Karl Rove exonerated

[Tony]

OJ Simpson was innocent. A jury said he was so it must be true.

Irony meter time.

 

[JamesDillon]

Rove, OTOH, is accused (at least by the Unhinged Left) of having betrayed national security.

Can you explain to those of us who just aren't smart enough to get it how leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent to the press as an act of retribution against a critic of the administration's policy does not undermine national security?

 

[Skeptic]

"Exoneration" as I see it, is positive proof of one's innocence. In some cases exoneration is as impossible as presuming a negative (I think this case counts as that).

In that case, of course, you or I will never be exonerated of that multiple rape/murder that was never solved, since we'll have to prove a negative.

I'm not really arguing a logical point, on which I don't think we disagree... I simply wish the "human rights" crowd would judge Rove by the same standards they use to judge, for instance, captured Islamist terrorists.

 

[Skeptic]

Can you explain to those of us who just aren't smart enough to get it how leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent to the press as an act of retribution against a critic of the administration's policy does not undermine national security?

Even if your descritpion was accurate, there is something highly ironic about the whole matter.

Generally speaking, the media who constantly laughs at, and derides, any reference by the government to "national security". When the government wants a law passed for national security reasons, or refuses to give information about something for similar reasons, the press impatiently waves aside all such considerations. It considers it a mere excuse for burying unpleasant secrets or for creeping fascism.

If someone leaks military secrets to the press despite national security concerns, the man is treated, usually as a hero--no matter what harm revealing the secrets might have caused.

Yet in this case, all of a sudden "harming national security" becomes a holy, important consideration--presuming, of course, that it was really harmed? Why?

I suspect the reason is that in this case, the alleged "harm to national security" hit home. It didn't cause the death of soliders, for example, or other such unimportant trivialities which are trumped by freedom of the press. In this case, the release of the information caused embarrasment to a member of the press--that is, it caused REAL damage to a FULL human being, and this is unforgivable.

 

[peptoabysmal]

But maybe you are just being "funny" - if they report it that way, they are being truthful!!!!

Or maybe your world view is just as biased as mine

 

[peptoabysmal]

Still waiting for that "Cynthia McKinney exonerated" thread...I guess I'll be waiting a while for that one. Funny how that works.

Wasn't she the one who was supposed to have been "frog marched" out of Capital Hill? Or am I thinking of someone else? Oh, no wait! I remember now, I saw her on an episode of Cops.

"Let me be clear: this whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman. I deeply regret this incident occurred, and I am certain that after a full review of the facts, I will be exonerated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney

She played the gender and race card to a grand jury and it worked. She was exonerated.

What a wacky world, what's next? Maybe Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq?

 

[Kerberos]

In that case, of course, you or I will never be exonerated of that multiple rape/murder that was never solved, since we'll have to prove a negative.

First of all it's perfectly possible to prove a negative of this kind (see below), at least as far as you can prove anything. Secondly you can't be exonerated from suspicion of a crime you were never supected for. If you were suspected you could however be exonerated by fx DNA evidence or proof that you were elsewere at the time. Voila proof of a negative.

I'm not really arguing a logical point, on which I don't think we disagree... I simply wish the "human rights" crowd would judge Rove by the same standards they use to judge, for instance, captured Islamist terrorists.

I don't supose you could specify who the "human rights crowd" is, and where they said you aren't allowed to believe that supected terrorist whose guilt cannot be proven beoynd reasonable doubt are guilty anyways?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not really arguing a logical point, on which I don't think we disagree... I simply wish the "human rights" crowd would judge Rove by the same standards they use to judge, for instance, captured Islamist terrorists.

You mean ... demand that he should be put on trial?

Sure, if it makes you feel better.

In the meantime, since someone mentioned "innocent until proven guilty" --- oh, look, it was you --- perhaps you could judge suspected terrorists by the same standards as you judge Rove.

 

[BPSCG]

Can you explain to those of us who just aren't smart enough to get it how leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent to the press as an act of retribution against a critic of the administration's policy does not undermine national security?

Who did that?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think he's talking about this guy Rove ... for those of us who are not "in the loop", please point out the factual inaccuracies instead of just implying that they exist.

 

[BPSCG]

I think he's talking about this guy Rove ... for those of us who are not "in the loop", please point out the factual inaccuracies instead of just implying that they exist.

Oh. Well, if he has any evidence to back up that claim, he ought to get in touch with the special prosecutor, who decided he didn't have enough evidence to warrant bringing any charges.

