Direct from Boortz:
"So ... for those of you who are so elated over the possibility of finally nailing the hated Karl Rove ... make your case. Show me:
1. That Rove specifically named Valerie Plame.
2. That Valerie Plame was, in fact, working undercover for the CIA. (Looks like a desk job to me.)
3. That Rove knew Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA.
4. That the CIA was actively trying, and that Karl Rove knew that the CIA was actively trying to protect the identity of Valerie Plame at the time Rove made his statement to the reporter.
When establish those facts, I'll have further comment. Pesky things, facts."
He puts it well. Without those four things, there is no broken law. If you can prove those things are true, I'll be ready to throw Rove (and McClellan) to the wolves. Since none of those things are provable (because they aren't true), stop whining about it.
Just to add a little more information to the mix, the context of the conversation that Rove had with Cooper is important. People are trying to paint it as Rove casting doubt on the validity of Wilson's mission by mentioning that his wife got him involved. When put in to proper context, however, you see that Rove was merely trying to point out that the mission was not authorized/organized by Colin Powell, and that's the only reason Wilson's wife was mentioned at all. And more speculation... If all Rove did was say that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and it was obviously easy to figure out her name from that, then either she wasn't covert, or the CIA needs to do some serious work on keeping covert agents hidden.
There was no law broken here, no matter how much you stretch the truth. On the other hand, Rove probably should have told Bush about this conversation or memo or whatever it was back when the firestorm first broke. A firing offense? Not to me, but the left will demand his head. Personally I find this to be a bit ridiculous. WHat Sandy Berger did, stealing classified documents from the National Archives, and then lying about it, and then mysteriously burning some of the documents before they could be returned, is FAR worse a violation of security, especially as these documents related to the 9/11 investigation, yet Berger, a Democrat toady, got a slap on the wrist. This shows that the Dems care little about following rules and procedures and are going after Rove not because he did anything that they think is really bad, but because he keeps beating them in elections and they want to punish him. This is partisan politics, pure and simple.
And for goodness sake! The woman then appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair. She obviously wasn't worried about anything bad happening from revealing her identity.
2 Comments:
Well, after her cover was blown, why should she care where she appears? You want facts? 1) No photo of her ever appeared in a publication before she was outed by Novack. 2) She can never leave the United States again because a) no country will trust her and b) her life may be in danger from the countries she spied on. 3) She was undercover, desk job or no. Not every spy is like James Bond, breaking into mansions to steal secrets and then skiing down a mountain to escape machine-gun weilding security. 4) Rove neevr denied it, only saying that he didn't name her name. Of course, saying, "Hey, Wilson's wife is undercover with the CIA" is sufficient.
And since when is proof so important to you. You still cling to the idea that Bill Clinton molested women, even though you don't have "proof". Is the standard of proof higher for Republicans?
The women Clinton molested accussed him of molesting them, and from what we KNOW of his character and history (Lewinsky), I assume it's probably at least partially true. If it's not then why out of all the politicians in the US was Clinton the only one that had like 5 different women accuse him of rape and/or molestation?
As far as Rove goes, I believe everything that has been said. He told Cooper that Wilson's wife plannbed/authorized that mission. I have no reason to disbelieve that that happened. But to say he outed a covert agent when he didn't even mention a name?
From what I've read, she's already been out of the country since then, and the only places I've seen people saying she was actually covert are like third hand. I haven't seen either the FBI or the CIA say she was covert. And she herself ahs not accused Rove of anything. So I'm wondering where exactly you're attacking me? Is the difference that you think a law was broken, and I don't? Actually a law still might have been broken. The FBI, from what I read somewhere earlier, isn't even investigating Rove for the leak because they already know he never named any names. They have other suspects for the real culprit.
Post a Comment
<< Home