President Bush changed his mind about Karl Rove today allowing him to remain his chief political advisor.
"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," said the president.
The new change in policy is completely different from the past year of rhetoric coming from the White House regarding staff members leaking classified information to the press. Until today it was anyone who was involved in any leak, crime or not, would be dismissed from duties in the administration.
"The president's apparent raising of the bar for dismissal today, to specific criminal conduct, comes amid mounting evidence that, at the very least, Mr. Rove provided backhanded confirmation of the C.I.A. officer's identity."
It's still unclear whether or not Rove has committed a crime. Since I'm not an attorney I will not comment on such. It should be up to the grand jury to decide whether a crime was committed or not, and not up to Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. One thing that is certain is that Rove did leak Plame's identity numerous times. That means Rove was either very aware of what he was doing and knew only to give out her husband's name and not Plame's, which would make his intentions of the leak criminal indeed; or Rove was simply following orders, either way he leaked.
But Rove leaking names of covert operatives to the press should not be about crimes per se, it's a national security violation, let the courts decide the crime. The crime itself is not the focus of this story, it's the fact that Rove destroyed an entire operation of counter-terrorism work. Rove and the Republicans put politics above national security. Plain and simple.
7.18.2005
Bush Changes Mind, Allows Those Who Have Not Been Convicted to Remain in Administration
Posted by Chris at 1:57 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You have repeated several times that the leaked name of Valerie Plame undermined our anti-terrorist activities and that it put people at risk. I ask how?
How can a "overt" not covert agent be responsible for all that. She readily acknowledged and even told friends and neighbors she worked at the CIA. She had been at a desk for over well over 5 years, more than the time allowed to change from overt to covert.
Her own supervisor commented that she no longer had covert status. So who did she put into risk? Was it Frank in recievables? Sarah by the water cooler?
The name should have never been dropped. I admit that. But let's face it, this isn't the side show you libs really want to focus in on.
Craig, it's obvious the side you choose as well. I am not a lib, and please for that matter tell me what a liberal is. And do so without using Limbaugh's or Fox News' definition.
Rove destroyed an entire network of counter-terrorism operations. Is that the side you want to be on?
MJ,
To be perfectly honest, you don't fit the Liberal tag, I just use it for effect, like when you call me a Neo-con.
Liberals are people who seek to make sure the minority has all the power. They want everyone to change their ways to suit a small few who "feel" wronged. They don't want to take responsibility, they see everything as being the product of someone else's fault.
They want to make everyone get along by talking, but doing nothing to back it up. Talk without threats. They see eco-terrorism as a way to the point across. They see business as not a source of jobs, but as a source of hate.
They use hate speech instead of trying to work out policy differences with new ideas. They want to see religion completely vanished. They want science to be the only idea.
Those are a few of my thoughts on liberals, and I came up with it by myself.
I have never called you a neocon.
The context in which you desire to use the word liberal and the definitions that you provide is counterproductive. I'm sure Rush would be proud.
Post a Comment