The neocon-controlled Republicans want to cover the Rove leak as being about a supposed criminal activity, and that is not at all what this is about. I don’t care if Rove committed a crime or not. I don’t care if he is fired, promoted or turns up missing. The Rove leak is not about a crime or non-crime. It’s about Rove destroying an entire network of counter-terrorism operations. It’s about national security.
The Republicans, however, are trying their damnedest to define this as being about a criminal activity. Because if this is about a criminal act, then Rove can possibly get off on a technicality, which the Republicans can then use against anyone who opposes them as Rove doing “nothing wrong,” AKA nothing illegal.
Rove leaked Valerie Plame’s identity. So what if he didn’t say her name, he did refer to her as being the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, and Valerie Plame is the only wife of Joe Wilson. How much more obvious can that be? Rove’s leak was not a jigsaw puzzle with all kinds of crazy looking parts that needed to be pieced together. It was forthright and clear: Joe Wilson’s wife (Valerie Plame) is a covert agent working for the CIA.
To say that Rove never mentioned her name and therefore did not commit a crime is still to admit that he did in fact commit the leak. And the leak is the case in point here, not the crime. Rove knowingly leaked the name of a covert counter-terrorism agent in order to assume political advantage against an opponent of presidential policy. If you want to find a crime in that go ahead. Since we are a country at war, I would think the first crime Rove committed is treason. Rove aided the terrorists, the enemy, by leaking information. If the Republicans want to talk about crimes, let’s start there.
Rove breached a national security operation and aided the terrorists in doing so. That is what this story is about. Though the Republicans will do all that they can to make this a legal argument. If at a time during a war on terrorism, leaking the names of covert counter-terrorism agents is doing “nothing wrong,” then how can anything be wrong?
This is about national security. Rove and the Republicans put politics above national security. The president is already changing policy in order to fit Rove’s actions. That in and of itself is proof enough that what Rove did was a direct violation of national security interests. Don’t let the Republicans distort the truth.
7.19.2005
Defining the Rove Leak
Posted by Chris at 12:01 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Just a thought, why didn't the Democrats seem to be too upset when Sandy Berger, working with Bill Clinton during the 9/11 investigation, took classified documents home from the National Archive and then proceeded to destroy some important papers? Couldn't he have put some actions as risk?
Bush could have drug him through the mud, but rather gave him a slap on the wrist.
I don't beleive he did "nothing wrong", but I don't see this issue as putting people at risk or after reading some of the facts, see it as malicious. I do think that he should be fired, he did leak the name, although not intentionally nor directly. But he did aid the reporter in determining the true identity.
I think these witch hunts, like the one with Bill Clinton only put further riffs in our political fabric. The investigation into Clinton did nothing to make the country better, much less safer, and the Rove fiasco meets the same end. That's just the way I see it though.
MJ-Thanks for the positive comments on my blog, I appreciate them.
Craig-I think that what Sandy Berger did was wrong. He should be penalized for it. But he didn't compromise a covert CIA agent or the CIA-front organization that she was working for. And I don't that Bush got to choose the punishment, usually its US attorneys or other federal officials who bring up charges for the crimes committed.
whymrhymer-the operation that Rove breached the CIA operative firm she was working for, Brewster-Jennings & Associates. You can read about it here.
First of all Craig, if you read my posts, you would see that I could careless about this being a crime. It's about national security, not only about criminal activity. The Berger comparison is pointless. What Berger did was a crime, and he was punished. If it's a slap on the wrist, then okay, but it's probably more than Rove will get.
Berger pocketing documents and Rove leaking the identity of a covert counter-terrorism agent and destroying an entire network of counter-terrorism operations is not even close to the same thing. I have never even tried to defend Berger.
So the differences are: 1. find any where or any item as to where I tried to defend Berger and you might have an argument; 2. by comparing what Rove did to the crime that Berger committed is to agree that Rove also committed a crime and that the president should fire Rove based on his latest policy direction; 3. Berger pled guilty and did not try to cover it up, that's a huge difference.....I could probably go on and on.
If you agree that Rove should be fired, then how is this a witch hunt?
I don't believe that he should be fired. Rove is a genius, it would only backfire on the Dems. Though when Dick Morris-- the Democratic genius-- messed up in his personal life it was okay then for Repubs to go on a witch hunt, but now it's not okay for the Dems to do so. It just doesn't work that way. Politics reaps what it sows.
I believe that the Dems have to be careful how they approach this. That's why it has to be about national security or the Dems lose the debate. If the tables were turned, Rove would make this debate about national security. I'm not sure the Dems are smart enough to figure that out.
I really don't are if he's fired or not. And I don't care if he's ever convicted or charged with anything. My whole point is that Rove goofed up on a national security issue, now let's take him to the bank for it.
Hymer, where the hell you been buddy??? This place isn't the same without you ;)
I'm my own source Hymer. I think Woods provides one also in his comment for you to read. Hymer, despite what you may believe, Plame was a covert operative agent. If she wasn't, then why all the fuss? Why are reporters in jail? Why would the case had been hurried to the Supreme Court like it was? Why would Bush change his policy about firing people if Plame was not a covert agent?
Leaking the name of a covert counter-terrorism agent is not only illegal (which I'm letting the courts figure that out), but it also destroyed her covert ability.
If Rove did nothing wrong and she was merely manning a desk at an office then I seriously doubt the Bush's would be squirming like they are. However, believe what you will.
But, if leaking the name of a CIA covert agent is not a national security breach, then what is?
Hey Woods, thanks for reading, and thanks for helping me out on some of my commenting. I really do have great readers. Craig just likes to push my buttons. He's a great guy, and we have fun with it.
