If Karl Rove is, infact, the leak...

[Stonecutter]

...explain to me how he's not guilty of treason?

[Bond]

"If" being your keyword in that question of course.

[Jonbo298]

Yeah, its all hypothetical but what if that "if" is true....

[Happydude]

anyone want to inform me on wth is going on?

[Professor S]

Ok, here's what happened.

Karl Rove, Bush's key advisor, is being charged with leaking the name of a covert CIA agent who is now married to a former Clinton era ambassador. The leak came from an e-mail in response to an inquiry made by a Washington Post (I think it was the Post) journalist. In this e-mail Rove refers to the agent by last name. The journalist then outed the agent in a column (and how that isn't being investigated, I have NO idea).

There is a law that was put on the books in the early 80's that made it against the law and a treasonous offense to expose the names of covert agents for up to 5 years after they have left covert operations overseas.

Here are the facts:

1) Rove referred to the agent by last name, which may protect him as using last names is a common way of protecting anonymity.

2) At the time that Rove revealed the name, the agent had not been working overseas and when dates are looked at, she had not been overseas for for 6 years. In fact she was in the midst of being given a desk job.

3) Those that have written the law that Rove is accused of breaking have said that there is no evidence that the law was broken.

Now does any of this excuse what Rove did? Hell no, but he'll most likely get away with it. Rove exposed the name because he did not like her or her husband, who was a big supporter of Kerry in 2004 and openly hates the Bush administration. I think Rove should be fired and if Bush has the balls he should fire him. The one thing that I have always liked about Bush, beyond all his obvious faults, is his moral sensibility and strength to do what he said he would do and what he feels is "the right thing". In this situation he needs to stick by those strengths and get rid of Rove, whether or not the law was technically broken.

[Stonecutter]

Strangler nailed all the facts there.

As for:

Originally Posted by The Strangler

The journalist then outed the agent in a column (and how that isn't being investigated, I have NO idea).

I'm pretty sure Novak had every right to use the information given to him by Rove. So long as Rove never said "you can't print this" the blame still falls on Rove.


Thing is, according to one of the Newsweek articles, Rove and Novak have been butt buddies since the 70s, so the info getting out through Novak is probably entirely Rove's doing.

Keep diving on those grenades, Bond.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

Keep diving on those grenades, Bond.

Grenade, Stoney, grenade. Lets lot let things get out of hand and let this incident validate every crazy thing that the Bush administration has been accused of. I could easily bring up numerous scandals under the Clinton administration and use any one of them to justify everything that he was ever accused of and the rediculous empeachment he was put under, but I won't.

Why? Because just because one thing is true, it doesn't mean everything is true. That and I like to think I have some sense.

[Stonecutter]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Grenade, Stoney, grenade. Lets lot let things get out of hand and let this incident validate every crazy thing that the Bush administration has been accused of. I could easily bring up numerous scandals under the Clinton administration and use any one of them to justify everything that he was ever accused of and the rediculous empeachment he was put under, but I won't.

Why? Because just because one thing is true, it doesn't mean everything is true. That and I like to think I have some sense.

It was more a commentary on Bond's unwavering, blind support of anything related to the grand olde party.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

It was more a commentary on Bond's unwavering, blind support of anything related to the grand olde party.

Oh Jesus, here we go... first of all, I simply stated that "if" was your keyword, which it was. I don't believe it has been proven that Rove was "the" leak, and I believe in this country we presume innocence until proven guilty. Now, if Rove was the leak then yes, I believe he should be fired. I believe he should be fired right now infact for being a complete moron to even let this situation start altogether.

[Stonecutter]

Yeah, but rather than actually answer my question the first time, you have to highlight the "if" part of the equation.

I find it quite funny.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

Yeah, but rather than actually answer my question the first time, you have to highlight the "if" part of the equation.

I find it quite funny.

he did answer your question, its because nobody's sure whether or not he is the leak. Therefor he cannot be charged with anything until proof is given.

[Stonecutter]

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

he did answer your question, its because nobody's sure whether or not he is the leak. Therefor he cannot be charged with anything until proof is given.

Uhh, no, he didn't answer my question. My question was and remains.

"If Karl Rove is, in fact, the leak...

.....explain to me how he's not guilty of treason?"

"If Karl Rove is the leak" is not a question. It's a hypothetical statement necessary relative to the actual question which is:

"Explain to me how he's not guilty of treason?"

[Professor S]

I hate when political conversation turns to semantic argument.