Comments on: Key Question For Today’s White House Press Briefing

By: Stephan

Stephan — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:30:34 +0000

From what I’ve noticed, AlwaysRight, is that it is not so a legal issue as an ethical one; a prime example of the political dog-eat-dog scenario. It seemed to’ve been a political move to silence any dispute against the Iraqi invasion, no?

A traditional Republican,
S.

By: Charlie Henrickson

Charlie Henrickson — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:50:03 +0000

John S,

I don’t disagree on those points. You don’t jump to conclusions in your statement.

Flamethrower,

The law states that the law applies if “the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States….” Not the CIA. Not sure if that distinction matters, but there it is. And I don’t know what “NOC” means, but I get your point.

To most of you,

Can’t we learn to ignore the illogical and irrelevant arguments offered by the right, as they routinely ignore any argument that challenges their views? Remember the “get over it” response to fact-based, compelling arguments that Bush didn’t win the election? No attempt was made to address any of the points made (by Conyers committee for example). This is not stooping to their level; it’s simply making a distinction between logic and horse manure.

“Always Right” has nothing to say. “Who is she protecting?”
Karl Rove, of course. She’s a typical Washington journalist, entirely dependent on and beholden to high-level sources for whom she acts as a mouthpiece.

By the way, this left winger still wants CIA abolished. What good has it ever done for this country?

By: e_five

e_five — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:07:19 +0000

Isn’t it a bit ironic that the right is all of a sudden so concerned about people being innocent until proven guilty and allowing people who have broken the law to escape prosecution on a technicality? In the past they would have stopped at nothing to eliminate the right to a fair trial. Now they are the best friend of the Fifth Amendment. It makes you wonder what is really going on.

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:59:50 +0000

Always Right, I think your strategy of defending an act of treason is a good one. If all Republicans follow suit, we should do well in 2006.

By: Always Right

Always Right — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:31:32 +0000

Isn’t it a little bit ironic that the left is so suddenly concerned about someone outing a CIA operative. In the past they would have stopped at nothing to dissolve the CIA. Now, they are the CIA’s new best friend. It makes you wonder what is really going on. Why hasn’t the NY Times allowed Judith Miller to testify. What is she hiding? Who is she protecting? My guess is that it is something really damaging.

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:47:55 +0000

I am waiting for a response from the Thief in Chief.
Doesn’t silence further the downward spiral of this
clowns credibility?

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:39:59 +0000

Ask not for whom the bell tolls…

By: John S.

John S. — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:35:56 +0000

Charlie:

I think people are getting a little carried away with this. The cause is not helped by jumping to conclusions.

You may be right, but only the special prosecutor and the grand jury know for sure. What is clear is that the White House lied about Rove being involved in the leak, which resulted in McClelanÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s tap dance yesterday.

We know that Rove was involved in the leak (whether it was criminal or not) and Bush himself said his administration does not stand for such behavior. Bush needs to keep his promise of two years ago, and fire Rove.

These are entriely relevant matters. Can you disagree?

By: bnye

bnye — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:21:54 +0000

QUESTION: Mr. President, will you be seeking life in prison or the death penalty for this act of treason?

By: always wrng

always wrng — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 16:13:26 +0000

Everyone should just calm down here. This is going to go nowhere. According to Lanny Davis, special counsel to Clinton, to violate the law, Rove would have had to know Plame was a covert officer; intentionally disclose that fact; and know that the CIA wanted her covert status kept secret. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Its extremely difficult to violate that law and to prove a violationÃ¢â‚¬?, direct quote from Davis.

Well, that makes all the difference then, doesn’t it? Maybe Lanny is trying to wangle a cushy gig n Fox like that toe sucker Morris. Who gives a gerbil’s fart what Lanny boy has to say? He was always a scumbag.

By: e_five

e_five — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:50:26 +0000

Yes! Let’s focus on the minutae of legalities instead of the poisonous repercussions that lies, secrecy, and political dirty tricks might have on democracy.

By: Flamethrower

Flamethrower — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:48:48 +0000

if someone is undercover, then their identity is de facto being kept secret by the CIA…….duh.

By: Always Right

Always Right — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:43:51 +0000

Everyone should just calm down here. This is going to go nowhere. According to Lanny Davis, special counsel to Clinton, to violate the law, Rove would have had to know Plame was a covert officer; intentionally disclose that fact; and know that the CIA wanted her covert status kept secret. “Its extremely difficult to violate that law and to prove a violation”, direct quote from Davis.

By: Flamethrower

Flamethrower — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:33:57 +0000

the first thing Fitzy would have checked was her status — no NOC, no crime. Then go from there.

Therefore, she was NOC or he would have stopped the investigation. Of course Bush could have settled the matter long ago, but he likes having someone around who will smear people without a thought.

By: Darth Filibustrous

Darth Filibustrous — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:30:53 +0000

Charlie – sure, let Fitzgerald build the legal facts. But here is one fact that we U.S. citizens know: The White House cannot say for sure whether the President has confidence in his Deputy Chief of Staff.

In such a situation, Rove should resign or at least be temporarily relieved from his duties until this clears up.

Or at the VERY least temporarily revoke his security clearance.

By: Charlie Henrickson

Charlie Henrickson — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:58:11 +0000

I think people are getting a little carried away with this. The cause is not helped by jumping to conclusions. It has never been established that Valerie Plame was a covert operative of CIA. Rove has a decent defense, at least legally, because nobody can prove that he knew Plame was working covertly. (The law on this seems just about impossible to enforce.) And using the term “classified information” is merely wishful thinking at this point. You have to use the facts that you have to make your case, and the facts in this case make for a very good political argument but not a very good legal one. By overreaching, the position that Rove has committed a crime (which he probably has) is open to attack. Make a case that’s bulletproof: that Rove was undeniably involved, that the White House is in full retreat, that an asset involved in protecting the country from WMDs was compromised. Then let the facts accumulate.

By: Darth Filibustrous

Darth Filibustrous — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:42:24 +0000

Don’t bother. Scottie will just respond: “The prosecutor prefers that I shut up”

By: Mark in Mexico

Mark in Mexico — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:40:34 +0000

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

Keeping in mind that in this world today and, more specifically, in the United States, the issues that most concern people are (not in any particular order except for 1 and 2):

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:17:58 +0000

Rove’s title 2001-2003 was “Senior Adviser to the President” (the one and only person with that title).

I almost wonder if half the reason for the Feb 05 “promotion” is to make it sound like he is “just a staffer” – not Bush’s #1 adviser – aka Brain.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/2004stafflistb.html