Karl Rove: Traitor?

Yes, it was illegal. It was also illegal for those African-Americans to sit down at that lunch counter in South Carolina. It was illegal for Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat on that bus in Montgomery. It was illegal for Harriet Tubman to escape slavery and to help other slaves escape.For that matter, it was illegal for the original patriots to defy British authority and sign the Declaration of Independence.Sometimes illegal actions are heroic.And yes, there was a "proper" recourse Felt could have pursued. That would have been resignation, and we'd have never learned that Nixon and Co. were a band of crooks had that been the course Felt had chosen.Felt was a hero. Rove, if guilty, is a traitor. Big difference.

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

I don't quite understand what your comment has to do with anything I wrote.But if Karl Rove was the person who outed the CIA agent I think at a minimum he should be charged with conspiricy to commit murder.Perhaps if he's facing a needle in the arm he will explain who gave him the go ahead.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let's me think a bit.Deep Throat: There was a conspiracy to commit a crime, and the agency in charge of investigating was covering up the crime. So Deep Throat went public with the information to let the public know that there was a crime committed.Karl Rove (allegedly): Didn't like someone who was informing the public that the information the Administration was supplying the public was false, so he leaked information that had no clear purpose but to punish the person by destroying his wife's career.Seems to be a difference to me. Maybe if Rove leaked the information because he felt the CIA was a criminal organization and so outing the criminals involved is in the public interest, then I would consider him a hero. But leaking information just to punish someone as part of a political vendetta doesn't seem all that heroic to me.

Not sure how you don't see how it has nothing to do with what you wrote. You were asking if you were reading it right and I was telling you how I read it.Karl Rove's name is listed only as a Source for the Reports Article, not as the Source for the particular info...Which if you ever see a Reporters Source list for any particular article it will have about 100 names on it. Anybody from a couple of Wino's to the Presidents Chief of Staff. Just because a name is on the list does not make it a bad thing. If the reporter talked to that person then he makes it on the list. It even goes so far as if the reporter read anything a person published or wrote... the name goes on the list...What is happening is the media is latching onto the guy and trying to make the evidence fit the "Crime" instead of see what the evidence really is.

---

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.""A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Yes I believe whoever leaked Plame's identity committed treason, if they did it deliberately. Furthermore, it is particularly egregious because it was apparently leaked for partisan political reasons. Furthermore, anyone who had knowledge of the leak (either before or after the act) and is not coming forward is guilty of obstruction of justice. Was it Rove on either count? I don't know but it certainly looks as if he was involved. It also appears to me that Bush himself may have some knowledge, at least after the fact. If so, this places him in some legal jeopardy as well. Could he be impeached for it? Not unless the Republicans lose control of the House, imo.

There are actually several issues in the Palme affair. Let's step through them.First, someone leaked information to one or more reporters that identified a CIA agent.Please correct me if I'm wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Correct.Go on.

Leaking the name of a CIA operative is likely to place that persons life in jeopardy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree. How does it look like it? His name is on a list of a hundred people? Roves lawyer said, "yeah Rove talked to him on this subject." Why would a lawyer say that if Rove had done something incriminating?I want whomever leaked the name to fry for sure, but it seems like you left wingers are jumping on this a little early IMO.

---

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.""A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr

Yep.Get to the part where you think Rove is involved and why?

---

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.""A good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite point in the future."
- General George Patton Jr

Where have I said Rove was the source?What I have said is that if Rove was the source he should be tried for conspiricy to commit murder.Do you agree with that statement?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Tal says:"it seems like you left wingers are jumping on this a little early"You need to check the rules of engagement here. I was taught that name calling is not part of civil debate.As for the motivations of Rove's lawyer - I never try to guess the motivations of lawyers. But to more directly answer your question - I believe the information was already public - he could either keep quiet about it and look bad or comment on it and look bad. There is lots of smoke around Rove on this. There may not be a fire - stink bombs also make smoke.On edit: Oh yeah. The leak occured sometime in 2003, right? It is now 2005. A little early? Hardly.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 07-06-2005 01:22 PM

I think you are jumping the gun on this. The OP itself does not suggest that Rove must be, only that Rove is clearly implicated, and if that turns out to be true... what is he? You seem to be jumping to the idea that everyone here would be unwilling to believe anyone else could be found guilty, or hold them accountable. That is not true.As far as degree of implication, it is rather high. For a guy that still believes WMDs existed in Iraq, it amazing to see your doubt with respect to this case.He is on a list of sources, but I do not believe it is in the hundreds. And what is more important for figuring out this caper, the person named on the list would also have to have knowledge of CIA agents, and a MOTIVE for outing one of them. There are very very few who might have had the knowledge of covert CIA agents, especially with regard to what their missions might have been. Rove would be one of that incredibly minute number. He is also about the only one that would have a motive.Isn't that pretty telling to you?As far as what he is, hero or traitor, I am still not sure he is technically commiting treason, but his act certainly would have been traitorous.Deep Throat did not come close to commiting treason at all, and his actions were what are protected today under law... the whistleblower law. That is we recognized that some people need to be able to come forward and give testimony of criminal activity, which might result in sanctions against them in normal cricumstances.DT did not do something which was criminal because he wanted to gain something, he was witness to a criminal activity other were commiting and tried to find a way to get the info out.Rove, or whoever outed Plaime, was not uncovering a crime. What they were doing was broadcasting the identity of a secret agent, and putting at risk not only her life and career, but everyone she had ever been in contact with (including more agents in the field). And this was done solely to ruin that agent and her husband for private gain.If Michael Moore began broadcasting US positions and strengths on Al Jazeera, my guess is you would not only find that unbelievably treasonous, but clearly different than if Rumsfeld leaked that he discovered certain Senators were taking kickbacks to push a certain arms deal.I mean you can see the difference, right? Yes, but then we'd never be able to reply to your posts.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

While most of the media are increasing the attention to this matter, FoxNews is moving in the opposite direction. Hardly any surprise there.I'm curious if anyone here watches CNN. Have they interrupted their round-the-clock Florida shark coverage yet? I mostly watch MSNBC and NWI (more of the former since this broke) and it's been prominent on almost all their primetime shows, even Tucker Carlson's talking about it. The one exception seems to be Joe Scarborough, who hasn't mentioned it at all except tangentially in his praise of Judith Miller.And now Ms. Miller goes to jail. Does anyone else think she's stunting? Regardless of what her motives are, her arrest and the debate over whether journalists should have immunity to protect sources raises an interesting question: in this day of countless news sources and internet blogs, who is and who is not a journalist? The implications of the answer to that question could be profound.Whatever facts turn up in this case, it's going to be interesting. While we wait, you might enjoy checking Google News. Run a search on 'Karl Rove' and see what turns up.

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

"Does anyone else think she's stunting?"Oh yeah. Remember, this is the same "reporter" that embedded herself in a military unit looking for WMD in Iraq and then tried (and succeeded for a while) to take over the mission. She is capable of anything that draws attention to her. The story is HER.