Monday, July 11, 2005

Treason in the White House.

If you leak the name of a covert CIA operative, that's treason.

Someone is guilty of treason in the Bush White House.

A year ago, the President's spokesman said that whoever was involved would be fired.

And now President Bush's closest adviser is involved.

So the President won't comment.

This is the worst example so far of how ruthlessly political these Bush people are. They are willing to sacrifice our national security for political gain. And when Bush's advisor gets caught -- thanks, by the way, to our fearless special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald -- they take the low road. They get quiet. They protect their own instead of protecting the country.

Appalling.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Carl Rove is a man of great integrity. I know this personally, not just because I've read it somewhere. I may be wrong, but if he did do this, I think he'll resign voluntarilly. Remember, all the facts have not been revealed at this point. It certainly looks like he may have been the source of the leak, but until all the facts are in, it would be prudent to hold off on casting judgment. There may be things we don't know and right now accusations are flying but there aren't concrete facts - yet.

IlliniPundit said...

This is the worst example so far of how ruthlessly political these Bush people are.

Sigh...

He didn't mention her name, and may not have even known her name at the time.
Her name and the fact that she was CIA was already commonly known to the White House press pool.

Read Kaus. He's a liberal, and he understands the non-issue. Maybe you'll believe him.

Anonymous said...

You right wing dorks should just quit while you're ahead. Go ahead and "sigh."

Didn't "name" her? Oh, yeah, he just told the media that Wilson's wife is a CIA operative. He IDENTIFIED her, moron.

Rove should be executed for committing TREASON during wartime.

Let Bush do the honorable thing and resign before he faces the impeachment he richly deserves.

Lazerlou said...

I don't undersatnd how either of those points is relevant. Even if the press pool knew, his intent was to make such knowledge public, to have it published. Notice how the press wasn't outing her before Rove compelled them. It doesn't matter if he mentioned her by name, so long as his intent was to have her expoed for political payback. Let's not all forget the real ssue here. Bush and his administration lied to the american public to justify an unjustifyable war that benefitted Bush's military industrial backers and his own ego. He got the guy who "tried to kill [his] daddy." He just lied outright to do it and was more than willing to let terrorism escalate, and sacrifice over 1700 poor people compelled by economic circumstance to sign up to kill others for Bushe's unethical ends. Bush should be impeached for the lie itself. Rove should be put to death for treason.

IlliniPundit said...

This isn't even worth the effot. Like the Downing Street Memo, Gitmo torture, and everything else, the outrage you feel about this is entirely manufactured and entirely misplaced. He committed no crime, least of all treason - Fitzgerald said a week ago that Rove isn't even a target of the investigation. He's not going to resign, and the President isn't going to fire him. He's done nothing wrong. What will the next target of your misplaced outrage be? (I predict the appointment of a fantastically conservative Supreme Court nominee...)

Of course, if I were liberal and had lost as much political power as the Democrats had just a few years ago and no real plan to get it back, I might be incoherently angry, too.

ArchPundit said...

It's not treason--it would be a serious violation of the law, national security, and basic ethics if Karl has the security clearance to be covered by the law. If he doesn't whomever told him is in trouble. And in such a case, he won't be able to plead the 5th.

Her name is rather irrelevant--if he identified her, it's potentially a crime. And it's completely irrelevant if the press corp knew--and it's rather questionable as to whether they did.

Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out it's a hard statute to prosecute, but that doesn't mean what Rove did wasn't wrong.

As far as Kaus, he's pretty confused. Not a new condition for him, but the name isn't important--just as if he pointed out a covert agent and didn't know her name, it's an identification.

The lamest part of Kaus' argument is that it should matter what Rove's intent was--that's completely bogus and ignores the intent of the law which is to protect government agents. If Rove was simply negligent, the harm is the same as if it was attempting to cause harm.

But the whole thing stinks even more when one thinks about it--why was Karl Rove trying to discredit Joe Wilson in the first place and why is the wife relevant? There is no excuse for this behavior.

ArchPundit said...

===He committed no crime

How do you know this? I'm befuddled how you can know this when you aren't privvy to Matt Cooper's and others' testimony.

==Fitzgerald said a week ago that Rove isn't even a target of the investigation

That is misleading. A target is someone who is essentially about to be indicted. It would certainly appear that Karl is under investigation. And when did Fitzgerald say this? I find no record of it in a Lexis search. I think Luskin has said Rove isn't a target, but Luskin is Rove's lawyer.

==He's done nothing wrong

Hold on, how is it not wrong to identify a covert agent to a reporter? He may not be covered by the law for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean using Wilson's wife position as a tool to discredit a (accurate) report is right.

Beyond everything, Joe Wilson got the story correct.

BuckTurgidson said...

The argument that "he didn't name her" isn't just far worse than "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is," it is idiotic.

This isn't "Simon says." It's real life.

If I say in the context of a discussion on American politics that "the president is conniving hack," it is pretty unambiguous that I am referring to the President of the United States -- not the president of the Schaumburg Elks or Peru.

IlliniPundit said...

Good God. She wasn't even covert, and had been working stateside as a HQ analyst for years.

I appreciate the detailed rebuttal, Arch, but there's just no way the NYT is allowing its reporter to sit in jail to protect Rove. Who are they protecting? And why?

Anonymous said...

Illinipundit is pathetic. You keep dodging the issue: Was disclosing the name right or wrong? If it was ok, why is Fitzgerald investigating it? God you are a miserable apologist. Rove is seemingly caught red-handed for something that Bush said the culprit would be fired over. Now you're changing the rules - lame!

And of course a liberal will sit in jail to protect a source. Liberals have integrity and stand for real values. They don't follow the obscene playbook that Rove subscribes. That Rove and his fellow scumbag conservatives stand for nothing but raw power to turn the clock back to the 1880's is the point. The Democrats are the ones who actually stand for something - the American Way.

Illini, get yourself a new party or look in the mirror and face what you've become. The Republicans are morally bankrupt and represent a grave danger to the Republic.

God save the U.S.A. Impeach Bush!

ArchPundit said...

===Good God. She wasn't even covert, and had been working stateside as a HQ analyst for years.

If that were the case, why would Fitzgerald be pursuing this? Think about this on two levels. First, the CIA referred the case to Justice meaning they had to think there was a violation of the law. Then the first witness to be called by a competent prosecutor would be one to establish that the agency considered her a covert agent.

It's pretty specious to claim she wasn't a covert agent. Either the Agency wouldn't have referred, or Fitzgerald would have not convened the Grand Jury. If there was no way for a key element of the law to not be violated, then there would be nothing to investigate.


===I appreciate the detailed rebuttal, Arch, but there's just no way the NYT is allowing its reporter to sit in jail to protect Rove. Who are they protecting? And why?

Ummm...c'mon. I like you, but conspiracy theories aren't needed here. Miller has been in the business of passing along a lot of the Administration's line on the Iraq war. It's hard to claim she's hostile to the administration. The press in general also really believes an important principle is at stake--they don't view it as protecting Rove (or someone else since we don't know what Rove's clearance is), they view it as protecting themselves.

Anonymous said...

I think the Onion's recent headline summed it up best: "Bush Awaits Orders From Rove On Handling Of Rove Scandal"