Karl Rove: Traitor?

Well, the comparisons are weak. Watergate was the cover-up of a crime, albeit a low level burglary. In this case, a crime has yet to be proven. I’m sure Bush is well aware of Nixon’s mistakes and will not repeat them. He has gone out of his way to say that the perp(s) will be brought to justice, IF there is a crime. There doesn’t seem to be any sort of obstruction of the investigation by the White House as was the case with Watergate.They seem to be going out of their way to avoid the perception of a cover-up. Rove signed a waiver in January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion with, which included Cooper.

Yes, that is exactly what I want to see. I want to see Republicans quoting someone that defended Clinton as for why they may have a legal way out of trouble.As far as his criteria goes, it seems ludicrous to me that anyone in the White House could not have known her status, before they leaked any info. They wouldn't run that by anyone before speaking? As I said, that only shifts the issue to criminal negligence.They clearly intentionally disclosed that fact. Unless what is meant that that's all they wanted to disclose.And the idea that the CIA doesn't want it's covert officer's identities secret is the height of absurdity. That is what covert means.Do you agree that his comments, even if he is not guilty, indict the entire white house for mismanagement of handling intel in general? That it showed they had a disregard (apparently a sneering disregard) for analyzing key data?After all Bush cited the yellow cake issue. That Rove would say to the press that they didn't authorize an investigation into the accuracy of that data and people who were interested in doing so should be considered suspect... that seems pretty bad to me.

---

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

That is not accurate, jar's comparison is correct.Watergate began as an investigation of a small crime, and perhaps a small cover-up. But it was actually an investigation stemming from that to potential other crimes which were not initially known which broke open the Nixon administration. It involved slush-funds and things like that.In this case a crime or major mistake is known. Whether it is gross incompetence and so a mistake or an outright crime may be there, but that is small difference. It is known that a covert operative has had her identity blown. It appears to be leading to something greater, just as the watergate investigation had.One must also keep in mind that this leak was not in some vacuum, it had a specific motive regarding contrary evidence to white house claims. That itself points to wrongdoing, even if it does not rise to actual conviction.One would think the crew that got upset that Clinton didn't admit a blowjob to a Grand Jury supposedly investigating financial scandals, would understand there is something pretty wrong here. Not really. Their adamant defence of Rove, including using their own press liason to defend Rove, and then retreat to complete silence when the evidence is looking bad, does look like a cover-up. Perhaps not as great... but how great was lying about a blowjob?

---

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

The CIA employs thousands of civilians, many of them are analysts who are not classified as covert operatives. Only a small percentage of the CIA's employees (perhaps less than 10 percent of the agency's estimated 10,000 to 20,000 workers) are clandestine officers involved in operationsthe traditional spy stuff that includes recruiting sources, executing covert missions, and gathering intelligence.The remaining 90 percent are analysts, managers, scientists, and support staff that are not under cover and are publicly acknowledged CIA employees. (the Agency has room for artists, too, according to the CIA kids' page ). I don’t think it’s ludicrous at all given the above paragraphs. Also, if you look at the context of the conversation between Rove and Cooper. The Plame subject enters at the end of a long conversation Cooper and Rove were having on a variety of other issues. It didn’t seem to be the focus. No, I don’t agree with this. Tenet cleared the Niger story and paid the price. I’m confused here. When did Rove say anything about not authorizing an investigation?

Just because Watergate involved slush funds and a whole host of other illegal activities doesn’t mean the same is true for the Bush Admin. It’s wishful thinking on the part of Dems. I’m sure the media will play up this angle, though, and fabricate all sorts of illegal activities based on nothing but speculation, innuendo, and in some cases outright lies. No, there is a big difference between a mistake and an outright crime and it hasn’t been shown that a covert operative has had her identity blown. Dems can only hope, but so far it’s just speculation.

Actually, it was not the slush funds or other such activities that created the problem. The issue was "Conspiricy to coverup" the activities.The same was true with the Clinton Administration. The issue was not the acts themselves, it was the attempt to coverup those activities.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is not what I was referring to. You said... If she was not covert that is one thing, or a mix and they did not mind her mere analyst position mentioned is another. Totally on a different plain than those two issues is whether the CIA wanted her covert status kept secret. I am only privvy to the excerpts of the email which have been made public. I am not sure how you can pull how long the conversation was and what place it took part in that conversation, from his email of just the basic info he got to his boss. How did he pay the price, when he was allowed to resign and then got decorated with this nation's top honor? Wow, someone take me out that way. The point is he cleared the niger story because he did not have it investigated. The White House did not pressure him to do so either, which seems ridiculous (and in my view negligent).Rove's commentary as described by Cooper was that the White House was not interested and Wilson's trip only happened because his wife signed off on it.BTW, it is rather unlikely that an analyst is going to be signing off a mission to gather intel, that's usually the work of ops agents. The question Cooper raised was whether the wilson investigation... which was the only investigation carried to that location... was at the request of the CIA and so the White House. Rove was denying that it had the backing of the White House or CIA, and that it had only been cleared by wilson's wife.Can you think what reason the White House and or CIA should NOT have backed the trip? Or why they should deny its results, just because (and if) it had not been initiated from the top levels?In fact, shouldn't the White House have been congratulating that employee on her initiative which would have spared the administration undue embarassment, rather than trying to undercut that successful employee and the results she obtained?I mean we are not in the dark here. Her endeavour was a good one, it was highly successful, and delivered accurate info. The only problem is that it did not fit the answer they wanted. That is the only reason for it to be discredited.Why are you not stomping the guts out of Rove and the administration for undercutting successful operatives who delivered 100% accurate info, at this point in time?To defend any of these actions is to be honoring falsification of evidence and arguing that discrediting hard work and good intel is okay as long as it was "legal".

