Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper has agreed to testify about his sources in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. What if it was Karl Rove, whom Cooper’s already released notes seem to point toward? Will President Bush really show zero tolerance?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- writerdog on Open thread 11/23
- Blaidd_Drwg69 on Too many exemptions
- ANTI on Too many exemptions
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/23
- TomPaine on Too many exemptions
- littlejohn on Let immigrants run
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
26 Comments
No,Bush will not show Zero tolerance…it will be turned into how Rove was used and taken advantage of by the big bad liberal media reporter man!
No one in this administration has been held responsible for their blunders, missteps, inaction or ineptitude, why should this be any different?
Would seem to me that it’s got to be a crime to leak the name. That hasn’t been proven yet. Of course, that little fact doesn’t hinder the Rove bashers.
Is the only test for ethical behavior is that it be legal? I don’t know if Rove leaked the information, no one knows that, but Mr. Rove. But it seems that in the minds of our public servants that if it is not illegal, then it is ethical and ok behavior.
Those who serve the highest office in the land could and should be expected to do better.
It is ok if you are in the current administration to break the law and lie. The President does it what do you expect the others under him to do.
The Bush’s are from the same family tree as Nixson and see how he operated.
Oh to have Clinton back in office to straighten things up.
What if the leaker really is someone from the Wichita Eagle?
Can we finally get some better editors?
Rove is denying saying anything to them. These are liberal reporters,with the exception of Novak who has already told, I’m wondering if it is somebody on the liberal team they are trying to keep anonymous.
Because if it was Rove,they would give up the source, it would have been the front page story of NY Times and Time Mag. It would also be streaming ticker over and over again on the Entertainment News Channels.
Hard to say! But I’m wondering if it is just another Linda Tripp kind of a person. Just a nobody beauraucrat.
The reason they don’t want to give up their source is because they have journalistic ethics! It is a long held belief that reporters will protect an anonymous source. I don’t think Judith Miller would be will to go to jail for just a political leaning. It may very well be a some nameless bureaucrat, but the initial evidence does tend to make one wonder about Rove. He is a slimeball and has been for a long time, that is not a rarity for anyone that is a paid political operative. The question is a hypothetical one at this time and we won’t know unless the info is released. But I wouldn’t put it past Rove and I sure wouldn’t put it past Bush to overlook the transgression, in fact he’d probably give him a medal.
Seems to me there are a couple of other possibilities even if Rove is the leaker. If I recall correctly, it’s against the law to “knowingly” out an agent. If Rove claims he didn’t realize Phlame was undercover, the Republicans will rush to his side and that will be the end of that. The Republicans are in charge and it’ll be very difficult to do anything about Rove if the Republicans dig in their heels. Of course, they’ll have to face the voters back home, but it’s a long time till the 2006 elections. Plenty of time for the conservative spin machine to work, and voters don’t have a very long memory anyway. And even if Rove were tried and convicted (a long shot), there’s always a presidental pardon. What can we do about it? Threaten not to vote for Bush?
Keep in mind that the wheels turn slow and about the time of the 2006 election cycle should be just when the grand juries, indictments, and fall-out should have them scurrying to their shelters.
It is time to ressurect the special prosecutor. If a real estate deal and Ken Starr’s subsequent witch hunt against President Clinton was worthy of it, then certainly potential treason by “Bush’s Brain” and his admitted architect of his political career is worthy of it.
It is time to ressurect the special prosecutor. If a real estate deal and Ken Starr’s subsequent witch hunt against President Clinton was worthy of it, then certainly potential treason by “Bush’s Brain” and his admitted architect of his political career is worthy of it.
I want to send the entire Bush administration to “Gitmo” and discover the “leaker.” First: I could make a fortune from a CD of their screams, Second: We would find out for sure who the “leaker” was. And when they all came back the place would be closed without having to ask. { Just make them understand that they’re all going back if it isn’t }.
There’s a slant to this I just don’t understand. The whistleblowers are usually people who are trying to get information out on abuses of power for the good of the people.Where does this whole story fit in that picture? It doesn’t.These reporters are protecting a source who’s whole agenda was to cause harm. Where was the good in disclosing Valerie Plames name? NONE… That story was solely for the purpose of retribution.What am I missing?
