Rove was Time reporter's source.....Follow

Doesnt matter what Gbaji thinks that would be the call of DONCAF. Routinely people keep their access to classified info unless there is substantial evidence to suggest they are leaking classified info.

Here's the Rub though Karl Rove probably could have gone to the top of the capital building with a bull horn and shouted for everyone that wanted to know that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, and he wouldnt have violated any laws. There are certain criteria you have to meet inorder to be protected by the law everyone keeps saying Karl Rove violated. She doesnt meet any of the Criteria.

1, the Government has to be activly keeping the agents identity a secret. Valerie Plame has been working at CIA HQ in Langely since 1997 when she and her husband returned from overseas. Anyone hanging outside CIA HQ gates would know this if they cared to.

2, Said agent has to be or have been working ouside the US as an undercover agent in the last 5 years. Clearly since she has been and continues to work at CIA HQ since 1997 she clearly doesnt meet this criteria.

Since Valerie Plame doesnt meet the criteria as an undercover agent Karl Rove nor anyone else could have "outed" her as an agent. Her identity may not have been as widely known as it is today however she wasnt protected as an undercover agent under this law.

Gratz on ignoring what I already said on this.

Samy,



That's right you're "concerned" about the president. This is such a drummed up non-issue even you guys can't figure out how best to cover for the liberal media.

Varus

Novak was the leak...

And for those of you that are mathematically challenged 1999-2005 is more than 5 years.

Varus

Yes, Einstein, but the leak happened in 2003. Idiot.

Then Novak and Wilson need to be the center of any investigation. All investigators have said Rove is not the target of any investigation. H*ll even the democrat opponents can't point to any illegal activity on his part.

Varus

It won't do any good.

Gbaji will go on for two pages about why Republicans just want smaller government, and that's why Democratic economic policy is flawed...

...And then spend 4 pages spinning and defending a Republican big-government social policy, like banning ****** on Sunday or some such thing.

No. He probably shouldn't. Happy?


Here's the problem. You are operating under the assumption that Rove *was* under criminal investigation. You choose to interpret the demands from the Left (who don't know the details of the investigation), and the fact that Rove was asked to appear before a grand jury on the issue as Rove himself being under criminal investigation.


He wasn't. And as we now know, the White House has presumably known he wasn't the source of the leak for over a year now (perhaps quite a bit longer then that). He was told that Plame was working for the CIA by Novak. Remember Novak? The guy who originally outted her, and who said that her status was "common knowledge" in Washington?


You guys are totally missing the point here in your desire to attack Rove. The point of the investigation is to find the source of the link. Someone who knew her cover was a matter of national security and revealed that to someone who didn't. That's the only criminal act here. Rove is no more a criminal then Novak. Both of them passed on information that they thought was public knowlege and most certainly did not know was supposed to be "secret".

*cough* "yet another crime"? Maybe if you guys would stop jumping at the fist bit of innuendo that comes along, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

And you wonder why the Left is losing credibility fast. You guys are the political equivalent of chicken little. You're sure that the Bush administration is comminting these horrible crimes and offenses, but you can't actually say what they are, or prove anything, or even explain how those crimes benefit them. But you'll go on tossing rhetoric and innuendo out there anyway.

Exactly what "crime" do you think has occured, and who do you think did it? I'd really like to know, because you idiots have been focusing on Rove for the past 2 weeks straight only to find that he didn't do anything wrong. Who's the next innocent person you'll run through your rhetoric wringer? How many times do you have to be utterly and completely wrong before you stop rushing to judgement on everything and maybe actually start operating on facts and rational thought?



Yes. The world is watching the Democratic party disintigrate as the hard core Liberals step by step destroy any shred of dignity and respect they may once have had. Even heavily left leaning moderates are looking at what you guys are saying and thinking "WTF!!!".

Look in the mirror. You're the problem.



Just highlights the rhetoric nature of the argument you're using. The argument wasn't about them having WMD, but about them trying to build them despite signing agreements stating they wouldn't. But apparently, you guys can't see the difference between "wanting to do something" and "actually doing something". You desperately want to just assume that if Iraq didn't actually build some WMD, that they weren't trying to.



And your point is? Look at it from the other side. You've got a bunch of nutjobs arbitrarily picking one prison out of a whole world of prisons, finding that it's abuse record is better then probably any other prison in the world, but insisting that it should be shut down anyway cause, well... we don't like it or something.

