I didn't suggest whether it was ethically right or wrong, that's a whole other subject. I'm suggesting that if it's not a crime, then there's no reason to be up in arms about this. If Valerie Plame WAS a secret CIA operative in the field, AND Karl Rove knew it, AND he purposefully released her identity to cause mischief for her, then that would probably be a crime. As it stands, the first isn't true, and the second and third remain a mystery.
You have to admit that you should not convict somebody of a something other than a crime, no matter how it's danced around. Let's answer Gruss' points 1.) Mr. Rove's disclosure violates SF312 (?), the confidentiality agreement that all staffers sign and agree to. Having violated this, all his clearances should be immediately revoked. FYI - http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/0/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$fil e/SF312.pdf Either this is a crime or it's not. If it violates the agreement, then whoever is in charge of executing the consequences of violation is likely to do so. I'm in agreement with you IF HE VIOLATED the agreement. 2.) Mr. Bush could easily solve this matter by calling his staff into his office, asking who specifically leaked the data, and then disclosing this to the public (and taking appropriate discipline measures). He's not doing that and that makes a fool out of every US citizen. It also highlights the tremendous amount of "spin" coming from the Whitehouse and the say-anything-to-to-kill-the-story policy. Stop whining about spin. It's typical politics and I'm not any more offended by this than I am about Clinton lying to us about Monica, if in fact it was a legal manuever. 3.) The Whitehouse spokesperson lied to the US public or was lied to. He specifically stated that neither Mr. Rove nor Mr. Libby had anything to do with this matter and now we find out they do. That's a serious transgression of the public's trust and deserves immediate and swift action. That's not happening. Lying to the public is not against the law. I can't help that. Lying on the stand is. 4.) It is not the job of Mr. Rove to comment, or leak, information to the press. If Mr. Bush wanted this information public he has a spokesperson for that. By saying what Mr. Rove did was ok the administration is essentially saying, "We approve of any staffer telling any reporter any information as long as it's not a crime." That's a silly remark. Neither you nor I know what "Mr. Bush wanted." White House leaks occur all the time for many reasons, sometimes even the President wants them. Furthermore, should a crime have not been committed, then it's well within his rights by the first amendment to say whatever he wants. It is then up to his boss to decide whether or not he wanted it said, and up to him and him alone whether or not to fire him. Matthew Small -----Original Message----- From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 6:09 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Step in the right direction - Bush Vows to Fire Anyone Convicted of Leak what do you define as his job? Attacking anyone who speaks truth to power? If so, yes, he may have done his job. Was this a job that should have been done? Supposing it was not a crime -- for it seems that the crime is so narrowly defined that some fancy footwork can easily keep you from committing it -- was it right? All the drama over how incomplete CIA analysis is... you think this has nothing to do with it? Say something the administration does not want said and you find yourself lookign for ways to make your mortgage payment real quick. That's not a recipe for accurate analysis is it? Dana On 7/18/05, Matthew Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A coverup of... what? Either it is a crime or its not. If it is, send him > to jail. If it's not, don't. What else is there? What are you expecting > GWB to do? Why fire the guy if he's not committed a crime? I don't > understand your line of thinking, Larry. Am I correct in understanding that > you want the President to fire somebody for doing his job, if it's not > illegal? So what if it's partisan politics, that's nothing new, and it > sounds like you're a big participant yourself. > > - Matt Small > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 3:34 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Step in the right direction - Bush Vows to Fire Anyone > Convicted of Leak > > It depends on what your definition of IS is. > > She did not send him. He was under contract from the CIA. She may have > recommended him for the job. But she did not hire him. He was very > familiar with the area, having served multiple assignments there at > all levels with the state department. Moreover he did have no little > expertise in disarmament. And this only happened when he had the > temerity to disagree with the current administration. > > She did not scream for an investigation over her outing, the CIA did. > > So where is the conspiracy? How about a vindictive action by White > House staff and a subsequent coverup. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:165255 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