If, OTOH, he's just trying to repeat a claim often enough that it becomes accepted "knowledge", then he's off to a good start. "What I tell you three times is true!"

 

[Tony]

What a wacky world, what's next? Maybe Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq?

Posting that was the online equivilant of nailing a sign to your forehead saying "Look at me, I'm a Moron who swallows right-wing propaganda without question". Good job.

 

[JamesDillon]

Who did that?

Karl Rove did that.

Rove does not emerge from the investigation unscathed, however. His credibility took a hit inside and outside the White House when he allowed then-Bush spokesman Scott McClellan to tell reporters that he had no role in the unmasking of Plame, the CIA officer at the center of the leak scandal. The investigation has shown that, in a one-week period in 2003, Rove spoke to two reporters about Plame and her CIA role, then reported back to other senior White House officials, according information publicly released by Fitzgerald and by sources familiar with the case.

The episode left McClellan and a few other White House aides upset that they were initially misled by Rove, according to several administration sources.

 

[BPSCG]

Karl Rove did that.

Evidently committed no crime, though. How do you suppose he did that?

 

[JamesDillon]

We're not talking about whether he committed a crime; we're talking about whether he undermined national security. You initially commented that

Rove, OTOH, is accused (at least by the Unhinged Left) of having betrayed national security.

To which I responded,

Can you explain to those of us who just aren't smart enough to get it how leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent to the press as an act of retribution against a critic of the administration's policy does not undermine national security?

Since the Post article I cited above, as well as plenty of other public documents, show pretty conclusively that Rove 1) leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to two reporters shortly after Joseph Wilson published his op-ed article challenging the Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had attempted to obtain yellowcake uranium from Nigeria, and 2) lied to the public, as well as to internal White House officers, about his involvement in the leak, on what basis do you claim that those who believe that Rove's actions undermined national security for petty political purposes are "unhinged"?

Please don't throw out the red herring of whether a crime was committed. I don't care whether a crime was committed. Even if Rove managed to avoid a technical violation of the law, I'm interested in your defense of the broader question of whether his actions were against the interests of the public in protecting intelligence operations during a time of war, and specifically how those of us who believe that Rove's conduct was in fact detrimental to the national interest are "unhinged."

 

[ceo_esq]

Posting that was the online equivilant of nailing a sign to your forehead saying "Look at me, I'm a Moron who swallows right-wing propaganda without question". Good job.

How so?

When you refer to "right-wing propaganda", are you referring to the report Negroponte just released?

 

[Tony]

How so?

Because it's old news about unusable weapons released at a time when repubs. need a boost and delivered by a disgraced politician (up for re-election) who is sagging in the polls. This is a PR stunt designed to make them and the blunder of Iraq look good and the people making it are hoping their constituents are too stupid to see through it.

When you refer to "right-wing propaganda", are you referring to the report Negroponte just released?

I'm referring to Fox News and Rick "Santorum on his face" Santorum.

 

[JamesDillon]

I'm referring to Fox News and Rick "Santorum on his face" Santorum.

Santorum was referring to the Negroponte report.

 

[BPSCG]

To which I responded,

Can you explain to those of us who just aren't smart enough to get it how leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent to the press as an act of retribution against a critic of the administration's policy does not undermine national security?

I'm not going to pretend to be a real expert on this whole business, but I believe there appears to be some serious dispute as to whether or not she was in fact undercover, not having been outside the U.S. in five years, in fact working at Langley, if I'm not mistaken. Odd place for an undercover agent to be.

Please don't throw out the red herring of whether a crime was committed. I don't care whether a crime was committed. Even if Rove managed to avoid a technical violation of the law, I'm interested in your defense of the broader question of whether his actions were against the interests of the public in protecting intelligence operations during a time of war, and specifically how those of us who believe that Rove's conduct was in fact detrimental to the national interest are "unhinged."

What foreign intelligence operations during a time of war was she running?

 

[Tony]

Santorum was referring to the Negroponte report.

Ok. It still presented no new information. Not only that but:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.

This is a political ploy designed to buttress support for the war and give the impression that the administration was honest in it's prewar fear mongering about the imminent danger of Saddam's WMD's.

Rick Santorum:

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

Of course, it's significant in your mind you piece of trash because, as a politician, you think it'll make you look good with voters.

I guess he is called the President and the CIA liars:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

http://www.sundayherald.com/33628



As a homorous aside, Fred Barns can apparently read minds:

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.