York on Rove

The press is making more of this than John Kerry did because John Kerry realized early that Joe Wilson is nuts.

Mrs. Wilson worked in the Counterproliferation Division (CPD).

The special prosecutor has noted that there was no violation of the law concerning CIA agents. The case should have been handled by Ashcroft but here again Bush caved to try to get along with the Democrats. Wilson has been proven wrong on so many things that he did that the Democrat professionals have abandoned him and we are now in the hands of the bloggers and the yellow journalists.

Thanks, Pastor Larry!

 

Expanding on the events related to the waiver Rove signed:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp

Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.

It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify.

 

One thing we know for a fact Rove leaked and
it is important to look back at the past and
see what prominent Republicans had to say:



BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAYS IT WILL NOT TOLERATE LEAKS: "The president does have very deep concerns about anything that would be inappropriately leaked that could in any way endanger America's ability to gather intelligence information, and even that could harm our ability to maintain sources and methods and anything that could interfere with America's ability to fight the war on terrorism." - White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 6/21/02

GEORGE H.W. BUSH CALLED LEAKERS 'TRAITORS': "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - President George H.W. Bush, 4/26/99

RUMSFELD SAID THOSE WHO LEAK SHOULD BE JAILED: "[Leakers] are disgraceful. They're unprofessional. They're dangerous. They put people's lives at risk. I would also add that I think it's the obligation of people who find people leaking to tell responsible authorities because folks that do it and put people's lives at risk ought to be in jail." - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 2/13/03

ASHCROFT SAID LEAKS DAMAGE NATIONAL SECURITY: "Leaks of classified information do substantial damage to the security interests of the nation.” - Attorney General John Ashcroft, 12/14/01, upon creating a task force to investigate government leaks



One simple question: where are these tough talkers now when it comes to Karl Rove?

 

How did Rove know the CIA did not plan to use Wilson's wife covertly again. Do you actually think Rove checked that out before he made his comment to Cooper in that context? Common knowledge often does not know what is covert and we better hope Rove was not operating according to that.If she wanted to work covertly again Rove certainly fixed that didn't he. Rove has a lot of explaining to do to justify identifying anyone publicly that ever was covert. I hardly think agents want to put up with going around wondering what date they are considered officialy covert and what dates their identities can float around. Rove knew better and I think his desire to take a jab back at the Wilson's overroad his commonsense. One things for sure, Wilson's wife can never be used covert again even if they had planned to. In the end it will be no less than a matter of incompetence for Rove.

 

So what?

Even the President does not have the power to demand prosecution of someone who broke no laws.

Why would you fire or even reprimand a person that did nothing wrong?

As a matter of fact, I believe a lot of people owe Rove an apology.

 

Carpro wrote:
"Why would you fire or even reprimand a person that did nothing wrong?

As a matter of fact, I believe a lot of people owe Rove an apology."
-------------------------------------------------

You are assuming Rove did nothing wrong when we know we are far from that conclusion. It is not even clear yet whether Wilson's wife was undercover or not and common knowledge often does not know what is covert. Are you ready to apologize to Rove even when you know he revealed an agents identity that could be used again to operate covertly? Will you apologize for his incompetence? An obvious bias is showing here in favor of Rove.

 

The not so remarkable thing in all this is that liberals are innocent even when they have broken actual laws... like not lying under oath ever- no matter what the topic is.

Yet the implication that a Republican might have done something wrong is the same as a conviction.

One of the apparent problems here that no one seems to be saying much about is that the CIA became politicized under Clinton. They have an ideological agenda that goes beyond loyalty to the US regardless of who the people elect to lead the country.

Due to their ability to remain secretive and shoot guns, this situation is every bit as dangerous as if our military developed and acted upon a political agenda. Much of the military hated Clinton. However, the commanders by and large suppressed expressions of disrespect for Clinton out of respect for the office, government, and ideals of our nation.

The CIA leadership apparently doesn't operate with the same integrity and devotion to country... a very dangerous thing indeed.

 

Larry the so called pastor it does apply and
btw I posted Yorks "blame Matt Cooper angle" a day
ago on another topic..rove has moved on and is
claiming he is a whistle blower now

Their are two roads here the legal and the moral one ..the quotes from prominent republicans
cover those both so it is apropos in relation
to the 2 day old York piece.

Like a demon in his last throes he is trying to
hang on and is lashing out...as for the gland
analogy I thought that was funny perhaps roves
glands are out of water<major gig> over all of this..you reap what you sow Karl.

 

That is precisely what should be done under our system of government.

If it is actually proven that he did any of this then maybe he should be fired or prosecuted.

But you apparently think that the assumption of innocence is a "bias" in "favor of Rove." No one has demonstrated factually that he did anything wrong much less that he knowingly or recklessly did so.

Right now the only "real" thing we have is liberals in politics and the media in a feeding frenzy.

If Rove broke a law then... then again maybe we should hold him to the Clinton standard and understand that he meant well and that anyone would have done the same in a similar situation.

 

posted July 12, 2005 09:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breaking news! now its Matt Coopers fault?
wow! are we getting spin from all sides on this.
One thing I observe is it smart for Roves
Attorney to attack Cooper the day before he
testifies before the grand jury.

Rove needs to take responsibility he is lashing
out in all directions now trying to survive like
a vile demon being exorcised.


http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp


Hey! Karl loose lips sink ships...someone should
yank your security clearance now!

Like I said Larry I posted the York angle two
days ago...the blame Matt Cooper angle to see
if it sticks.

 

Scott J wrote:

"If it is actually proven that he did any of this then maybe he should be fired or prosecuted.

But you apparently think that the assumption of innocence is a "bias" in "favor of Rove." No one has demonstrated factually that he did anything wrong much less that he knowingly or recklessly did so."


Well it is good to hear from a defender of the law instead of anything Bush.
It was an assumption of a conclusion, not of pending innocence. The difference.

We do have Bush supporters in defense mode, that's for sure. The only reason this looks like a feeding frenzy is because of the hold his hand red carpet treatment the media gave Bush and his war for so long. Wasn't it shocking to hear the reporters challenging McClellan, on Rove, the other day? Not used to that, are we?

 

Sexual abuse, rape and perjury can be tolerated but trying to keep a hostile reporter from making a fool of himself is criminal.

 

aren't you the one that claims to be a pastor
but wants to outsource all your congregations
jobs to mexico? kind of hard to beleive but
that is just my opinion.


actually it does the quotes do have relation
to what your 3 day old article.

A few other notes: Luskin declined to say how Rove knew that Plame "apparently" (to use Cooper's word) worked at the CIA. But Luskin told NRO that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument was too legalistic, Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's a detail."

People do not like leakers it is a legal and moral
road and at the least rove should be shown the
door for lieing to the American people..and he
lied to Bush and Scott McClellan.