Bill, please come back and give us your valued opinion on this Rove crap. In the future, vacations and leaves of abscence must be approved by the management two weeks in advance.
Seriously, what's the big deal about the whole Plame affair. I remember editorials by the Post and the Times about there not being a crime committed. Now all of a sudden, I can't get away from it. Sachin
Since Archer isn't around, please allow me to write his response for him: "Sorry, guys, but I have to go with the critics on this one. Rove was guilty at the very least of extremely poor judgment. It was a vindictive and counter-productive act, and the ethical thing for him to do is to step down. We should try to be the moral leaders we claim to be. "Furthermore, the talking points and spin have to stop. Face it--Wilson did not claim that Cheney sent him to Africa, as is perfectly clear in the original editorial. Nor did his wife send him. How could she? It's not like she has the authority. Best just to bite the bullet on this one, convince Rove to step down, and turn the focus back onto the real issues at hand. "Oh, and the reason I've been away has nothing to do with the Andrulis firing. The family and I have been preparing a lovely vegetarian cookout. You all should stop by. I made some delicious marinaded tofu cutlets." I'm pretty sure this is Archer's position on the matter.
Wrong...let's wait for Bill to set the record straight! I'm betting the Architect smiles with glee when all the dust settles! Besides while all the ignorant Dems focus on this story, Bush and Co. can focus on what really matters: A New Supreme Court Justice... It wouldn't surprise me greatly that Rove planned all this...
I don't understand the Karl Rove fetish the Dems have. He is a political officer in a political position. He tries to make the president look good. The Dems reaction to him is like anti-oil protestors trying to get the CFO of Texaco fired because he doesn't wash his hands after going to pee.
I had a thought. One reporter is in jail beacuse she won't reveal her source. One reporter was testifying to a grand jury because his source (Karl Rove) signed a waiver to let him talk. That means: 1) Karl Rove is not the second source, or 2) Karl Rove doesn't like that reporter and is capriciously letting her dangle in the wind and rot in jail for him.
Miller says that she received a waiver from a source to allow her to testify, but refused to accept the validity of a waiver, which she felt had been signed with the person's employer looking over his/her shoulder. There's no doubt at all that Rove was one of the sources, which is why the GOP talking points are trying to discredit Wilson and are making all sort of ridiculous noise about how Rove didn't actually use Plame's name (as if it were her status as Wilson's wife that was hidden). Isn't Scooter Libby considered the prime suspect for the second source? Regardless of whether Rove actually broke the law (it seems pretty clear to me that he did), he's pretty screwed, because he's kept his role in the matter a secret for years, suggesting to the public that he knew what he did was wrong and possibly/probably illegal.
Let's just say he broke the law for now (whatever law that may be). What do you want to do? Have him removed? Then why did you not want your idol Clinton removed from office when he broke the law?
First, Rove didn't break the law. The law requires intent to reveal a covert agent and the agent has to in fact have been covert. Rove wasn't revealing her covertness, didn't know if she was covert, and in fact, she may not HAVE been covert...seeing as how she had a desk job at Langley, common knowledge apparently. Second, Rove didn't "out" Plame. He was telling Cooper, and presumably other sources, that Wilson's assertion that his trip was authorized by Cheyney was a lie...that in fact, it was authorized by the CIA on the recommendation of his wife. Third, Rove didn't "leak" Plame's name. You only leak when you are actively trying to get somebody to publish something (presumably classified and something you KNOW is classified but want it out probably BECAUSE it is classified) and you, as the source, want to remain anonymous. Rove was simply warning Cooper (and other reporters) to be careful about putting any credence in what Joseph Wilson said. He was not trying to get them to reveal ANY information publicly. To me, conceptually, this is all very very simple. But the lefty moonbat chorus are just so riven with vitriol and rage (largely based, I believe, on the fact that Rove's campaign and political strategies have consistently quashed them electorally) that they simply can't see these set of very simple, very straightforward ideas. Then again, insight has never been their strong suit.
Karl, I respect your views and the fact that we can disagree about whether Rove intentionally leaked anything, but the above is quite simply not true. If you can find evidence that Wilson ever claimed to have been sent by Cheney, on the airwaves or otherwise, please find it. The Times piece makes it clear that the agency sent him (which the AGENCY did in response to concerns of Cheney's), and Wilson says this in the famous CNN interview as well. Wilson may have, on one or two casual occasions, used some kind of shorthand to describe the trip, but it's clear that he has otherwise emphasized that he was NOT specifically sent by Cheney. The WSJ is flat-out wrong about this. I don't want to get into discussions about whether Plame was doing undercover work or not, because frankly, there is no way that anyone who isn't Plame or one of a few of her coworkers can know either way. That the CIA raised a stink over this case suggests that she was not just a desk jockey. Here's the analogy: we're England, Rove is Maradona. Sure, Rove is brilliant (well, he's no Maradona, but who is?), but he also doesn't play fair. Expecting us not to be gleeful about Rove getting nailed to the wall here is like expecting England not to have felt glee every time Maradona failed a drug test.
Will someone please tell me why I'm supposed to care? Especially when it seems Wilson has been lying to all and sundry about what he found there. Sachin
Granted, it's from a biased source, but here's Sid Blumenthal's reason why you should care: The entire editorial is interesting.
But the New York Times and the Washington Post have reassured us that no crime hed been committed. Could they be *gasp* wrong? Say it ain't so! Sachin
Kaus is asking if reporters leaked to Rove. I still can't care. Why Joe Wilson isn't in jail is beyond me. Sachin
Of all the attacks on Wilson's credibility--the same Joe Wilson that W's father called a "hero"--I've seen in the past several days, this is the most dunder-headed of all. It amounts to asking, "Well, if she really WAS undercover, why didn't Wilson's book say that she was?" All I need to know is this: the CIA instigated the investigation. There is no doubt whatsoever that she did undercover work. Even if she spent most of her time in Langley, she had contacts abroad and was involved in a CIA-run front company. I don't give a rat's ass about what a former supervisor (who even notes that, yes, she had done undercover work) has said about her cover. Why should we assume that he knew every one of Plame's assignments, especially when he was her supervisor only "early in her career"?
Because dubya and co. responded to a pretty low-significance critic by doing a smear on him. This is one of Bill Clinton's legacies, everyone saw how well it worked, and the GOP learned lessons during their 8 years watching him and now we have the GOP's version. It stinks, the politicization of the CIA stinks and their adventure in Iraq really stinks. Those talking points that give enough wiggle room for Rove to stay are pretty lame. They wanted to punish Wilson for being a critic of Bush's 101 reasons for invading Iraq. They got their wish, and now we're in a big mess in Iraq. Big succes story for the gang of geniuses.
What crime did he commit??? We don't know yet whether Plame fit the narrow definition written into this law. The notion that Rove is innocent because he didn't mention her name, just said "Wilson's wife" is wrong. The statute says it's a crime to identify such an agent, not name him/her. This is all for the grand jury to figure out.