Why Bush Has to Fire Rove

In a weekend posting I asked if it was time to get ready for the Karl Rove frog-march. The question was prompted by a Newsweek article by reporter Michael Isikoff that disclosed the first documentary evidence showing that Rove revealed to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. In a July 11, 2003, e-mail that Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper sent to his bureau chief, Cooper noted he had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." "Agency" means CIA. This is not good news for Rove and the White House.

The e-mail--which Time had turned over to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the Plame/CIA leak--may not be enough to prompt Fitzgerald to indict Rove. Under the narrowly written Intelligence Identities Protect Act, Fitzgerald would have to show that Rove knew Valerie Wilson (a k a Valerie Plame) was working at the CIA under cover--that is, as a secret employee--which she was. But Fitzgerald still could build such a case upon other evidence. And Rove also could be in legal peril if his previous testimony to Fitzgerald is contradicted by this e-mail--or the other material Time surrendered, over Cooper's objections, to Fitzgerald or by Cooper's forthcoming testimony to Fitzgerald's grand jury. (Last week, Cooper declared his source, presumably Rove, had given him permission to testify before the grand jury.)

But let's put aside the legal issues for a moment. This e-mail demonstrates that Rove committed a firing offense. He leaked national security information as part of a fierce campaign to undermine Wilson, who had criticized the White House on the war on Iraq. Rove's overworked attorney, Robert Luskin, defends his client by arguing that Rove never revealed the name of Valerie Plame/Wilson to Cooper and that he only referred to her as Wilson's wife. This is not much of a defense. If Cooper or any other journalist had written that "Wilson's wife works for the CIA"--without mentioning her name--such a disclosure could have been expected to have the same effect as if her name had been used: Valerie Wilson would have been compromised, her anti-WMD work placed at risk and national security potentially harmed. Either Rove knew that he was revealing an undercover officer to a reporter or he was identifying a CIA officer without bothering to check on her status and without considering the consequences of outing her. Take your pick: In both scenarios Rove is acting in a reckless and cavalier fashion, ignoring national security interests to score a political point against a policy foe.

This ought to get Rove fired--unless he resigns first.

Can George W. Bush countenance such conduct within the White House? Consider what White House press secretary Scott McClellan said on September 29, 2003, after the news broke that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. McClellan declared of the Plame/CIA leak, "That is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his Administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing."

Apparently, it is how the White House operated--or at least how Rove operated. If he violated White House rules (and presidential expectations) that prohibit such skulduggery, he should be booted.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Rove and the Plame/CIA leak, Blair's poodle problem and other in-the-news subjects.

*******

McClellan also maintained at the time that "the president knows" that Rove wasn't involved in the leak. And he said that the allegation that Rove was involved in this leak was "a ridiculous suggestion" and "it is simply not true."

McClellan was wrong. Did that mean that Rove had lied to McClellan about his role in this? That Rove had also lied to Bush? Or was McClellan knowingly misinforming the public? If the latter, then there should be two resignations.

Days later, Bush took a clear stand on the Plame/CIA leak. He said:

There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. If there's leaks out of my Administration, I want to know who it is, and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

According to Cooper's e-mail, Rove did leak classified information, wittingly or not. Did he share that fact with Bush? If McClellan can be believed, Rove did not. If that's true, Bush should dismiss Rove for holding out on him. But it Rove did talk to Bush about his participation in the leak, what did he tell Bush? And what actions did Bush take? Did Rove tell Bush how he had come to know about Valerie Wilson's position at the CIA? Did he disclose to Bush who else knew about it? Did he tell his boss whether anyone else was passing this information to reporters? In the first column that disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA identity, Bob Novak referred to "two" senior Administration officials. So who in addition to Rove might have revealed this information to Novak?

Bush also said at the time that any government official with knowledge of the leak should "come forward and speak out." Rove certainly did not follow that presidential order. He should be pink-slipped for that, too.

But before Rove is cast out of the White House, Bush ought to demand that he come clean and--if he has not done so--tell Bush everything that happened with this leak. Then Bush should "come forward and speak out" and share the details with the American public. And an apology to Valerie and Joseph Wilson would be a nice touch.

Fitzgerald is handling the Plame/CIA leak as a criminal matter, as he should. That's his job. But the leak--whether a crime or not--was serious wrongdoing. The White House has taken no steps to address that in the two years since the leak occurred. But it need not wait for Fitzgerald to conclude his investigation. Rove may end up not guilty of a crime, but he is guilty of significant misconduct. With the disclosure of this smoking e-mail, Bush has no excuse for inaction. Newspaper editorial boards and members of Congress (OK, Democratic members of Congress) ought to be howling for a White House response to the news that its current deputy chief of staff revealed national security information to a reporter in order to discredit a critic. The only appropriate response for such a thuggish infraction of White House policy and common decency would be to send Rove back to Texas.

*******************

IT REMAINS RELEVANT, ALAS. SO DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research.... [I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer.... Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.... Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie."

For more information and a sample, go to www.davidcorn.com. And see his WEBLOG there..

Comments (90)

1. What's going on witg Gov Richardson and his 'leak'? Seems to me that selling China Nuclear Secrets is a bit more controversial then this story.

   Re-Read Chapt 4 of the 9/11 Commission report again. It amazes me that Iraq and Sadaam are mentioned throughout the chapter and all pointing to connections, even the chemcial plant in Sudan that was owned and financed by Sadaam...

   I think this Rove thing goes on all the time but it is made a huge story to go after Bush. If he did it, then get it over with. But if Rove was the only "leak", then why is the NY Times still holding out? It is obvious that Bush gave Rove permission to speak out, so why, if it is a Bush official, has the permission not been given to the NY Times? Maybe because the Times was making up another story and covering thier butts?

   I believe anyone that wants to blog about Iraq, the war on terror and how the US has ruined the war, should be REQUIERED to read the 9/11 report cover to cover. Not just the spin paper and recommendations, but the actual findings. You might find yourselves a bit more angry at the past and current administratives then you think. Especially seeing Sandy Bergers name mentioned throughout the findings and then he steals documents that either could have helped Kerry in the elections or cover up mistakes by Clinton. Just read it before you all call me a neo-con!

   Posted by dancall at 07/11/2005 @ 12:23pm

2. Yeah. I should read the 9/11 Commission report. But just because the government says "this is the truth" doesn't make it so. See Warren Report.

   Posted by deadinsider at 07/11/2005 @ 12:51pm

3. But if Rove was the only "leak", then why is the NY Times still holding out?

   Exactly. You nailed it. It's almost as if an attempt by the Left to attack Bush has backfired.

   From a legal standpoint, it will be difficult to show (absent any new evidence) that Rove knew Plame was a covert CIA agent. I agree that the defense supplied by Rove's attorney isn't strong. However, it leaves him with substantial wiggle room, at least from a legal standpoint.

   I think the Left may be falling into the same trap that snared many anti-Clinton Republicans -- basically, looking for a scandal as a magic bullet as opposed to promoting alternatives to Bush's policies.