---

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

I'm not a Dem, and I was not meaning to suggest a 1-1 analogy and that this would involve things like slushfunds.My point was that both started as an investigation into something that was not known if it was a truly criminal act. In this case it is the outing of an agent. The other it was looking into things like slush funds. You are confused if you think that watergate was simply and investigation into break ins. There is no question that a covert agent had her identity blown. Even Bush has admitted this, which is why there is so much heat. The only question is if the blowing was intentionally done.Hahaha, looks like blowjobs may threaten two administrations after all.

---

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

You are really butchering my post. Actually, I quoted Lanny Davis who said that one of the conditions to proving a crime is the condition that the CIA must have wanted to keep a CIA employees status covert to be considered a crime. Davis said this is one of three conditions why it is difficult to prove a crime in this case. But where did Rove say to the press that they didn't authorize an investigation into the accuracy of that data There could be any number of legitimate reasons why the trip was not sanctioned. That doesn’t lead to or imply criminal behavior. Well, there is reason to take a close look at that report. Joe Wilson was a former high ranking official in Clinton’s National Security Council and advisor to the Kerry campaign. He has a track record of strong dislike of the Bush Admin. This is what he said during a Washington Post interview in 2003:

quote:

---

Wouldn’t it be fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words. - Joseph Wilson August 21, 2003 Source

---

So it’s obvious that Wilson is a bitter partisan who hates Rove and the Bush Admin. Shouldn’t this factor into the credibility of the report?

I never said this nor did I imply it as you well know. Where did Bush admit this? Source please?

Very true. But I don't see a cover-up with Bush. At least not yet anyway

So is it reasonable to ask:"What did the Prsident know and when did he know it?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sure, it's reasonable to ask. But I don't think it's reasonable to expand the authority of the special prosecutor to launch an open ended investigation of the administration without evidence of "something" illegal other than the potential crime of having Plame outed. I'm not even sure if it has been shown that Rove is the focus of the investigation. He is merely one of several potential sources, but he is certainly the focus of media attention.

Does it matter who released the information?If the President knew who released the information and did not turn that information over to a prosecutorial authority, was there a coverup?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, you misunderstood me. I know I was referring to Lanny's comments. Whether he said them or anyone else said them, that would be ridiculous. It is pure lawyer-speak. I'm sure a defense lawyer would love to pretend that there is the possibility that a covert agent is not supposed to be covert, and so someone has an extra dodge.Its kind of like the definition of is "is" thing.But back to reality there is no reason that the CIA would be wanting its covert operative's identities made public. That is the definition of covert, not public. The question was about the only investigation ever mentioned into that subject. If Rove was saying that they did not authorize that investigation then by necessity of reality they didn't authorize any. By now the press would be out if there had been any other. Indeed it would be in the Congressional Report. Remember that it was approved, and that they were attempting to dismiss it at a critical juncture simply because it was not sanctioned at the highest levels. We now know with 20/20 vision that it was the only, and if not only then only accurate mission on that subject.So they did not enjoy, and wanted to kill the only well run operation on intel in that issue... and you don't see a problem with it? Ad hominem and guilt by association? That's the reason to discredit the report? Oh by the way you said "look closer", that's exactly what they didn't want anyone else to do.I think this is hilarious that you try to discredit, even at this date, his report. And you do it based on wording he used against Rove after his wife was ruined by Rove, as well as connection to a campaign against Rove/Bush.Hey, you know what else he said? The Niger sale wasn't real. You know where he said it? The report.You know what Bush and Co said? The Niger sale was real. You know where they said that? All over the place? What did they say when actual intel as seen in that report was presented? Don't believe him because his wife authorized the trip.If you can't see in light of all the following events who comes out smelling like roses and who needs their ass stomped, then you are blinded by partisanship. Yes, if the report somehow said it couldn't have been because Rove and Bush are bad guys then we might say it is less than credible. But that's not what it said. It actually had facts. Indeed that's not why they said his report had to be looked at closer with regard to facts, they stated that it had to be ignored altogether.And again I laugh. Rove and Bush were bitter partisan guys who hated Wilson. Shouldn't that have factored into their credibility? Turns out to be yes, as they were wrong.Can't you fit the pieces of the puzzle together? We know who was right and who was wrong. We know what investigations happened and which bore good fruit. We know which parties tried to bury the good data. Don't we?

---

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