before yours? I listed two pertinent statutes, quoting one of them.
You have to be the most frustrating person in this forum. You're not stupid, but you sure as hell can be stubborn. If Woodward and Bernstein had behaved the way you would like journalists to behave, Watergate would've never been exposed. Kudos to Newsweek. It's about time. George H.W. Bush signed a law that protects the identity of all CIA employees, and mentioned when he signed it that breaking that law is tantamount to treason. I don't feel like doing a Google search for it right now. I'll let you do that yourself. You know, you remind me of the Chappelle's Show episode where he's a potential juror for R. Kelly's trial, where he said something to the effect that he'd believe that R. Kelly peed on an underage girl if he saw it on video tape and all his homies were there, and it was filmed by two cops, ad the victim was holding an id card showing she was underage, and R. Kelly's grandmother was there saying "yeah, that's my Robert."
You might be referring to his speech at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence in 1999, when he said:
Funny. I read this thread...the story is not even out yet and the liberals are already talking about Bush pardoning Rove. Kooks, I say! Desperation is a terrible way to live.
IF Rove actually outed the agent, he should spend some time in jail alongside Sandy (oops I aaccidentally stuff classified document concerning the worst terrorist act in US history in my pants and took them home and shredded them) Berger. But unfortunately Berger,a Clinton guy during the Bush admin, got off with a slap on the wrist. So the precedent is there for a light sentence. Also where the hell was the media during the Berger episode? That got very little attention. They did not just go to sleep for the Bush Admin, they have been in a coma for years.
I'm consistently annoyed by the apples and oranges comparisons on Bigsoccer. Whether Berger got off easy is debatable (it would help to know the full story), but I don't see how that compares with maliciously outing a CIA agent.
The Ashcroft/Gonzalez Justice Department let him off with a freaking fine. I'd have to go back and check my last post on the subject, but I seem to remember the 9/11 Commission saying something along the lines of that Berger didn't suppress anything. I'm shocked that it was Rove, although I shouldn't be. He really should have known better than to get his fingerprints on this. Although it would explain why someone high enough in the White House to have this information would be so careless as to let the information out for partisan politics. And why the White House fought so hard against investigating this. Say, what happened to Bush calling everyone to his office and demanding they answer this issue? How did that conversation go? "Karl, did you leak that information to Robert Novak?" "Yes, Mr. President. And exactly what do you think you're gonna do about it? Huh? Yeah, that's what I thought. Now have another jellybean." "It was Reagan that liked jellybeans. I like-" "I said have another jellybean, BITCH! You want to 'fall off another Segway'? You want to 'choke on another pretzel'? HUH?" "No, sir."
We are discussing possibilities...alternatives....possible solutions..... The sort of thing this administration -sadly- does not seem to have with respect to Iraq.... No wonder you don't get it either....
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201043.html
Yes. Rotten apples and rotten oranges in this case. Look guys, you can't have it both ways. If Rove is such an evil genius, he wouldn't be so stupid as to out Plame. If he was indeed the one who outed Plame, then he is not such an evil genius. Such a petty vindictive act is not the act of a genius, however evil he might be.
He's smart enough to think of it and also smart enough not to do it himself. I would be very surprised if it turns out he was the leaker. I would also be surprised if it turns out that it wasn't his idea.
Perhaps. But I think people are overreaching when they attribute everything that happens to Rove. Maybe the guy is a bit sneaky, but come on. Rather's memo...Rove's fault. Plame's outing...Rove's fault. Bush wins...Rove's fault. I think it is posible that some people need the reassuring presence of an evil genius like Rove, to reasure themselves that Bush couldn't have won fairly, that Americans couldn't have been (in their view) so stupid unless they got tricked by an evil genius. Maybe that is part of the explanation for the way the discussion developed in this thread.
Hell, I have to admit that you are right. (At least about the frustrating and stubborn part). I've been told the same by those close to me, who know me much better than you do. But in my defense, you should see my father, and my grandmother. Compared to them I think I am a much improved version. Unlike them, I do pay attention to other points of view, and I only argue when I think I'm right.
I have no idea if Rove leaked it, but geniuses (evil or otherwise) occasionally do stupid things. Actually, I think Rove is more evil than genius. Even though many politicians are dishonest and slimey, few are willing to go as far as Rove (see pedophile accusation).
Okay, if Rove is clean, can we turn the discussion to, 'what happens to the leaker'? Kooky Karl, in his usual subdued way, said the leaker won't get arrested. I still haven't understood why the leaker would not be subject to felong charges. Particularly, after the reporters were looking at real jail time. Personally, I think the leaker ought to fully subjected to felong charges - this is some pretty serious stuff.
Especially after hubris sets in. Too much success breeds carelessness. So does believing that nothing will happen to you even if you get caught. The sad thing is that even if this does get traced back to Rove, he'll skate like Brian Boitano.