   Everything else just muddies up their message.

   Posted by Beausoleil at 07/11/2005 @ 12:56pm

4. If Karl is fired, he'll just continue working on "double super secret background". Just because he may have gotten caught doesn't mean he won't still be effective in stirring up the base. He'll do it with surrogates, which doesn't differ much from his previous modi operandi. His style has always been built on plausible deniability and a degree or two of separation.

   Posted by proudlib at 07/11/2005 @ 1:05pm

5. Dan,

   You know, Republicans just couldn't wait to get Clinton out of office, yet when it's the Republicans in office and they're alleged to be engaged in wrongdoing, all people like you can do is bring up the Clinton administration rather than plausibly defend the in-office Republicans against the allegations being levied at them. It's callow and see-through, man.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/11/2005 @ 1:11pm

6. columns like this one, if one accepts that they represent "the left" in the united states, are evidence of what i often say to people: there is no left in the u.s.! who cares whether rove gets canned?!?

   Posted by tetractys7 at 07/11/2005 @ 1:11pm

7. The thing is:

   Unless there is evidence showing that Rove knowingly leaked the identity of a CIA agent whom he knew was a covert agent, Rove has not broken the law.

   I don't believe that there is evidence out there to prove this, but any real conclusion would be premature. Obviously, if Rove knowingly violated the law, he should resign. It's fairly obvious that Bush won't cut his brilliant strategist loose. Rove will have to decide whether or not to step down. Humble prediction: he won't...there'll be other leaks identified who supplied Plame's name to the press.

   The context of Rove's statement is significant. Rove was explaining to a press contact that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was not ordered by CIA heads or G Tennett (as was alleged), but rather by Wilson's wife, who was an employee of the CIA working in WMD proliferation. The purpose of Rove's communication was to counter Wilson's erroneous claims that there was no truth to the Niger/Uranium story.

   Numerous intelligence reports have confirmed that although the Italian source for the Niger story was a fake, there is credible evidence to suggest that Saddam sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger.

   I'm interested to hear what the other reporters have to say. Until then, almost everything will be pure speculation.

   Posted by Beausoleil at 07/11/2005 @ 1:32pm

8. rove schmove. what could possibly happen top him? deport him? jail him? nfw. the bigger and more salient point for the so-called opposition to bush, is to point out clearly and repeatedly what happens to people who publicly disagree with the bush position. my $0.02..

   Posted by dabar at 07/11/2005 @ 1:37pm

9. Why Does Rove Still Have His Security Clearance? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/11/123651/050#4 Mon Jul 11th, 2005 at 09:36:51 PDT If Karl were anyone else, it would have been taken away the second the WH security office learned about his role in the Plame matter, and he would have been out the door.

   Has he even been questioned about it? If so -- he probably was -- wonder what he said? Was he under oath?

   There may be other crimes here. Lying to the Grand Jury is just one of them. Isn't it time our leaders and the corporate media started asking these questions, too?

   Rove Should Lose His Clearance

   You don't have be indicted to lose your clearance.

   Anyone who presents a threat of unauthorized release of classified materials loses his clearance. There's plenty of cause to believe that in Rove's case. If I were in the WH security office, I would be demanding Rove's keys, right now.

   In fact, if the security office doesn't make that demand, they should be investigated. Anybody in the FBI or SS reading this, please pick up the phone and call your colleagues at 1600 Penn. Remind them to look in the procedures manual.

   Has The WH Security Office Sought Guidance on This?

   The head of that office must be sweating bricks right now. That administrator should have gotten an opinion from the General Counsel's office back in July 2003. I'd love to read it.

   If there is no such opinion letter saying it's okay to keep Karl on, I think it unlikely that the officer who demands Karl's keys would be fired. Think about it. In fact, under these circumstances, it may be mandatory to lift Rove's clearance. I'm sure the procedures book calls for suspension if it is learned that a WH employee has improperly divulged classified information.

   If this issue gets raised by someone in a position of visibility, the White House will have to reveal what efforts have been taken, if any, to guard against further breaches of security. We should all be raising hell about it until someone hears this, and starts asking questions.

   David, can you ask about this?

   Posted by leveymg at 07/11/2005 @ 1:45pm

10. This is another east-to-find example of the untouchable celebrity-like status of politicos. The rules don't apply to people in DC anymore than they apply to athletes. Why must it take an actual law to be broken for someone in the government to lose his/her job? Unethical behavior, and this is undeniably such, would lead to a dismissal from employment for any of us. Why not them?

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/11/2005 @ 1:50pm

11. What is the point of firing Rove. He'd just end up in a high-salaried position with a major DC lobbying firm, and have the same influence on the Bush White House that he currently has. What we really need to do is fire Bush...

    Posted by steve zeoli at 07/11/2005 @ 2:56pm

12. Excellent work David.

    I guess it remains to be seen whether or not "Boy Genius" or "Turd Blossom" the name Bush sometimes would refer to Rove as (this according to Author Lou Dubose) will be Frog-Marching anytime soon?

    Scott McClellan's September 29 statement: "That is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing." The fact is, this is exactly how they operate! And the Main Stream Media as you well know David hasn't done a "DAM" thing about it! The MSM continues to give this mendacious administration a free pass.

    Just take a moment to read these few paragraphs from last Friday's Hardball with Chris Matthews. His guest, reporter Bob Woodward.

    MATTHEWS: And now--now--now, Deep Throat, of course, is a derivation of deep background, which means, I'm not telling you where I got the information in any way.

    So, let's talk about what's going on right now. Judy Miller sits in D.C. jail tonight, apparently sleeping on the floor, according to a report I read in one of the papers today.

    MATTHEWS: Because she won't tell her who her source is in the leak case.

    WOODWARD: Yes.

    MATTHEWS: In the leak case involving Joe Wilson and that trip to Niger.

    WOODWARD: And that case, when I think it is all told, there is going to be nothing to it. And it is a shame. And the special prosecutor in that case, his behavior, in my view, has been disgraceful.

    MATTHEWS: Well, how does he prove...

    WOODWARD: That he has not...

    MATTHEWS: How does he catch the bad guy?

    WOODWARD: Well, he can keep trying. But I think--look, she didn't even write a story. Come on. What are you going to do?

    I mean, did you ever talk to anybody about this case? Why don't we just take the whole damn press corps and line them up and everyone can go to the grand jury or jail, because somebody might have talked to somebody about this?

    MATTHEWS: Well, was this, then, a crime? We're talking about a crime.

    WOODWARD: I don't think there's any crime.

    MATTHEWS: There is a crime on the books now. Just so we know what

    · there is a statute that punishes someone who gives away the undercover identity of an FBI agent.

    WOODWARD: Intentionally, and a law written because Philip Agee back in the '80s was listing all the people who were undercover agents.

    Novak has explained this, Bob Novak, who wrote the original story, and said, he was told this woman, Joe Wilson's wife, was a weapons of mass destruction analyst in the CIA. He called her an operative because that's one of the terms he uses in his column. He didn't know. And...

