Karl Rove: Traitor?

Terrible things are said about all politicians in a campaign, some are true, some are not. That's politics. I've said many times that both sides are equally willing to sling mud. That's not anything new. Dems and Reps are the same in this regard. As Tal pointed out, that's not what the President said. You should care because that was the predominate argument at the time. That Rove was a criminal. The left has backtracked on that one.And again, you should examine what the President said and not what you wish he had said.

it's an issue of degree, really. do you think there should be an out-of-bounds? yeah, but don't you think the right is so much better at it? yes, as i've said many times, the left needs to grow some balls.

---

אָרַח

But what about this exchange Tal? I'll admit that in my post I did say "anyone involved" whereas this exchange says "responsible for", and for that I apologize. Is that what you have a problem with...those words? Do they make a differnece in whether or not Rove leaked her identity?

sadly, i think tal is right. the president is clearly indicating that if a personal is found responsible, ie: criminal, that he will remove them. which should actually go without saying. of course you should not employ criminals in the whitehouse staff that's why we liberals thought it meant something more than "i'm not a complete dirtbag."so, let's wait for the findings. if someone is found responsible, and brought to trial, and bush does not fire them, then we'll have a pretty good lie on record.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-20-2005 12:14 PM

---

אָרַח

Monk writes FliesOnly:

quote:

---

As Tal pointed out, that's not what the President said.

---

He answered that direct question affirmatively, but that's a minor point. What's more interesting to me is that a president who originally took office promising to bring high ethical and moral standards back to the White House has now revealed what his high ethical and moral standard is regarding positions within his administration. He won't allow anyone who's been convicted of a crime to work at the White House. What a guy!Any responsible corporation or government agency (except for a few down in Texas, I hear) would have far higher standards for employment than simply a requirement that one not be convicted of a crime. Hell, even Nixon honored that standard. He had to let G. Gordon Liddy, et. al. go, didn't he?I'm reminded of the way another beloved conservative president, Ronald Reagan, responded to scandal during his term. As I recall, when the Iran / Contra affair first broke Reagan went on record denying that anyone in his administration had done anything illegal. Once it became obvious that he was wrong, he called a press conference, admitted his mistake and promised that guilty parties would be punished.Understand that I'm not trying to deify Reagan. There was much more to that scandal than I've mentioned here, but as I remember it Reagan at least had the decency to acknowledge that illegal activity had been perpetrated by members of his staff. Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, George W. Bush ever doing anything remotely like that?This message has been edited by berberry, 07-20-2005 11:18 AM

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

Bush will honor what he has said as soon as illegal activity is discovered. But he will not submit to what others wrongly put in place of what he said. You are implying that a member of Bush’s staff has done something illegal and that just hasn’t been shown. I know it’s tempting to compare the Rove situation to Watergate, but it’s not even close. No, Nixon didn’t honor that standard. Nixon didn’t let anyone go ahead of time. Nixon was involved in the scandal of course, and denied any white house staff involvement less than a month before Liddy and the other 6 were indicted by a grand jury. Nixon didn’t do the honorable thing.He knew what was going on, he knew illegal activity had been committed and still tried to cover it up. I wouldn’t hold Nixon up as a paragon of virtue. You seem to think that like Nixon, Bush is aware of the facts in the situation and is just trying to cover up illegal activity in an attempt to protect Rove. That isn’t so. Very true. Except Reagan didn’t fire Ollie North until after North testified to the House Intelligence Committee and after Reagan finds out about North’s diversion of funds to the Contra’s which meant that North lied to the Committee. That’s when Reagan fired North. Reagan would not have fired North based on propaganda from hate filled Democrats.You say, Once it became obvious that Reagan was wrong in denying his administration had done anything illegal, he did the right thing. Well, I believe Bush will do the same and act when the facts are out, once it has become obvious, and that is when the special prosecutors report is released, or someone is indicted by the grand jury, or some kind of evidence surfaces.All right then, just for the sake of argument, let’s say Bush fires Rove tomorrow. That’s what you’re saying aren’t you? Bush should fire Rove, fine. After that, how will Bush explain the firing of Rove without knowing all the facts? When reporters dig into Bush at the press conference following the firing of Rove and ask about the 2002 CIA memo, or who is Judith Miller protecting, or who is the other Novak source; how will Bush respond? What could he say except,I don’t have all the facts, I’m not sure who leaked the name, when it was leaked, or even whether a covert CIA operative was involved, but I’m firing a long time friend just to satisfy the lynch mob who hates the man that was instrumental in my two Presidential election victories.That won’t happen and it shouldn’t happen. It makes no sense.Look, if you can ever so slightly release your white knuckled grip on the Rove lynching rope long enough to wait for the facts to be made public then we can assess whether Bush has been true to his word.

Monk writes me:

quote:

---

You are implying that a member of Bush’s staff has done something illegal and that just hasn’t been shown.

---

No I'm not, I'm just complimenting Bush on his high ethical and moral standards. I think it's just marvelous how he won't let any convicted criminals work at the White House.

quote:

---

He knew what was going on, he knew illegal activity had been committed and still tried to cover it up. I wouldn’t hold Nixon up as a paragon of virtue.

