Karl Rove: Traitor?

What the hell is an "alledged crime"?Look, it's really quite simply. The President said he would fire anyone in his administation that leaked the name. Karl Rove leaked the name (granted, he made not have used her name...but get real Tal). The only question remaining is if the President will keep his word. I bet "no".

No, Novak was not the leak...he simply wrote the article. Look, I don't pretend to know everything that is going on with regards to who talked to who...but it is my under standing the Rove spoke to more than one person. If I am wrong about that then I am wrong. It still doesn't change the FACT that Rove did leak the name to Cooper...so the President still needs to fire him...correct?If you truly think that the President has no need to fire Rove, regardless of whether or not a crime was committed, I would like to understand why you feel that way. Integrity means nothing to you? Ethics? Being a complete prick is ok for a senior member of the White House Staff?I’ll let you and Holmes debate the Senate report. My questions area bit easier. How can you possibly defend what Rove did? I don’t want some crap about we (the Public) not really knowing what he did. I am talking about simple right and wrong. You and I both know he leaked to name. You and I both know he did it for purely political reasons. You can pussy foot around all you want, but you know he did it and you have to agree that he should, at the very least, be fired for it. Am I correct, or are you just a partisan hack who cares about nothing but winning?

My opinions are based on Karl Rove's history. Knowing what we do about how he runs a campaign, do you not think that he mentioned Plame as a way of getting back at her husband?You say that you think he's innocent. Innocent of what, exactly, divulging the name of an undercover agent?...perhaps. Innocent of participating in conduct that is WRONG, and it's especially wrong for a senior member of the white house staff?...no way.Karl Rove is a prime example of what's wrong with politics in this Country. What he did was disgusting. You make it sound as if he was just having a happy-go-lucky conversation, dropped Plame's name, and went on, as if it meant nothing. Come on Monk, even you can't possible believe that. He did it to discredit her husband. Again, I base this on his history, which is deplorable for anyone involved with politics, let alone the top advisor to the PresidentI guess what bothers me the most is how Republicans circle the wagons and defend even the most heinous of behaviors, rather than admit any wrong doing. And then they attack the other side. Notice how this has become all about Wilson, and what a big ole fat liar he is?Remember how during the campaign, Kerry’s war record became such a hot topic. For fucks sake, he’s the guy the volunteered and went to Vietnam. The other guy weaseled out! One guys war record is public knowledge, the other guys National Guard records are missing.Remember how McCain’s adopted child became such a hot topic in certain states?Remember when Gore made a comment about his part in the Internet, and suddenly the other side makes it sound like he said he invented the thing?The list goes on and on. Bush gets in trouble and the bullshit starts to fly.Stand up and be a man Monkadmit the Karl Rove should go.

Well, it seems that only one quote won't do it.First we have this: "... if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."And then we have this: "When asked at a post G-8 Summit News Conference on June 10, 2004 if he stood by his statement that he would fire whoever was responsible for the leak, Bush said, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.""So in the first quote, it appears that ethics and integrity mean nothing to the President, that he'd only "take care of" the leaker if a crime were commited.However, the second quote sure looks to me like he said he'd fire whoever leaked the name, regardless if a crime was committed or not.So which quote ya gonna go with Tal?

The sources? Are you serious? Are you telling me that the quotes are incorrect? The quotes are everywhere Tal, just do a Google search. You know they're correct so stop playing stupid.Humor me for a second, and answer the following: If the second quote is accurate, is it not the Presidents duty to fire Karl Rove?Now, on to your "points": It doesn't matter. As I have said repeatedly, the legalities are a separate issue. Karl Rove released the name as a means of getting back at Wilson...THAT'S what I have a problem with. Whether or not he committed a crime is a very important issue in ADDITION to the lack of ethics and morality he demonstrates...the very qualities that your Party seems so hell bent on claiming they have, and the Dems lack. Prove it Tal, take the fucking ethical and moral high ground and admit the Karl Rove should be fired for what he did. NothingSee above Again, Tal, why does this matter? If you want me to speculate on why he sent her to jail, my guess would be that there is a bit of a gray area as to whether or not she is protected by the First Amendment from revealing her source, and the Judge seems to think that she is not. There, how's that. But why does this have any bearing whatsoever on the complete lack of ethical behavior on the part of Karl Rove?My turn TalPlease respond to the following:1. Do you believe that Karl Rove supplied anyone in the media with Plame’s identity?2. If so, are you ok with this?3. If sowhyhow...are you not bothered by this? Also, please explain why you think he released her identity to the media?