    MATTHEWS: He uses that word all the time. It is not exactly a fond word, is it?

    WOODWARD: You're an operative.

    MATTHEWS: I was an operative.

    WOODWARD: Yes, right.

    MATTHEWS: Everybody who has ever worked in politics is an operative.

    WOODWARD: Exactly.

    WOODWARD: And so, it turned out she was an operative. This is an accident. I think the judge in the case also should have found some way to balance...

    Posted by Munich at 07/11/2005 @ 3:16pm

13. Kevin, Sorry, Sandy Berger stole the documents and went to trial all within the last year. It is connected to Clinton and or Kerry. Did you not read what I said. If Rove had anything to do with it, get it done now. You see, you are the primary example of looking to pass the blame. If Rove is guilty, then he should get his. Kevin, Sandy Berger STOLE THE HIGHEST CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS. Is that worse than what Rove did...I am not justifying what he did. but why was the Sandy Berger inncident not covered like the Rove case, eh Kevin?

    Posted by dancall at 07/11/2005 @ 3:55pm

14. Tet, Lay off the crack!

    Posted by dancall at 07/11/2005 @ 3:56pm

15. And Kevin, Did we not hear about Bush Sr and Regan's mistakes throughout the last 4 years? Kevin, just history and if you want to continue with living the left revisionist history, please do so. Just bring up a point that John Kerry's right hand man was stealing classified documents that were connected to the CLintons administrations reponse to the terrorists. But I guess that is nothing to what Rove did. by the way, kevin, Rove lost or destroyed the documents. Hmmm...but I guess that is OK?

    Posted by dancall at 07/11/2005 @ 4:00pm

16. This discussion forum quickly devolved into crap. Political strategies setting up Dems v. the GOP or left v. right are fine when there are real issues at stake. However, in this one little corner of the current administration sits a powerful man who has behaved unethically. Whether or not he remains powerful once he is outside but on the edge of the administration is another matter. Whether or not Sandy Berger did this or that is another matter. The ability to focus on long term values is increasingly tough in the current political environment of shouts and insults, but it is the only way we are going to steady this badly listing ship.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/11/2005 @ 4:29pm

17. TJ, you are correct. But if you are going to have a intellectual discussion on ethics, all needs to be exposed, not just one side.

    Posted by dancall at 07/11/2005 @ 4:36pm

18. And TJ, the man who almost won the White House had his right hand man man who stole Documents from the Government. I believe there is relevance...

    Posted by dancall at 07/11/2005 @ 4:40pm

19. Dan,

    Do you think Rove is guilty (please no comments about Berger)? If so, should he go to jail?

    Thanks,

    Nattie

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/11/2005 @ 4:49pm

20. ROVE IS GUILTY. Yes, if he is found guilty then he should go to jail.

    If you are following everything correctly, he will not be found guilty because he did not once tell anyone that she was undercover. Apparently 90% of Bush's Admin that has been inside the CIA knew who she was and that she worked there. Did they know she was undercover, probably not. Rove, yes, but he is playing the symantics games...kinda like, "I did not have sex with that woman"...

    Now, Berger was caught red handed, destroyed documents and did you ever see a blog from the Nation on it? See my point?

    Posted by dancall at 07/11/2005 @ 4:58pm

21. Nattie, Do you think the NY Times actually has a source or is it a cover up and they fell for the trap? I don;t think Rove cares either way because he is smart enough to cover himself. What I do think he did is exposed the media and they fell for his trap, like Beau said earlier.

    Posted by dancall at 07/11/2005 @ 5:02pm

22. Levy and Frank, Sandy Berger was fined $10K and lost his clarence for two years. This is after stealing and loosing documents.

    Mmy question that no one want to touch; which is worse, stealing classified documents connected with the adminstrations response to terrorist activity and who said what, or a man who exposes a CIA operative?

    when you what they did to Berger, Rove is going to get off scott free!

    Posted by dancall at 07/11/2005 @ 5:12pm

23. Sure, Bush should fire Rove. But he won't. Imagine the conversation in the Oval Office:

    W: Karl, I'm sorry, but you've done something that's way, way over the line this time, and I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

    KR: Leave? Leave, George? After all we've been through together? After the stuff I pulled for you in the South Carolina primary, where -- as you knew -- I planted the lie that McCain had fathered a black child? After Florida, where -- with your approval -- I sent a mob of Republican operatives to intimidate the election board into stopping the count? After Ohio, where I fixed things so you'd win even though you lost, and you were so pleased when I told you what I was going to do? After the dozens of dirty tricks and illegalities I pulled with your approval?

    No, George, I don't think it's time for me to leave. But if I go, I'll be taking you down with me.

    Posted by pstamler at 07/11/2005 @ 5:26pm

24. Dan:

    The reason the Berger story has no traction is because Democrats lost the election. Everyone everywhere thinks Rove is better news than Berger. If Rove were setting a trap, I think he would have done so a lot sooner. But if it is a trap, it's definitely working to shift light away from Bush's disastrous performance in Iraq. However, focus remains on the administration's incompetence, which will also reflect poorly on the administration's efforts in Iraq.

    In fact, if there is something concrete behind these allegations and Rove is even charged with a crime, I think Bush's legacy is in serious doo-doo. I don't care as much personally about whether Rove is able to avoid jail time as I do to the effective neutering of the Bush agenda. He may get himself out of prison with a semantic argument, but Bush will look bad for not having put his foot down early on.

    Bush will by no means retreat from pushing his agenda on America, as he has demonstrated in the past. We will probably see radical SC nominees as a way to solidify his support. After all, no right-wing conservatives would now show their hand and support Gonzales. And because his base covets Thomasian SC judges, they will likely support him despite his ethical lapses. Then again, many Republican Congressional leaders up for re-election couldn't survive the scandal, so hopefully they divide the party.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/11/2005 @ 5:34pm

25. Hi David,

    Like your style--keep 'em on their toes. Hopefully we'll find out what lying chickenhawk allows a woman to go to jail for, er...not writing anything.

    Ben

    Posted by lekkerkerk at 07/11/2005 @ 6:47pm

26. Is double-super-secret background like double-secret probation?

    Posted by 1howardt at 07/11/2005 @ 7:00pm

27. David

    Great piece ... I only hope we get to see Rove marching out of the White House, head down in disgrace ...

    Check out The Garlic's take on it

    Rove Said To Be "Under Pressure" Over Leak Accusation

    Key Bush Strategist Shows "Erratic Behavior" As Critics, Press Call For Admission

    Blog: The Garlic Post: Wednesday 6 July 2005 Link: http://puregarlic.blogspot.com/2005/07/wednesday-6-july-2005.html

    FYI Peace JTD

    Posted by JTD at 07/11/2005 @ 7:18pm

28. Dean Wormer?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/11/2005 @ 7:26pm

29. Rove's behavior was made acceptable among some republicans and most neocons no doubt back in the Reagan/Bush days...we can't forget Iran Contra when forgetting and lying became the norm. Perhaps Watergate was the real blossoming period. What short memories voters have. This Iraq mess began to fully come together about this time as well.

