Karl Rove: Traitor?

From Reuters.So now we're free to speculate who might play Sam Irving and Alexander Butterfield. This is starting to be fun. The Weekly Standard has a hit piece up on Fred Johnson, the former CIA operative who's been in the media lately talking about what the leak actually means to Valerie, her family and her contacts. Note that nowhere in the entire rant do they challenge what he's said about the Plame affair, they challenge what he said pre-9/11 when he seemed to take a cavalier attitude toward the terrorist threat. But even in the Johnson column that the Standard complains about, he makes the point that the biggest threat is from bin Laden.Johnson's response to the right-wing smear campaign that's been directed at him can be found here. There's also a reprint of a remarkably prescient article Johnson wrote in January of 2003. Money quote: No wonder right-wing liars need so desperately to discredit this guy. But he's not the only one; they've certainly got their smear work cut out for them, eh?

---

"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

berbery writes:

quote:

---

No wonder right-wing liars need so desperately to discredit this guy. But he's not the only one; they've certainly got their smear work cut out for them, eh?

---

As the CM Trio sang about the John Birch Society, "Help us fill the ranks/To get this movement started/We need lots of tools and cranks..."So on a day distinguished by reports that Fitzgerald has also questioned Bush administration officials about efforts to shift blame for those infamous yellow cake assertions, Fox News reports that Varlerie Plame "dontated to an anti-Bush" organization...as Valerie P. Wilson! (emphasis added)In the report we learn she bought two tickets to a fund-raising Springsteen concert. To our even greater horror, we are informed that on the donation form she listed her occupation as "Retired" (wrly, perhaps?), and wrote in "N.A." for employer: we even have a solemn quote about how one shouldn't falsify such forms...guess she should have written "CIA Operative, Nonofficial Cover."I mean, how can you believe anything her husband says once you know about the stygian ethical darkness his wife embraces?I'm still searching for the equally breathless Fox coverage of Fitzgerald's widening investigation.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 07-27-2005 03:28 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 07-27-2005 03:30 PM

In the Reuters report I linked above, I might have missed the most significant part - the last sentence: Sounds like the wingnuts are planning to go after Fitzgerald. This gets more Nixonian every day. Remember Archibald Cox and the Saturday Night Massacre?BTW, if I may add a plug for my favorite cable news show: the only show on any of these networks where you will get anything close to unbiased coverage of this scandal is MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Oddly enough, Scarborough Country has also been willing to shine a spotlight on Rove's treachery, but after pontificating about how the right-wing would be rabid over this if such treasonous behavior had come from the Clintons, Joe hasn't said much in the past couple weeks.Omnivorous writes me:

quote:

---

So on a day distinguished by reports that Fitzgerald has also questioned Bush administration officials about efforts to shift blame for those infamous yellow cake assertions, Fox News reports that Varlerie Plame "donated to an anti-Bush" organization...as Valerie P. Wilson!

---

Indeed! But if this is the best they can do in attempting to discredit her, their only hope is to find another smear target. Hence the investigation of the investigator: Patrick Fitzgerald.These people are disgusting. Worse than Nixon, by far.

---

"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

How so? Can you compare/contrast the illegal activities of Nixon to Bush?

---

"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
--Ann Coulter

Tal asks:

quote:

---

Can you compare/contrast the illegal activities of Nixon to Bush?

---

Neither Nixon, nor any of his aides, ever set out to deliberately ruin the career of a CIA operative. Nixon had his enemies, famously, but I don't think (and I could be wrong) that he ever sent his aides out to reveal state secrets for political purposes.

---

"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

because we're not at war.we're just having a struggle.

---

אָרַח

I don't think the presence or lack of a declared war is necessary to a charge of treason, though historically we have been more gallows happy during wartime.Guess I should have threaded this reply to Tal, since I feel a brief rant coming on...Nixon wasted thousands of lives in a folly-driven war he didn't start but opened the door to China; on social issues he would be considered a liberal by today's right-skewed political spectrum.Bush started the folly of a counterproductive war under false pretenses and has wasted thousands of lives; he has no redeeming virtues that I can detect.Compare and contrast? Nixon was sleazy and smart. Bush is sleazy and stupid.As we approach the mid-point of his second term (here goes a political prediction), watch how Bush maneuvers to keep his presidential records and fingerprints away from historians, yea, even unto the fourth generation.History will not be kind to this little man.

Kinda like daddy had Reagan do for him?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar writes:

quote:

---

Re: not treason, though

quote:

---

As we approach the mid-point of his second term (here goes a political prediction), watch how Bush maneuvers to keep his presidential records and fingerprints away from historians, yea, even unto the fourth generation.

---

​

Kinda like daddy had Reagan do for him?

---

Exactly.Many contemporary observers are puzzled about apparently trivial documents classified as Secret by the Bush administration: e.g., documents pried from their fingers via the FOIA have passages blacked out that are already in the public record, documents already on .gov web sites are withheld, etc.I suspect the vast forest of spurious secrets helps to conceal the trees they most desperately want to hide. Of course, the Bushies have been hiding so much so long, part of the process is just habit.Gov. Bush's records get spirited off; documents disappear from his military service file. If you think Hillary's billing records proved elusive, just watch the next couple of years at the White House and the Depts. of Justice and Defense, esp. if the polls show a likely Democrat victory in 2008.

i was being sarcastic. it's just funny to hear the administration say "war --" this and "war --" that, until one of their one comes up on the suspicion of what basically could amount to leaking state secrets during wartime -- and suddenyl we're not at war anymore. now it's the the struggle against violent extremism.

---

אָרַח

Oops...nothing makes me over-earnest faster than Bush: as a vet, I find his posturing on war and patriotism especially disgusting.Sorry 'bout that.

that's ok, i'm sorry about that too.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 08-01-2005 09:48 PM

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.

Source? Evidence?

---

"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
--Ann Coulter