Do you have to practice being a complete idiot, or does it just come naturally to you? Wait, maybe you're "paragraphically illiterate", because it's the only other explanation I can come up with for you response. Let me see if I can make this any clearer.Here's the entire exchange. Try reading it a bit more carefully this time. See if maybe you can't get past the first sentence and then notice how ALL the other sentences work in sequence to make a point. See Tal, reading and understanding the ENTIRE paragraph makes a big difference in the meaning. Good luck with your reading problem, I hope you can work it out. Oh dear God in heaven, you have got to be kidding me. Hey, Tal, here’s a suggestion for youtry reading your own stuff. Later, even you admit that he supplied the media with Plame’s identity. (HINT: Keep reading and again, see how it all relates)Again, here's the whole exchange: Holy crap, Tal admits Rove supplied the media with her name. Guess even He (Tal) will be screaming for the President to fire him. Unless, course, Tal is a hypocrite.What's truly sad though, is that this is your justification for not being upset. You truly are one of the most two-faced people I have ever had the pleasure of "talking" to. That has got to be the most ridiculous bullshit of an excuse for unethical, immoral behavior I have ever read. He didn't "Blatantly" point out her name. Ok, you have to be doing this just to piss me off. You can't really be this stupid...can you? Seriously...it's ok to give "hints", just not the name...what are you, a third grader on the playground?
"Nah Nah, I know someone you don't know...but here's a hint. Her husband went to Niger recently and found out some stuff. His last name is Wilson and her last name rhymes with flame and her first name sounds kinda like gallery. And she may or may not be a covert spybut that's all I'm telling you...nah nah." Christ Tal, grow up. When people act like Karl Rove did, others may die as a result. First offgood non-answer answer.
Let me guess though, you expect me to say something along the lines that I’m ok with this. Sorry to disappoint you Tal, but I am NOT a partisan hack like you.
I will also admit that I am not familiar with this so I have nothing much to say now, except that if it is in any way similar to the Karl Rove incident, then he too (Kerry) should be removed from political office.

WTF are you talking about? Since when did this thread become a court of law. I have an opinion, which is that Karl Rove will do whatever it takes to win. You know it, I know it, hell anybody that has followed George Bush's political career knows it, so get down off you high and mighty horse, I really don't need to be told that I have no basis.What I cannot for the life of me understand is why you feel that he should not be fired. It really is quite simple. He was involved in the leaking of a CIA agent’s name. That much we know. President Bush was asked if he'd fire anyone involved in the leak and replied that yes, he would. So why are we even having this discussion?Honestly Monk, why is it so important to you that Karl Rove not be punished for what he did? I am, at this point, not really interested in the legalities of it all...I have said this in previous posts. I am after the President to show us some of that integrity that he seems to claim so often. He said he would fire anyone involved, so shut up and fire him already. What are we talking about here? Whether or not he leaked a covert spies name or just that he leaked an agent’s name. You see, to me this makes no difference on whether or not the President should do what he said he would do, which was to fire Karl Rove. What I loathe are people that will stop to nothing to defend someone. Again, Karl Rove leaked the name, and he should be fired for it. Why is that such a bad thing? This was meant as a joke...right? Bush is doing just a fine job of smearing himself. "I'll fire anyone involved in the leak"..."Wait...it was Karl...oh shit...what I meant was...".
In a way though, sadly I agree with you about a TV movie of the week. Like you, I am no fan of that crap either and certainly will not watch. But so what? Hollywood is a business and they'll do what ever they feel necessary to make a buck.
What it doesn’t change is that our President said he would fire anyone involved in the leak, so that is what he should do.Do you notice how the President has again changed his tune? Now he's saying that he will only fire someone if they committed a crime. What a hypocrite. How can you trust anything he says Monk?

But I do have a basis for my assertion Monk, and it's called history. He a political strategists and during the campaigns he's been involved in, terrible things are said about the opposition. And I'm talking over and above what we use to find acceptable(McCain's black child and the swift boat ads, just to name a couple). Why should I believe anything different this time? I have no desire to start another thread because it will simply turn into a "yes he did...no he didn't" argument. You know his history so let's just both admit he will do whatever it takes to win. You are apparently ok with that, while I find it sad (on both sides by the way, it's NOT a partisan issue with me). And he leaked her "name". I could care less about what other people said or how the felt three weeks ago. The President said he would fire anyone involved with the leak. Karl Rove was most certainly involved. It's simple. So by your logic, if someone said that: "the person you are looking for is FliesOnly's wife"; that would not be considered leaking her name because they did not actually use her name? How bizarre. So by your logic, if someone asks a question and you know the answer, but also know it's something that you should not share, it's actually ok because hey, they asked. How bizarre. As does love. Your love of Karl Rove is obvious when you defend someone that has acted in such an appalling manner. Fine, lets wait. If, however, it is found that no crime was committed but that Karl Rove, nonetheless, revealed Plame's name, do you agree that he should be fired...as President Bush said he would do to anyone involved in the affair (I'm just curious as to how far you will go to keep Rove in the White House)?