    Rove and his lawyer have had plenty of time to cook up some half wit story. Rove must go if nothing else get him off the payroll however he'll be in the back room cuz GW Bush is in love with they way Rove does his thinking for him. GW is too lazy to think for himself. The bottom line is how long have Cheney and Bush been withholding information and lying to the public...but hell they lie to the public every day about something.

    The war against the middleast probaly began when Standard Oil(Exxon) got booted out of Iran when the Shah went down. Oil companies can't take no for an answer.

    Posted by merrill at 07/11/2005 @ 7:49pm

30. Bush can't fire Rove. The worker cannot fire the boss. And Rove won't quit. He'll counter-attack, spin, lie, find a virgin White House intern to take a fall, or personally assasinate one of the groundskeepers and frame Cheney for it to distract us. Or we'll nuke North Korea. But Rove won't quit. After all, did We quit after the Germans bombed Peal Harbor?

    Posted by 1howardt at 07/11/2005 @ 8:49pm

31. Poor Dancall...just can't seem to get over the fact that Clinton's impeachment didn't work, as the Senate acquitted. To equate Sandy Berger's theft of documents from the archives with outing an undercover CIA agent is quite a stretch...especially in view of the fact there's no evidence the documents were ever used. Seems to echo the efforts of the Nixon Administration to establish some sort of moral/legal equivalence for their Watergate escapades with Daniel Ellsberg's conveying the Pentagon Papers to the NYT. Rove is a brilliant, master propagandist, and judging from what is known about him, a complete sociopath. He'll do and say ANYTHING to push his/BushCo's agenda. I don't think he'll resign or be fired...I'd much rather seem him frog-marched out of the WH in shackles, tried, convicted and sent away for a l-o-o-o-o-n-g time...say to Guantanamo, or Egypt or Syria -- some REAL extraordinary rendition! Our country is being run by an organized crime syndicate that makes the Mafiosi look like rank amateurs. The Rove/Plame matter is small but important potato-chips in the overall scheme of our double-time march down the same path taken in 1930s Weimar/Germany & Italy. We're WAY down that road, and to ignore that history just may lead to the death of our democratic republic. And that's not a right-left, Democrat-Republican issue for me...it's an American issue!

    Posted by bobwalters at 07/11/2005 @ 9:29pm

32. Uh, the wing nuts from the right are interfering with a decent conversation. Lap dogs for Reagan, Bush and hatemongers concerning the Clintons are still lurking about, spewing their filth by excusing the smirking chiomp and his criminal cabal. Just ignore these idiots. We do not need to discuss anything with them, some positions deserve nothing more than a sneer and a jeer. They are lost to the world as they have forsaken the ability to discern reality from their fictions...

    Posted by Doug Petro at 07/11/2005 @ 10:17pm

33. I can't wait to see how this whole scenario is resolved. Let's see, Bush can't do anything re Rove yet because he's scared to sleep in the dark all by himself and Rove is so round and plump and cozy. oh, dear, here I am thinking ahead of myself... Bush can't lose his brain not right now - he needs a little time ... seriously, Rove has endangered lives and is subj to being punished. he's actually covering for Bush (the leaker) and they're all wringing their hands trying to figure out how to get out of this one. God might just say 'no' this time. YES!!! JBS

    Posted by tstowe at 07/11/2005 @ 10:27pm

34. I don't believe Rove will even apologize for his in-discretion let alone be put on trial for it.Politicians have an eerie way of avoiding laws and rules.

    Posted by BusyHands at 07/11/2005 @ 11:20pm

35. Wilson's erroneous claims that there was no truth to the Niger/Uranium story. Beausoleil has been drinking the Kool-Aid. The Niger story was proven false and the documents were proven to be forgeries. So Beausoleil thinks those WMDs are still going to show up somewhere. I think he should enlist and go look for them.

    Posted by sarik at 07/11/2005 @ 11:21pm

36. Look, according to the American Prospect, Rove lied to the FBI. He's going down. If Martha can go to jail for lying about something she was never convicted of, I think Rove can be jailed for lying about a matter of national security. There's still one or two other Bushco players who are involved. I wouldn't be surprised if it were the "War President" himself...up late one night making phone phone calls with Karl...they probably even sent a couple of pizzas to the Wilsons.

    Posted by sarik at 07/11/2005 @ 11:29pm

37. Not a big fan of either mainstream party (though I certainly think GOP is more ethically challenged and is motivated more by greed, they just exhibit less (no) guilt).

    Knowingly or not, Rove used journalists to promote propaganda as well as disseminate information critical of the white house's WMD lies. He compromised the cover of a well established CIA operation that was collecting intellingence on REAL WMD THREATS in order to promote a justification for war that had NO FACTUAL BASIS.

    This is a serious breach of national security all by itself (regardless of who said what, when) and should outrage people from every political background. I don't understand (or pretend to take seriously) the attitude that "if our side did it, that makes it OK". It doesn't because it undermines my safety, your safety, and the safety of all americans. My heroes have always done for others before they do for themselves. This act was indefensible under any pretext. How does it help any american to be more poorly informed about threats to our security?

    This really isn't an issue of rooting for your favorite team, because we're all losers in this case.

    Posted by whatever at 07/12/2005 @ 01:54am

38. BlogBlogBlog... It's the same all over. Will a Rove outing change things? Maybe yes, probably no. But it serves a point to pursue this. As we see in the London bombings, the Theo van Gogh murder et.al., the issue is the breaking of laws, NOT Islamic fundamentalism, not inter-ethnic politics, not religion. These latter are mere covers, attempts to divide. If we are to be anything, let us be purveyors of the rule of law. We don't need to be paragons, examples, beacons of light. Our laws and our willingness to endorse them will be sufficient. If you commit murder, then you are to be tried as such. Terrorists? Damn, we don't know who planted the London bombs, extreme right, al Qaeda, MI5. The Madrid bombers, we assume, are all dead, as are the 9/11 hijackers. Who is there, and who is behind this? We take it all on faith. The issue then remains, what is the crime, and how should it be punished?

    Posted by harto733 at 07/12/2005 @ 03:38am

39. What I was trying to say, I see such a rush to assign the blame of the London bombings, with the attendant backlash in the trashing of mosques. If we jump without aforethought on the anti-Islamic bandwagon, then Karl Rove and his policies (far worse than the man himself) will have won. Personally, if possible, I say fry him!

    Posted by harto733 at 07/12/2005 @ 03:44am

40. Why doesn't anyone consider that Bush himself was behind the leak, and Rove was following his orders? Rove might not have had clearance to know that Plame was undercover, but Bush certainly did. It is too easy to attribute the leak to Bush's right hand man, but Rove would not have done this without an ok. BUSH MUST GO.

    Posted by kkies at 07/12/2005 @ 08:07am

41. As Proudlib says - even if Rove is found guilty and ousted he with morph into a "super secret being" and still ply his trade of deception. The guy needs to be jailed in order to shut him up.

