quote:

---

White House senior adviser Karl Rove, after telling Time reporter Matthew Cooper in 2003 that the wife of an administration critic worked for the CIA, closed the conversation by noting "I've already said too much."

---

Yes, Karl, in so many ways...you have.

Seriously though, it's just not rising to the level of an illegal disclosure. Nasty and stupid, sure, but then, we already knew that about Karl and so far all it's gotten him is promoted.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
All I want is Bush to honor his pledge to fire anybody involved in leaking information about Plame that works at the white house, I'm not out to get Rove (or whomever it turns out to definitively be) indicted.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Bob, you slay me! I find so much in the news lately to be, well, disappointing.

There is much more to be said, but, oh, what's the point.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Wven if it isn't a criminal offense, Rove can't possibly be allowed to have access to any kind of sensitive information at all after this unless the president wants to make it look like he supports this kind of thing. It seems to me that he almost has to be fired because he can't do his job if he can't have access to sensitive information.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Problem is, they just don't need to mention him being given sensitive information, and then nobody notices its happened.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Well, I'm guessing that people can assume as deputy chief of staff, fugu, that he's going to have to have to see some things. Lol.

It was foolish of Bush to keep this guy so close in the first place. I mean, it's an open secret that he's a political animal of the highest order. Bush's close relationship with him undermines a lot of the 'Aw, shucks. I'm just a warm-hearted good ol' boy' schtick that we've come to know and love.

Frankly, were I Bush, I would have sent him out to deepest, darkest Texas. Put him on ice, get him out of sight, and thawed him out around election time every couple years or so but otherwise keep my distance from him.

[ July 18, 2005, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Eh, except when he's in the news, the public doesn't really care.

Unless he's fired now things will just go back to as they were.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
*shakes fist*

Stupid public.
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
What has become of the story that Rove actually got the information from Novak? I think Rove is political scum, but does the story truly start with him or was he just passing along what he had heard without caring (or thinking) of the possible repercussions?
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
Sopwith,

to the extent I've been following the permutations on this, there are discrepancies between claims made by Rove (through leaked testimony) and at least one of the reporters.

The big news, today, though, is this:

Bush backs off earlier language on firing leaker(s)

quote:

---

July 18 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he would fire any member of his administration who broke the law as prosecutors focus on White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in their investigation of the disclosure of a covert intelligence agent to reporters.

``If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration,'' Bush said today during a White House news conference with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India. ``It's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions.''

Bush's statement offers more protection for administration officials who may have discussed agent Valerie Plame with reporters, said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University. On June 10, 2004, Bush answered ``Yes'' when asked whether he would fire anyone who leaked Plame's name.

``He's certainly backing off,'' Gillers said. ``Before it didn't seem to matter whether or not the revelation would be a crime.''
(boldface type added for emphasis)

---

Nice to know that "if somebody committed a crime" they won't be allowed to work in the administration. You'd think, though, he (Bush) might have set the bar a wee bit higher in terms of behavioral standards.

[ July 18, 2005, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
The funny thing is, I would bet even-money that Rove was the one who came up with that particular way to avoid Bush's earlier statement. One little tiny twist, and Bush doesn't have to do squat when it is revealed Rove was the leaker. They will never be able to convict Rove of anything, so he keeps his job.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

You'd think, though, he (Bush) might have set the bar a wee bit higher in terms of behavioral standards.

---

Actually, I'm surprised he even set it THAT high. The way things have been going, half his administration would be out of a job by fall if for a moment I imagined that he were honest enough to actually do what he says.
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
I've read a few columns on the situation, and few stand out. The vast majority of columnists seem bent on "spinning" things depending on their political orientation.

One local exception to that rule is the Chicago Tribune's John Kass - a conservative columnist who has a habit of sticking with the same standards no matter which side of the political aisle he's talking about.

Here's some bits from his July 13th column: (Note - free registration required for access)

quote:

---

As catchy political slogans go, "the rule of law" really wasn't ever that catchy, particularly with Democrats.

It was more like the mullet, going the way of spandex and the fanny pack, disappearing into the same fashion garbage bin now waiting for the Paris Hilton look.

But here's a fashion update:

"The rule of law" is about to make a miraculous comeback in the slogan department--just so long as the words "White House political adviser Karl Rove" and "leak" and "CIA officer Valerie Plame" are put in the same sentence.

Because the Bush White House has been insisting all along that Rove did not leak the identity of Plame, whose husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was critical of the Bush administration's rationale for invading Iraq.

It is illegal for federal officials to leak the identity of covert CIA officers, and ever since Robert Novak used Bush administration sources to identify her in a Sun-Times column, the matter has been under investigation by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney from Chicago.

Then, President Bush insisted that he would fire the leaker. Rove insisted it wasn't he, then said Wilson's wife was political "fair game." Lately, his lawyer is doing the Washington shuffle, first stating Rove didn't leak, then later conceding that if Rove talked to reporters, he never "knowingly" leaked Plame's name.

How does someone leak unknowingly? Isn't that embarrassing?

---

quote:

---

Yet if the Cooper story is true, if Rove pointed reporters at a CIA spouse, then he should be fired, pending criminal charges.

It was infuriating to read apologists for President Clinton brush off perjury as merely some involuntary response to biological forces, without regard to the long-term damage being done to the law.

Before becoming president, George Bush stood at the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia and said that the "the rule of law" still had currency.

Such currency may be as unfashionable as the mullet, Mr. President.

But it's time to spend it.

---