But what about this exchange Tal? I'll admit that in my post I did say "anyone involved" whereas this exchange says "responsible for", and for that I apologize. Is that what you have a problem with...those words? Do they make a differnece in whether or not Rove leaked her identity?

Not true. He was told NOT to release her name...he just felt that they (the CIA) didn't say it "loudly" enough. For once you are correct. Karl Rove leaked classified info, which is a crime, and he should first be fired by President Bush and then put on trial. It's cut and dry.

I could be wrong but since, to the best of my knowledge, Novak never signed any sort of document about not sharing classified information, he is probably not legally liable for releasing classified information.That is to say, if you are privy to classified documents, you must first sign a document stating that you will not discuss the contents of those documents with anyone else not cleared for that information. So, if I signed such a document (which I'm sure Karl Rove had to have done) and then, IN ANY WAY, shared the info with noncleared individulas, I have committed a crime. The person I shared the info with, however, is not liable because they never signed anything saying that they would not share this information.In other words, the leaker is criminally responsible, not the recipient(s) of the leak.

How about this interview from CNN.com? Will that do Tal? Enjoy reading Novak’s own words. Tal, it is a crime to even verify what the reporter was asking him. If he (Karl Rove) knows that the info he's being asked to verify came from a classified source it's a crime from him to say even "yes" or in some way validate or invalidate the question.

That is a question I cannot answer. Perhaps he will be, only Fitzgerald knows for sure.But let me ask you this. Why do you seem to keep defending Karl Rove? You are a military man Tal, do you not think that what he did was reprehensible? Quit being such a die hard Republican and simply address this as an American...a member of our Armed Forces. Karl Rove knowingly released the name of a CIA agent...why are you not pissed-off? Honestly, I really would like some sort of justification from you as to why you deem this particular act to be no big deal.

Look, Tal, I've said this repeatedly: Ignore the legalities of what Rove did...whether or not he committed a crime is not for you or I to decide...Fitzgerald will make that determination. I'm asking you about the ethics of what he did. We hear so much from the Republican Party about how they have such high moral and ethical standards...that they are Party of integrity. How can that be, when here we have a case where a senior member of the White House Staff released information from a classified document that resulted in a CIA opperative being outed, and our President does nothing? Actually, that's not entirely true...he has done something...he has publically stated his continued support for the leaker...how can that possibly be an ethical thing Tal? I'll try this again. If he knew that the information he heard from the reporter came from any sort of classified document, then he committed a crime. Do you get it now? Even saying "I think his wife works in the CIA." is a crime, if the info came from a classified document. And my understanding of the situation is that the info came from classified memo sent to Colin Powell. But as Crashfrog has already pointed out...that was true. The funny thing about that particular situation is that the point of the story got lost, and to this day has not really been addressed. What a bunch of bull shit. I'm from the left and I fully support our military. My father served in the Air Force and, up to a couple years ago, my brother worked for the Air Force. I've always been in favor of a strong military and stand behind them whenever they are asked to serve. So fuck you and your petty bull shit attitude about how the left hates the military.Remeber Tal, it was Kerry the volunteered and actually served in Vietnam, not our current President (or Vice President, or Sect of Defense, or...) Tal, you really have to do some reading about the tactics of Karl Rove. Seriously Tal, he has got to be one of the most unethical people currently in politics.What floors me the most though is how you, a member of our Armed Forces, can somehow support Karl Rove. Actually I am stunned.

Golly, then I guess that everything Scooter did was ok by your standards. And let's not forget that Fitzgerald is still investigating. You need to get out more often. Where did Scooter, and Rove, and Cheney get the name? Actually, my understanding is not that the story was untrue, but rather cannot be verified. Also, it may have been that the soldier peed on the Koran, not that he flushed it down a toilet. But what’s you point? And your point? My point in the above quote was to tell you to kiss my ass in regards to your bull shit about the left hating the military. As typical for you however, you avoid the point. No, I did not ignore the forgery. It was something that pissed me off and people paid for it. However, the underlying question has never been answered. Wait...all seeing, all knowing Tal has answered it. Thanks Tal...I completely trust you on this one. But then again I'm not so sure that what was being asked was whether or not he was reported AWOL. As a matter of fact...I think that that was kind of the point. Why bother.
But, boy Tal, it must be nice to also completely lack any ethics whatsoever.