    Posted by osprey at 07/12/2005 @ 08:58am

42. As Proudlib says - even if Rove is found guilty and ousted he will morph into a "super secret being" and still ply his trade of deception. The guy needs to be jailed in order to shut him up.

    Posted by osprey at 07/12/2005 @ 09:28am

43. Excellent piece, well written, concise. Thank you for making the issues crystal clear.

    Even Bush bows to some pressure, and he may no longer be able to protect Rove or himself from this one.

    Posted by rpeate at 07/12/2005 @ 10:02am

44. David Corn, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. The left is going to start their argument with the caveat of "setting aside the legal issues," and then settle for the demand that Rove be fired? By leaving it to the prosecutor, you are accepting the White House line. By saying that Rove be fired, you are accepting the Fox News Line.

    The White House is on extremely thin ice when they say that Rove did not violate the law because he did not "name" the agent, but merely pointed out who the agent's husband is. It is a crime for someone in government to identify a CIA agent, regardless of how you do it. Judas was betrayed with a kiss. I think that journalists are just too cowed to ask the question, why isn't Karl Rove in jail? (For a good breakdown of the law, see Daily Kos. [dailykos.com]

    The President is too close to this to avoid possible charges himself. Rove says Bush ordered him to give a waiver a year ago. Well, why didn't he fire him then? And instead of a waiver to allow the reporters to disclose the source, why leave us in suspense, why didn't they simply publicly admit what Rove did? What, they simply ran out of reporters to leak to?

    Posted by acquit at 07/12/2005 @ 10:03am

45. Since when is exposing the identity of a covert CIA agent not a crime? Rove obviously did this with malace aforethought out of spite/revenge of the husband's criticism of Bushes illegal war on Iraq. The exposure of this despicable act by Rove casts doubts towards our Commander-in-Chief, who undeniably had to have given the go-ahead.

    The lies and dirty tricks of this administration are too numerous to even guess at. They're endangering the lives of their own people. WHERE does it end? I conject that it won't unless Congress acts to impeach the bunch of them.

    Posted by uglyduck at 07/12/2005 @ 10:19am

46. I know what should happen to the whole lot of traitors that infest the White House. Not being gothic, but what should happen to them is what awaited the founders, if England had of captured them before the end of the revolution. England's method of dealing with treason was barbaric; but, what is sending thousands to their deaths, not to mention the maiming of tens of thousands, all for political and personal aggrandizement, if not barbaric.

    Posted by hamblett at 07/12/2005 @ 10:26am

47. The Niger story was proven false and the documents were proven to be forgeries.

    This statement is simply not true. Britain's Butler Report on prewar intelligence (2004) concluded that reports that Iraqi agents sought significant quantities of uranium from Niger (and possibly the D.R. of Congo) were "well-founded" and "credible".

    It's important to note that Britain had reached this conclusion using information from a variety of foreign intelligence services (and not simply from the Italian forgeries). What's more, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that meetings b/w officials from Iraq and Niger did, in fact, take place.

    Even Niger's former leader, Prime Minister Mayki, interpreted his meeting with Iraqi officials as an effort to engage in future unranium deals.

    Let's be frank: Niger exports little other than uranium.

    So, it's not that I've been "drinking the Koolaid" -- I've simply taken the time to keep up with the facts.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 07/12/2005 @ 11:06am

48. I think the democrats should offer Karl some therapy and understanding during this difficult time for him. For outing a CIA operative, he's just as effective as any terrorist.

    Posted by FrankWill at 07/12/2005 @ 11:19am

49. The White House is on extremely thin ice when they say that Rove did not violate the law because he did not "name" the agent....

    Posted by ACQUIT 07/12/2005 @ 10:03am

    Rove and the WH now finds itself in the same position that Bill Clinton was in: splitting legal, semantic hairs: It depends on "is" "is" vs. how you define "naming an agent".

    Posted by FrankWill at 07/12/2005 @ 11:23am

50. As Proudlib says - even if Rove is found guilty and ousted he will morph into a "super secret being" and still ply his trade of deception. The guy needs to be jailed in order to shut him up.

    Posted by OSPREY 07/12/2005 @ 09:28am

    And where is Karen Hughes today?: The Yin to Rove's Yang.

    Posted by FrankWill at 07/12/2005 @ 11:25am

51. On the legal aspects:

    Judging from the evidence currently available, Rove has not broken the law. Mr. Corn rightly notes that the bar is set relatively high for the IIP Act. In fact, a jurist who helped draft the law admits that Rove hasn't committed any crime (see -- cringe -- today's NY Times).

    Reporters are having a field day with Scott McClellan and the White House's evasiveness (as they should -- it's their job). However, I don't think this is the magic bullet or "blank"-gate the Left craves. Unlike Watergate and the Lewinski scandal, there was no violation of the law as it stands.

    Hopefully, this whole ordeal will shed light on the veracity of the Niger/uranium story.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 07/12/2005 @ 11:36am

52. Rove definitely will not be fired, and he likely will not resign. The Bush Administration will wait this out and let the fire burn itself out (i.e. wait until the media gets fixated on another story). As far as strategy, this has been the administration's M.O. since the beginning. In two weeks, all will be forgotten about this so-called scandal, because something else will have grabbed the media's attention, and the Bushies will rest easy and laugh about the gullibility of the American public. Only if Rove gets indicted will the story re-ignite. Right now, I put the odds of that happening at around 10 percent.

    Posted by wmkostak at 07/12/2005 @ 12:03pm

53. to those of you who want to question wilson's work or findings: it's not relevant to this matter. or do you prefer irrelevant? regardless, i do realize that it may be hard to separate the outrage of a diffence of opinion from that of say, colin "the untouchable liar" powell (perhaps it is his deep soothing, almost hypnotic voice...?), with that of the majority of the planet--but nevertherless the issue is, was, and will be about the actions of the bush administration. period. please keep in mind that although it may be disturbing to y'all to differ in view from that of this cabal, 'tis not ILLEGAL.

    but then, what's more important than this particular cover-up matter is the general behavior of the administration when it encounters questions, thoughts, views, positions, etc, that differ from their party line. there is concrete evidence of this: helen thomas.

    rove is not going to jail,(anyway, i'd be shocked) nor any others. but that should not stop the opposition from reminding the american public often and loudly that this president, and his people, are vehemently opposed to reason and discourse -- two concepts that are intrinsic to democracy. remember THAT concept.....?

    Posted by dabar at 07/12/2005 @ 12:34pm

54. there was no mistake in Roves action. President Bush was still very popular in early - mid 03. Rove saw Wilsons essay as an attack against the president in wartime. All's fair in love and war. He felt, perhaps correctly, it was his patriotic duty. Keep in mind how the dixie chicks were the most hated people in America with their remarks about the president at a concert. This was the atmosphere all over the country. Of course, a year later remarks like that were commonplace

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 07/12/2005 @ 1:07pm

55. if there were an ethical standard in washington, they'd all be fired. give me a list of undercover cia agents. i'll out them all.