Isn't that about the extent of the argument against Guantanamo?



Again with the whole "missing the point" thing. She wasn't sold out for telling the truth. She'd been outted long before this incident came up. If she actually was working as an undercover agent, then she was doing a **** poor job of it and her cover was blown years before Rove ever got involved, and years before she asked her husband to travel to Niger to look into allegations that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium there.

I know it sucks when the actual truth doesn't match what you want it to be, but continuing to steadfastly argue a point after you've been absolutely prooven wrong is just more of the reason moderates are leaving the Dem party in droves. No one wants to be associated with you guys anymore.


Oh. And just to further clarify things. Wilson's report (such as it is) did not actually refute what Bush said in the state of the union address in 2003. Bush said that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium in Niger (actually, he just said Africa). Um. Wilson's investigation determined that Iraq did try to obtain uranium in Niger. They were unsuccessful, but they did try.

How that gets twisted around to Bush lying is beyond me. I guess it's just another example of the Liberals not being able to distinguish between trying to do something and succeeding at it. Which I guess explains why nothing serious was done about Al-queda during the Clinton administratin. Since they never succeeded at destroying the WTC, I guess they didn't really do anything to us, right?

Sheesh. Your entire approach to this is totally flawed. You don't want to learn the truth. You just want to manipulate words and facts to make it seem like someone you don't like did something wrong. That's pretty darn pathetic.

You were dead wrong about Rove. Accept it and move on.

Dude seriously, the more you go on about this the dumber you look. Even the liberal media is starting to back off this one as it's revealed that Rove did very little wrong if anything at all.

This is just one more example of emotional liberals throwing around wild accusations in the hopes that somehow the people of the country will just go along with it and demand that Bush commit suicide over the atrocity.

Of course, as is usually the case, the facts end up getting revealed, the accusations fall flat, and the American people end up doing things like re-electing Bush.

Is he perfect? Hell no. Were mistakes made? Hell yes. But look at what you offer the American people as an alternative -- nothing at all with any substance whatsoever. Just anger, outrage, and pessimism, and who the hell wants that?

Dude seriously, the more you go on about this the dumber you look. Even the liberal media is starting to back off this one as it's revealed that Rove did very little wrong if anything at all.
---------------------------------------

torture is wrong. but the law only applies to people interned on american soil under american law, and "prisoners of war" under the geneva convention.

make them "enemy combatants", and intern them outside of the united states and you STUPID republicans now think the liberal left is on a witch hunt because "technically", no laws were broken.

giving up the identity of an undercover agent is wrong. but the law only applies if the actual identity of the person is revealed, and that the information is not already public domain.

referance her without using her name, and lead the reporter into making a statement you only have to acknoloedge, thus becoming public domain....and you STUPID republicans think the liberal left is on a witch hunt because no laws were actually broken.

you are exactly why this country is so screwed up right now. your staggering ignorance, and blind faith.

you think for a second any seasoned politician doesnt know how to skirt the law?

here is what happened. we tortured human beings locked up in a cage. we did this.

a washington insider with direct access to teh president had a conversation with "3" reporters about an undercover CIA operative. this happened.

how about "no comment" and shutting the freck up for a conversation with the media? he forget how to do that with all his political experience?

it happened. it was intentional.

weather he found a way to skirt the law or not, it is also still very very wrong. just like torturing human beings locked up in a cage.

immoral. illegal. wrong.

I keep hearing this but I don't see where it's relevant.

Aside from the Rove angle, it's a crime to tell classified information. It doesn't matter if Hussian, Kim Il-Jong and Hu Jintao all have Valerie Plame CIA Trading Cards, if it's classified information it's still a crime to spread it around. Apparently there's enough of a case that it was classified information to keep Patrick Fitzgerald busy for a couple years so the "Yeah but everyone knew" excuse isn't enough to render the investigation moot. Yet you keep hearing it over and over as if it's not something the Powers That Be wouldn't have brought up after two years if it was a valid point.

I find this statement funny. My mother, who was as liberal as you can be, hated the Chicago Tribune for being a conservative hack job. We use to have to hunt down a Sunday NY Times, every time we visited my grandparents in Sandwich Ill. and Michican City In.

I figure her dear ashes must be reaching a point of combustion now, they been spinning for so long in the box we bury them in, right before 9/11. As much as I miss her, I'm glad I don't have to listen to her constant ranting about how Bush and his gang should be kick out of the White House.

The Reagan years were bad enough.