Karl Rove: Traitor?

It appears Richardson has not identified a crime being committed other than the cover-up. So if Cheney or someone else ordered the release of Plame's name, then it doesn't appear to be a crime as she was no longer working undercover.

Peal, because regardless if it was a crime or not, and that seems to still be something fuzzy, it was a politically a major problem.Do loyal lieutenants ever go down for covering up for their actions with the boss (his boss being Cheney)?Yep.Personally, I don't know what's up and what's not up with Cheney, but he wields a lot of power for a Vice President.

Omni, Tal is correct. This is probably not a crime or he would have charged him with that. This gives the administration a lot of cover actually because they can say it's just political, lying to investigators maybe, but not covering up a crime.

Also, there has never been a totally honest administration in my lifetime, and there may never be. But on the whole, Bush is one of the most honest president's there has been. Most politicians, for example, that are running for president don't really tell you what they are thinking and what they want to do. They spin it, and make false promises like Bill C. did when he campaigned on "the middle class tax cut."Bush, on the other hand, has been remakably honest about what he wants to do, and he has basically tried to do exactly what he campaigned on, and that's refreshingly honest, which makes it all the more bizarre to hear liberals slam him as dishonest. Bush is as honest a president as you are ever likely to see, and way more honest than most of his predecessors in the modern era.Now, let's get to this point. Members of the CIA were leaking classified reports to the media to undermine the administration's drive to war in Iraq. They felt they were doing the patriotic thing undermining the president because they felt a duty to the nation.Others in the CIA and elsewhere felt it was very dangerous for the CIA to be intervening in executive policy, and that it is not the role of the nation's intelligence agencies to act in that manner. That's the context of what was occurring.Plame and her husband seemed to come down on the side undermining the administration. I say "seemed" because it could all be murkier. Wilson seemed particularly over the line because he really didn't even seem to do much investigation on his trip, and seemed to feed disinformation to the public.So the administration started leaking something like members of the CIA were doing, but the media is jumping on the Plame name being leaked.Hmmm...who is at fault here? I think insubordination within the CIA is a dangerous thing all on it's own since they are not elected to form policy. The president and Congress are. On the other hand, I can see where someone would feel their first loyalty is to the nation, but then again, the CIA has done a lot of things that are over the line.So maybe both are at fault. Both camps leaked classified info, assuming leaking Plame's name is classified, but I suppose we still don't know that yet.Is this the big deal the media and dems are making it out to be?I don't think so. It's political jockeying between elected officials (the VP), and a government agency during a time of strong disputes about what's best for the nation.

A growing majority do not feel Bush is dishonest, etc,..as you guys say, which is a large reason why the dems cannnot get much traction from Bush's failures.The public is upset by a couple of things:1. the horrible handling of the Katrina disaster
2. the war in Iraq, specifically the lack of vision, planning, etc,...Those are the issues. Unfortunately for the dems, they have not convinced the American public they would be more competent or have any better ideas.

If you think moving left will help, you are sadly mistaken. Bush's problem is not he is too right wing, conservative, etc,...It's that he is not very conservative at all in many ways. He is really a centrist.He is conservative on some social issues and tax cuts, but other than that?He is for Big Gov spending; said he was during the campaign; ran on dem ideas of expanding education spending and programs, a prescription drug benefit, etc,...and he did all that.He also cut taxes. Maybe you are now for tax increases?What a lot of people do not realize is that deciding to go to war in Iraq is not a conservative issue. It is a judgment call. Clinton, if he had the backing of Congress, probably would have done the same thing, as evidenced by him getting us into all sorts of smaller wars.Imo, the biggest issue with Bush is his trusting that he can use the government to solve problems, and along with that comes big spending, which is my primary concern. The Iraq thing also stems from believing the government can be used to change the world instead of relying on people to do that all on their own.Perhaps all of us have some liberalism in us (trust of using government), but I would think someone that was "right wing" would just be even more right wing looking at Bush since the areas most consider failings directly relate to his liberal side, trusting Big Government as an effective tool. Keep in mind the new Homeland Security idea was also a dem idea, and it ruined our ability to respond to disasters.This message has been edited by randman, 02-16-2006 04:25 PM

Are you trying to deny the dems were the first to push for the Dept of Homeland security?What's your beef? It's a factual claim, and as any conservative would have predicted, a larger beaurocracy is not necessarily more effective, and as we saw with Katrina, putting FEMA under Homeland Security did not work out well.Bigger is not better when it comes to government.

There's a reason for that. First, there was the uncanny timing of the Clinton war attacks that just happened to deflect off of impeachment proceedings and things like that. Secondly, the simple fact is the GOP was reluctant to get into nation-building prior to 911, but after 911, it was war and typically everyone defers to the president in such times, and Bush was persuaded by the neocons that democratizing Iraq could change the equation in the Middle East. You never heard "No Child Left Behind" and other campaign promises. We have to agree to disagree there because I think they do. 911 freaked them out because hardcore Islamicists like the nuclear scientist in Pakistan had the bomb, backed the Taliban, and they thought maybe some American cities would be taken out, and so they began a whole lot of overt and covert military ops to change the situation. Iraq is part of that strategy, right or wrong. It was a dem idea as was campaign finance reform despite McCain backing it as a Rep. Both have failed miserably, imo.