    Posted by Jason Rhodes at 07/12/2005 @ 1:14pm

56. to those of you who want to question wilson's work or findings: it's not relevant to this matter. or do you prefer irrelevant?

    Actually, it is relevant to the matter at hand. When dealing with hearsay -- and this is hearsay twicefold -- nothing is more important than the context in which the statement was made.

    The allegation is that the "outting" of Ms. Plame was retaliatory in nature. This was not the case. Rove was attacking Wilson's credibility in matters of wmd proliferation by insisting that his trip to Niger was not authorized by George Tennett or Cheney. He also maintained that there was still plenty of truth to the Niger-Uranium story.

    Wilson lied when he said that his wife hadn't gotten him the assignment. The truth is that she threw her underemployed husband a bone.

    Plame's covert status is somewhat controversial. If her identity was so seceret, why was her name published in an online bio of Joe Wilson?

    Lastly, you really have to wonder who Judith Miller is protecting. It ain't Rove.

    We'll know soon enough.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 07/12/2005 @ 1:35pm

57. King Karl will suffer no censure at the hands of any Republican. Rove is the rabbi of the new Republicanism! This man engineered a national campaign based on "moral values" while employing bold-faced liars to attack oponents, orchestrating Republican governors' purging of likely democrats from voter rolls, and organizing zealots to violate election laws all across America. Laws are only for the "little people." No wrong by Rove will be recognized by the White House. No one in this administration is running for reelection. Republican incumbents in Congress won't cross Karl for fear of what he could unleash against them in their next primary races. Rove's one weakness is to the power behind the throne. If the deep pockets being filled by the Republicans in power perceive KR's predicament as a threat to their plunder of the public coffers, then Rove will be purified by pain.

    The only wild card that can be played possibly rests with prosecutor Patrick. If Fitzgerald garners enough for a criminal indictment, KR's dirty tricks may not be able to save him from the reckoning.

    Posted by Tin Man at 07/12/2005 @ 1:37pm

58. Beau:

    As the law stands, Rove could easily be indicted for a crime and possibly convicted. If the Newsweek story is true, then it is clear that Rove identified Plame as a CIA agent. Whether or not he knew she was undercover is the only relevant barrier to Rove's conviction. If he was aware that she was undercover as a "desk" agent at CIA then he should be convicted. He will obviously argue that he was unaware of her status, and his emails give that story an air of credibility. However, given his position in the administration and his obvious ability to determine whether she was undercover, it may be circumstantially shown that he violated the statute.

    If he were indicted, that would be disastrous for the administration. The prosecutor would likely present evidence of his dastardly deeds throughout his prior work on Bush 1's campaign, Bush 2's Texas campaign, and both of Bush's presidential campaigns. If a bright light is shown on his tactics, the credibility of the administration will fall off a precipice.

    I as a liberal am hoping he gets indicted. It's about time after his endless destructive shenanigans which have hurt America.

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 1:43pm

59. Rove was defending Bush the way a soldier would defend a brother in arms. shoot first ask questions later. wilson was attackinga war time president, endangering the troops and the country.

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 07/12/2005 @ 2:47pm

60. yeah sorry, perhaps i should be more clear: by "relevance" here i speak to big picture issues. plame, wilson, wmd, saddam, axis of the willing to be misled...YAWN...it's fairly well known that saddam was not a threat to our security, there were no connections other than "cavorting" with "terrorists" (a word with no meaning now), and that bush was hell-bent on attacking the those poor oil holding terrorist cavorters well prior to 9/11. they made it up, the national media went along, and here we are. but of course, wilson is not on trial, the bush administration is--therefore relevance--unless rove's defense is: "he made me do it". maybe that'll fly?

    but for the left, i just think that we've been unable to place the conservative movement's movements into a context that explains it for what it is, as mick jagger prophesized: "all secrecy and no privacy". or if you prefer, the solidification of the national security state as a substitute for representational government.

    Posted by dabar at 07/12/2005 @ 3:21pm

61. Kevin, You said "Republicans just couldn't wait to get Clinton out of office, yet when it's the Republicans in office and they're alleged to be engaged in wrongdoing....." Dude, there is a huge difference between Clinton's scandal with Lewinsky and this Rove thing. A BJ is NOT an issue of National Security; Rove's leakage is! Stop hiding behind a man's infidelity (and subsequent lie) to distract from the Bush admin's lies and deceptions.

    Will Rove resign/get fired? Probably not. The R's have become experts at covering and ignoring, lying and spinning. This will just be another challenge for them.

    Posted by marissa21 at 07/12/2005 @ 3:32pm

62. On 7/12/05, Lester wrote: Rove was defending Bush the way a soldier would defend a brother in arms. shoot first ask questions later. wilson was attackinga war time president, endangering the troops and the country.

    So what are we doing now, an eye for an eye? Rove endangered Plame/Wilson and her connects.

    And shoot first ask questions later? Yeah, there's a policy we should endorse!

    Posted by marissa21 at 07/12/2005 @ 3:42pm

63. The Bush Administration may not have an exit strategy for Iraq, but you can bet they're working their buns off trying to figure out how they can keep from having to work out an exit strategy for old Turd Blossom. When the Iraqi army stands up, Rove will stand down???

    Posted by nathanhale at 07/12/2005 @ 4:26pm

64. "At the time of Rove's conversation with Cooper, Wilson had accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq." Associated Press, July 12, 2005.

    "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Downing Street Memo, July 23, 2002.

    So Wilson was correct in saying what he said. He was looking out for our interests. Who was Rove looking out for?

    Posted by marissa21 at 07/12/2005 @ 4:33pm

65. marissa- wilson wasn't leading a country into war in foreign land. He didn't have the fate of two nations in his hands

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 07/12/2005 @ 4:59pm

66. Mr. Corn, With regards to your unseemly attack on Karl Rove: Why do you continue to participate in character assassination? Aren't there enough good and talented men yet that you haven't trashed and "brought down" to get the "axe to grind" you apparently have in your system satisfied? How many more talented and good people are you going to trash? Your blog and your article in this nation are despicable. It's representative of everything that's wrong with politics today. If the pope were President and also a Republican, you'd find a way to call him a liar. I believe wholeheartedly that when one man trashes another's character, it usually says more about the character of the person making the attack than it does about the target of the attack.

    Posted by mpjmcnr at 07/12/2005 @ 6:00pm

67. Nothing makes me laugh harder about the truly miserable state of things with the red half of this country than to see the likes of MPJMCNR get all indignant about character assassination. Nothing! This is a bunch of people who honestly DO NOT KNOW the meaning of bald hypocrisy. That any American who calls him/herself a Bush-supporting conservative would have the breathtaking gall to throw around charges of character assassination is laughable beyond all definitions of laughable. Delusion on that scale is high art. This garbage from an ideological ilk who saw nothing whatsoever wrong with the $55 million Clinton character assassination, with rigged elections, with the cartoon-like Swift Boat Veterans episode, with lies that start wars and kill people, with Halliburton raping the American taxpayer, with nearly $9 billion dollars gone missing on the thieving CPA's watch........on and on it goes.