---

And you know damned well that's not what I was doing. I was using Nixon as an examplar of our current president's high ethical and moral standards.

quote:

---

...Reagan didn’t fire Ollie North until after North testified to the House Intelligence Committee and after Reagan finds out about North’s diversion of funds to the Contra’s which meant that North lied to the Committee.

---

Exactly! Once there was no question that North had lied, he was gone. That demonstrates that Reagan had a different moral and ethical standard, one to which Bush shows no signs of ascribing.

quote:

---

After that, how will Bush explain the firing of Rove without knowing all the facts?

---

Because either Rove lied alone, or he and Bush both lied. Either way, Rove's a liar. No question about it. He's said directly that he was not involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame. You can parse the words all you want, but any thinking person knows now that Rove intended to mislead, which is what you do when you lie.There is no question that Rove was involved in the outing of Plame. Whether he was the first to talk the press doesn't matter. So far, his best defense seems to be that he didn't use her name, which is specious, or that he was just repeating what he'd heard. In that case, he's a gossip. I think the president could somehow get people to understand that he just doesn't want any lying gossips working in his administration, but apparently his ethical and moral standards don't run quite that high.

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

ROFL!How about that tincy, wincy thing called proof? Innocent until proven guilty?He testified before a Grand Jury under oath. If he lied, we will know about it, like Bill Clinton.

"like bill clinton?"i think a lie about outing a cia operative is a little more serious than a lie about where you put little willie jr. would agree to that, if he's proven guilty?

---

אָרַח

100% correct! If Clinton was held in contempt and disbarred for this tiny crime, why, Rove's punishment will be much more severe if he leaked the name.Time will tell.Actually time already has told. Its simply a matter of when you wish to recognize it.This message has been edited by Tal, 07-21-2005 07:59 AM

---

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrongDo you know what your DNC stands for?

Tal writes me:

quote:

---

How about that tincy, wincy thing called proof? Innocent until proven guilty?

---

If, like the president, you only care whether a crime was committed then we will have to wait for proof, but like I've said earlier I'm not looking for Rove to be convicted of a crime. Which is good for him since the president has such appallingly low ethical and moral standards that all he requires of his employees is that they remain unconvicted of any crimes.But my point was, and you already knew this, that we know beyond question that Rove lied. Two years ago, Scott McLellan said he had spoken with Rove and that Rove assured him that he wasn't involved in the Plame leak. There is now no question that Rove was indeed involved, so either Rove is a liar or McLellan is a liar. Rove's best defense so far is that he was just spreading gossip about a CIA agent.So we know he's a gossip and we know that either he or McLellan is a liar (I misstated earlier that it was either Rove or the president - my bad). My money is on Rove as the liar, but given that he's an avowed gossipmonger I don't see why it's necessary to wait until he's convicted of a crime before Bush should get rid of him. Spreading gossip about CIA agents is bad enough to warrant his dismissal, but of course the president is more concerned about maintaining his appallingly low ethical and moral standards, so I think Rove is entirely safe, at least for now.

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

Again, you DO NOT KNOW if Rove leaked a name!!!!! All you have is an accusation.We do know he's testified under oath that he didn't. If its found otherwise, he's busted. How so? Give me the specific quotes.

---

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrongDo you know what your DNC stands for?

wish to recognize what, exactly, tal?weren't you the one saying we should wait to see what the investigation finds?

---

אָרַח

Tal writes me:

quote:

---

Again, you DO NOT KNOW if Rove leaked a name!!!!!

---

Goddamn it Tal, either read my posts or shut the hell up! For the fourth or fifth time, I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT ROVE BROKE A LAW, NOR THAT HE WILL EVER BE CONVICTED OF ANYTHING. What I am saying (and I didn't think this needed to be spelled out in easy words, but since it seems to have gone over your head for three! successive! posts!) is that the president ought to have higher standards than a mere requirement that members of his staff not be convicted criminals.And this issue of whether or not Rove gave the specific name is specious. In order to insure that this point doesn't escape you, let's take a hypothetical illustration: Assume for a moment that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent with the highest security clearances and the absolute maximum possible secrecy that can be applied. Let's assume further that she was working in concert with the Bush administration, uncovering positive evidence of WMD. Let's say that her evidence was upsetting to Ted Kennedy since he had been publicly skeptical of earlier intelligence, and in a fit of pique he stands up in the Senate and, with C-SPAN cameras rolling, identifies her as an undercover agent, but only refers to her as "Joe Wilson's wife".If that had happened, there would be no question that Ted Kennedy had outed her, regardless of whether he'd got the information from a classified memo or from a National Inquirer reporter. Why is there any question about Rove?I don't need to supply a direct quote of what McLellan said at a press conference in July of 2003. It's been all over the media. He characterized as "ridiculous" the notion that Rove was in any way involved in the Plame outing, citing his own conversations with Rove. The Washington Post mentioned that fact just the other day in this article right here. It's also been printed in newspapers and the video from the old press conference ran on TV repeatedly last week.

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

exlamation points! wow, you must have a really good point!!!!!!!! oh wait, no. that's right, i can do it tooo!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~1it's not the NAME that matters; it's the identity. people in other countries that we're spying on (or HAVE spied on in the past) are not retarded. heck, i can generally find people on the internet with less information. and we're talk professional spies, and wives of high-profile diplomats here.

---

אָרַח