You are welcome here any time.
Rove needs to go and even the conservatives know it. They are becoming embarrassed by the mess that is the government. Funny how Fox is basically making it out to be Rove is guilty of gossip and poor judgment well even at that he should go. But then again poor judgment has been the way of it the last few years why stop now.
The bar goes up and down according to what is convenient.
The dems have to tread carefully here, hold back, wait, crouch in the corner and use some sense as they approach this so as not to look too much like a pouncing lion.
All of a sudden the definition of national security is theoretically changed.
Hymer, glad you came back.
Again, though, with "intent" you are making this a legal matter. I'm not focused on the legality of any of it. I'm going to let the courts figure that part out. My focus is national security. By leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent, Rove put politics before national security.
Whether Rove intended to or not is beside the point. The facts are that he did leak Plame.
You are right that Rove is not suicidal, but he obviously knew enough about the law and circumstances to not directly mention her name. Was that done by luck, or was he slyly leaking stories to the press? Either way, the leak happened.
President Bush first said anyone involved in the leak would be fired. Since it was Rove doing the leaking, Bush has changed policy and said now only those who committed a crime would be fired, which is just another way of making this a legal argument-- but this is about national security, not crime.
However, if we must look at intent, like you mention, then we must look at the intent of Rove leaking to the press in the first place. Rove was leaking to the press, and he leaked to more than just Novak, because he was trying to cover up a negative story about Iraq and how Bush tried to forge the evidence of WMD. Innocent Rove is not. That "intent" alone warrants an investigation.
Thanks for reading old man :) Though, I think you only read when I do rants about Bush and his staff. My job to do is actually director of political affairs, so this is the stuff that keeps me busy.
The article was quite interesting. But is only tells me that Novak is to blame. Rove was never his primary source. Rove never went to reporters, and he never openly told them to print the identity.
I am more concerned that Novak continues to run his mouth.
Bush has never contradicted himself, and if you would listen to his statements, you would see that he has always said that any criminal activity related to the leak. He stated that in 2003. In 2004, when you all say he changed is statement, he was asked, "in regards to your earlier statement about the leak, do you still plan to fire any found responsible?" He said "Yes". It is obvious that he meant yes to the criminality with the leak.
He never changed his mind, so the argument that he changed his statements is wrong. Simply Democrat spin.
I still don't beleive that he endangered anyone. If you blame Rove, then you must blame any and all that had contact with this as well. That means Wilson, Novak, Cooper, Miller, and Rove. I beleive the list is longer, and I think that Miller is hiding someone bigger than Rove, and my gut tells me it is a Democrat. But only time will tell on that.
MJ, you know I appreciate your point of view on this subject. I don't completely disagree with you, I just rate the importance of the topic way below corporate greed, the upcoming social security crisis, national healthcare crisis, the assault of our civil liberties by the Government, and our open borders problems. Why does this one man warrant all of the political resources of the DNC when our nation is quickly going to hell in a handbasket right under our noses?
Blog ON, friends...
Craig if you would quit watching and listening only to Fat Limbaugh and Fox News you would have a better understanding of the situation.
September 29, 2003-- White House Briefing:
MR. McCLELLAN: — that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.
"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." --George W. Bush, September 30, 2003.
When Scotty McClellan speaks his words are the presidents. Therefore when Scotty said that anyone involved would be fired, then that is what the president said. Now we have a change of course. It's not those who were involved, but only those that can be proved to have committed a crime.
To say that the president has never contradicted himself is a very bold statement. He flip-flops on nearly every issue he brings to the table.
Even in the quote you provide is a contradiction:
'"in regards to your earlier statement about the leak, do you still plan to fire any found responsible?'" He said "Yes". It is obvious that he meant yes to the criminality with the leak."
His exact words are yes anyone found responsible, nothing is said about being convicted of a crime. Rove is responsible, so the president should live up to his word.
Novak is a conservative journalist. His source (Rove) for the story was done so anonmyously, it was the Supreme Court that demanded the sources be revealed. Not the press like you suggest. So all those that you claim are running their mouths revealing their sources (Rove) are following the law. Except Miller, who you think is hiding a Democratic source, and your comment is meant to stop "spin?"
Again, I must say that I do not care one bit about any crime committed. And I have to say once more that I do not think Rove should be fired. I think an independent investigation should be started to investigate Rove's actions and his insistence on leaking a covert CIA agent's identity in hopes of squashing a story about Bush using fake intelligence of WMD. In the end, this is the White House leaking names to the press to cover up negative stories about an American invasion brought about by trumped up charges of WMD-- which appear to have never existed.
Call me doing spin or whatever, but I'm actually following my own lead here.
GTL, I appreciate your comment. I agree there are many important things that should warrant the same kind of attention. Like I said earlier, the Dems do have to be very careful with this. This is about framing debates, and this is one important debate the Dems have to get right.
I honestly do not care what happens to Rove, stay or go makes no difference to me. But the Dems have to make sure that this isn't turned against them either. And the way to do that is to frame this debate to where it benefits them.
Now Craig will call that spin, and he is correct in doing so. But I get paid to frame debates, so I'm probably over-stretching myself when I write these things on my blog.
Thanks for reading.
"If at a time during a war on terrorism, leaking the names of covert counter-terrorism agents is doing “nothing wrong,” then how can anything be wrong?"
Solid point and an excellent post. Keep hittin' em and puttin' the pressure right on their wounds.
Craig-I agree with you that Sandy Berger should have been prosecuted as well. Leaking national security information is treason. Period.
Post a Comment