    And yet the MPJMCNRs of the world have the astonishing, unparalleled gall to sign onto some blog and decry character assassination. Unbelievable. If you live long enough, you really do see everything. When's the next meeting of your chapter of the Flat Earth Society, MPJMCNR? I'd like to be there to watch the tragicomedy play out! You people are like something out of a John Waters movie.

    Posted by mewsician at 07/12/2005 @ 6:33pm

68. any conservatives who haven't read wilsons original essay should do so. I think you'll be fairly shocked. he's not any left wing bomb thrower. it's called "what I didn't find in Africa" or something

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 07/12/2005 @ 6:43pm

69. can someone help me out here ... maybe I just wasn't paying attention or I was just caught up in something, but if Robert Novak originally printed the leak ... why isn't he in jail?

    Posted by IoNomis at 07/12/2005 @ 6:48pm

70. and one other thing ... investigaton this, investigation that ... Rove is guilty ... did he not admit guilt? what do they have investigate? that perhaps his tone wasn't F Sharp and therefore not any noticeable english dialect at the time, but rather the distortion of the phone coupled with the blahblahblah .... im just so appalled ...

    Posted by IoNomis at 07/12/2005 @ 7:20pm

71. SUBJECT: Getting Around McClellans "I Plead the Ongoing Criminal Investigation" BS

    McClellan is clearly using the claim "The investigators have asked that we not comment about this until the investigation is complete" to duck direct questions that have nothing to do with the investigation and everything to do with accountability. I would say the best way to get around this would be simply....

    Contact the investigator, prosecutor (or whoever this was he was claiming to have recieved this instruction from) and get him to go on the record as to what the White House can discuss (opinions, reactions, etc) WITHOUT compromising the investigation. Then you can go in to the Press Room & say:

    "You previously stated you were not going to answer any questions about Karl Rove because of your desire to cooperate with those involved in the criminal investigation. Chief Investigator stated specifically, and I quote 'The White House is welcome to answer any questions pertaining to X,Y,Z. They can certainly answer whether or not the President will make good on his previous claim to fire anyone involved in the outing of Valerie Plame. Answering these questions will in no way impede our investigation.' Now that we've got that straighted out, will the President follow through on his promise to fire anyone involved in the outing or not?"

    What do you think?

    PS: Great job on Democracy Now! this morning!

    Posted by KingsRook5 at 07/12/2005 @ 7:30pm

72. In McClellan's statement to the media in which he said that Karl Rove was not involved in the scandal, McClellan again and again denied that the administration had any knowledge about the Plame scandal other than media reports. He said that the reason that the White House did not do an independent investigation of the Plame scandal was because the administration had no specific information besides anonymous reports that would suggest that anybody in the administration was involved. Rove also said that the President had asked anybody involved to step forward. Now out comes this Newsweek document saying that Rove clearly did speak with reporters about Plame before the Novak article was even published.

    There are a couple obvious explanations for this: either Rove lied to the administration to cover their asses, or McClellan lied to the public to cover the administration's ass.

    Regardless of whether Rove is guilty of a crime, can't we already prove that there have been serious ethical lapses by the Bush administration in this scandal?

    Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/12/2005 @ 7:59pm

73. I still don't understand why novak was able to publish without legal recourse but Miller is in jail and the other guy testified without sentencing .... WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT ROBERT NOVAK such that he can skirt the law? Im hoping someone will answer

    Posted by IoNomis at 07/12/2005 @ 8:01pm

74. Heard today on All Things Considered- "The flap over Rove could get in the way of the president's agenda" Let's not flush the turd blossom yet.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/12/2005 @ 9:27pm

75. MPJMCNR- It's OK when Karl Rove makes a career of character assassination but any criticism of him is some how out of bounds. Saying so isn't based on conjecture. It is well documented. Just not by Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Those vampires can't see themselves in the mirror either.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/12/2005 @ 9:35pm

76. It would be a mistake to focus on the illegality of Rove's actions. The legal standard is very high and Rove has too many outs. For me, what resonates most about the Time emails is that Rove was intimately involved in spinning the mainstream media on the existence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. Rove is a political operative who should have no role in matters of war and security. Given how used to the Bush administration's m.o. since 2001 the public and media has become -- it seems naive and goofy to focus on this point. But it is no coincidence that the American people (and congress) was led into war with Iraq based on false claims and that Karl Rove was managing the presentation of these claims.

    Posted by pragmatist at 07/12/2005 @ 11:06pm

77. MEWSICIAN - Your response to my note to Mr. Corn only illustrates the point further..The political discourse on the left has sunk so low that gone are facts, logic and reason and here - apparently to stay - are innuendo, invective, and impugning the motives of your opponents, including Karl Rove. Why surely no Republican could actually get elected in this country because more than half the populace agrees with him. The "red half of the country" (over 140 million souls by the way) must be a bunch of Neanderthals in a "miserable state." They must an "ideological ilk" led by a group of "character assassins" who won with rigged elections" and "cartoon like..episodes" that gave them an unfair advantage. This is playground chatter - like crying to an opponent: "You're ugly, and you're mother dresses you funny!" after losing a softball game.

    To PROUDLIB I'd like to say that criticism of Karl Rove is not out of bounds, but I think trashing his character without facts or proof clearly is. Just because he may have made a dismissive statement to a reporter (if in fact that is what he did) does not demonstrate that he had a desire or intent to reveal the CIA operative's name to the public. That's the facts as they are known. And Mr. Corn certainly didn't base his article on documented facts. I think that when those on the left such as Mr. Corn are finally ready to begin a real, honest debate in the arena of ideas - minus the personal attacts and bile is the day that some valued discussion will begin.

    Posted by mpjmcnr at 07/12/2005 @ 11:34pm

78. This is not the first time doubts of WMDs were dismissed: http://news.orb6.com/stories/washpost/20050401/a17211_2005mar31.php They so much wanted the Iraq war. Oh how they lied to get it possible. Oh how Bush deserves impeachment. As for the war on terrorism Iraq is a complete failure: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7643286 Republicans fail to support the troops: http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/07/dnc_research_re.php

    Posted by DSM at 07/13/2005 @ 07:06am

79. It's clear that Rove did not break the law...indeed did not get even close. Breaking the law in question requires "outing" an undercover agent. Plame had an overt day job...clearly not undercover. Also, Rove didn't even use her hame.

    What David Corn and all the Bush-haters are missing is that the story was about Joe Wilson and what was really behind his being sent to Africa...namely nepotism and political cronyism.

    This story could have a surprise boomerang effect and come back to hurt Rove's detractors when Wilson's lies become more well known to the public.

    http://blog.rossputin.com [blog.rossputin.com]

    Posted by Rossputin at 07/13/2005 @ 08:38am

80. I lean more toward the right than the left and voted Libertarian in the presidential election last year. I don't think GWBush is evil and dishonest as likely most here believe. But all that said, I agree w/ Corn's column here and think Rove needs to go. I think Corn's right that even if Rove didn't know that Plame was undercover, he should have checked before referring to her as CIA to a reporter. And Rove's "I didn't know her name...I didn't use her name" defense is weak.

    Posted by bendm at 07/13/2005 @ 09:39am

81. Lester wrote: "marissa- wilson wasn't leading a country into war in foreign land. He didn't have the fate of two nations in his hands".

    I'm confused by this statement. Are you implying that b/c the Administration was leading our country into war in a foreign land that they have some kind of permission to do underhanded things? But then that's the mentality that accepts the Abu Gharib abuses.

    Posted by marissa21 at 07/13/2005 @ 10:38am

82. marissa21- yes. and abu graib was also justified because they were trying to get terrorists to talk. It's only because they used weird psychological stuff that makes people feel awkward talkign about it that they got in trouble. No one in america or the arab street is particularly upset about renditions, even though they are much more brutal. No one cares about terorists human rights. They have none. scum have no rights. But people freak out over the "staring at goats" type weirdness. Tha's a book "staring at goats describing dumb/weird army stuff. Like when they played nancy Sinatra to the Waco people and got Charlton Hston to say stuff to them. That stuf is wack. I'm more into waterboarding

    Posted by lester1/2jr at 07/13/2005 @ 12:06pm

83. PLEASE READ: No one has answered my question, and I am still curious - I still don't understand why novak was able to publish without legal retribution but Miller is in jail and the other guy testified without sentencing .... WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT ROBERT NOVAK such that he can skirt the law? Im hoping someone will answer

    Posted by IoNomis at 07/13/2005 @ 12:10pm

84. IONOMIS, the reason Novak isn't in jail is because merely printing the information given him about an operative is not the same as being the person who spilled the information to the reporter. That's a basic tenet of a free press - you can't hold reporters responsible for printing what people tell them. And there's even money riding on the fact that Novak cooperated fully, when first asked, with the grand jury and told them everything he knows. Therefore he's not in the hot seat, as Miller and Cooper are/were.

    Posted by mewsician at 07/13/2005 @ 1:49pm

85. Along with their sudden outrage over character assassination, another entertaining moment in dealing with Bush/Rove supporters like MPJMCNR is when they begin pontificating about a dearth of fact in the dialogue. This a crowd who happily accepts that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks. The same crowd who thinks that cutting taxes on wealthy people somehow magically helps them. The rabid rabble who sits by and watches - if they're even paying attention to such mundane things, which usually they are not - while partisan hacks rewrite science so it will suit their business-friendly agenda. The same people who have made 10 years' worth of hay over the "I didn't inhale" statement yet now unquestioningly accept a vicious, lying toad like Karl Rove defending himself with the hilarious claim that because he referred to Valerie Plame merely as "Wilson's wife," he is not guilty of revealing her identity.

    The simple truth is that the MPJMCNRs of the country do not now - and never in their lives ever have - understand the principle of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." They are missing the gene that dictates to right-thinking people that you cannot have one set of rules for "your side" and another set for everyone else. It's called hypocrisy. Learn about it. And maybe, in the process, you will also stumble across some techniques in recognizing fact from fiction (still watching Fox News, are you?), in recognizing the difference between hearing what you WANT to hear and hearing what is factually SO, in something called "vetting" of sources that will prevent you from calling something a fact when it is anything but. Good luck. From what I've seen, I doubt many of those 140 million souls to which you refer are up to the challenge. And while your ilk has always been part of the American landscape and always will be, this time, it's personal. Because in your haze of self-delusion and your bloated sense of entitlement to a permanent Republican governing majority, you're taking the rest of us down with you.

    Posted by mewsician at 07/13/2005 @ 2:03pm

86. Let me put it another way: after two decades of some of the dirtiest life- anc career-destroying tricks in the annals of American politics - from Reagan to Rove - your side has not got a leg to stand on when you get on a blog like this one, MPJMCNR, and start wailing about name-calling, a dearth of facts, and derision for your opponents. What a nerve you have even suggesting such a thing.

    Posted by mewsician at 07/13/2005 @ 2:09pm

87. Republicans are fiercely defending Rove for these reasons: 1) Without his slime tactics to win elections, what do they have? 2) They have a canine loyalty to each other. 4) They would have to admit mistakes. 5) They're scared by Bush's sinking approval ratings. 6) Bush can't afford a lobotomy right now.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/13/2005 @ 3:37pm

88. Are we living in BIZZARO WORLD or what?! We know for a fact that the country's Deputy Chief of Staff divulged classified national security information and it's not even a top news story. Didn't we impeach a sitting President for lying about fooling around with his intern? We know Karl lied and it's possible that Bush II is hiding knowledge about this serious national security issue too. Today the President said that he won't "prejudge" the outcome until the federal investigation is completed. Are you kidding me??! Isn't this the same guy who invaded an entire country rather than wait for the conclusion of weapons inspections?

    If Karl Rove has the fabled "Yankee White" clearance then according to Wikipedia he has "access to any information … regardless of which organization classified it". It would be interesting to know if Rove's access was *immediately* revoked when it became known that he has "loose lips". If not then we should be concerned about the President's commitment to protect this nation and its vital security secrets. Does the President think that his friendship is more important than his sworn duty to protect solders and covert agents from harm?

    Posted by jamesz at 07/13/2005 @ 3:40pm

89. Surely no one bright enough to be reading David Corn's blog really, actually believes that there are any rules in play here - not any rules of the sort we had all become accustomed to prior to BushCo. Just ask senior members of the Congress - all will tell you that any pretense of civility that once prevailed in the House or the Senate, any sort of handshake agreements that were once standard operating procedure in crafting legislation, any gentleman's code that once governed the governing....are all gone thanks to this crowd of thugs. All the pillars of decency - such as they were - that held in place the actions of government, long gone. So anybody who imagines that Bush or Rove or any of the rest of this band of criminals have any intention of adhering to how things SHOULD be done or how things USED to be done, is pitifully naive. They're going to do what they always do - lie, obfuscate, twist, hang anybody in the media out to dry who doesn't do their bidding, blame it all on partisan Democrats (my personal favorite)....anything but do what once would have been considered by Americans to be the "normal" course. (I.e., taking responsibility for themselves and then firing the offender, followed by apologies to the American public.) NOT going to happen. In case you didn't read Ron Suskind's piece in the NYT sometime back, BushCo has created an alternative reality that they now operate in, calling all the shots, and the stale old reality people like us live in is wholly irrelevant.

    And still people like MJXXXXX (sorry - I get tired of trying to get all the upper-case letters right) support these bastards. Incredible.

    Posted by mewsician at 07/13/2005 @ 4:28pm

90. Oh - and anyone else care to weigh in on MRFNOODI's remarks about how Rove's "character" should be above impugnity? Isn't THAT rich? Karl Rove, who has single-handedly ruined the lives of countless innocent people - not to mention John McCain? We are now going to be treated to someone suggesting that a fine, decent public servant like Karl Rove deserves every courtesy? Give me a break.

    Posted by mewsician at 07/13/2005 @ 4:32pm