It is against the law to name an undercover CIA operative. If I am not mistaken, George H.W. (a former CIA director) was instrumental in getting the law enacted.
If he is guilty, maybe that might explain G.W.’s nickname for Rove, i.e. “Turd Blossom”.
This will be an interesting story.
Lyn, I think the point is that those same ethics are in place to protect ANY source, not just those one might deem worthy of protection. If that were not the case, noone would ever come forward with information on the condition of anonymity, as their confidant might decide they were doing harm rather than good and elect not to protect them after all. So much for ethics. In this case, it appears that a reporter is being made an example, and yet another of our so-called inalienable rights are being trampled under this administration. We’ll have our little dictatorship running well in the near future from all indications.
Exactly what harm was done? Plame still has her job, and she wasn’t working at a job where divulging her name was a crime. The Senate’s 9-11 Report found a Plame memo in which she obviously used inside connections to unethically get her husband a cushy junket that he then performed with paramount incompetence, never filing a written report; instead he unethically published his non-results in a New York Times piece intended only to harm the government. The only truth in it were his words about spending just 8 days in Niger “drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people” on the veranda of Niger’s poshest hotel. Stunning undercover “investigation”, by golly!
Anyway, the yellowcake story still has legs. The British have always said their intelligence about Iraq’s trying to get uranium in Africa is accurate. Now further evidence has been brought forward to give even more support to the British claims.
The 9-11 report blasted Wilson’s dishonesty, but Bush-hating partisans ignore this inconvenient reality.
Reporters always say their silence is an ethical duty. They would be at least partly believable if they didn’t also hope to get career boosting scoops from their access to government secrets. It smells of a self-serving ruse, and it is entirely unethical on both sides. It has to stop.
Wow a FIRST! A post from Tricia T that at least pretends to be something more than the typical Bush-can-do-no-wrong rant.How about some verifiable facts Trish? NO that’s ok let me help with that.1. An agent of the CIA was exposed. This as stated above is against the law and tantamount to treason.2. The exposed agent just happens to be the wife of a government official whose duly done investigation was dis-pleasing to the current administration.I could go on but I don’t think I need to.A special prosecutor is needed now. If Rove or the administration at large is innocent than they have nothing to fear from the bright light of day.
Kudos, JR.
Kudos JR; and not only that, but The real leaker is Dan Rather. He’s been on double strength Detrol, but it hasn’t help much. He peed all over his ethics manual, and his friends from Newsweek thought it looked like some sacred middle eastern tract, and the rest is history. Which proves that Rove did it and Wilson is a non-partisan genius with no axe to grindAll verifiable of course, because JR says so.
Speaking of leaking, how much did Wilson leak after drinking sweet mint tea for 8 days. Oh, the horror! The poor man, victimized by his duty to country. No doubt those stingy, fascist, neonazi, neonatal, neoneo pawns of the ultra rich will refuse him his well-deserved pension for performing such a well-orchestrated peeing contest.
Oh, the shame! the guilt! the evil! the indelible crime against humanity! Are there no depths to which those pernicious liars won’t sink? Wait, who are we talking about here — the reporters or their William’s weenie or the Gummint?
Ahhh, what’s the difference? Here comes a whirling dervish to smite me for trying to protect myself from his rabid buddies. Can’t waste time obsessing about a 17th level functionary and her incompetent, publicity hound husband.
Lefty you need to watch out with all that peeing talk cause there is women who read this page. And in Dan Rather has that kind of a problem shouldn’t he use those Depend things? Wow Lefty, you sure know a lot about peeing. I didn’t know it was sacred in the middle east. But I don’t understand why we need to prove that Rove did it. Lefty, everybody pees. Mom says you get real sick if you don’t. And Lefty, if that guy youre talking about, that Wilson guy drank tea for 8 days, why I think he’d of probaly peed himself to death! I didn’t know it was his duty to his country to pee!I don’t understand why you want him to pee in the orchestra. I peed in the bosses office one time and got fired for it. (I couldn’t help it. I was drunk and you gotta go somewhere)But you know Lefty, you need to stop thinking so much about pee and men’s weenies. That kind of thing will make people think youre, well, funny. You know, like maybe youre limp in the wrists if you know what I mean or maybe light in the jeans like Mom says about Uncle Sid (and you don’t want to be like Uncle Sid, nosirree!)
Kudos to Barbie-I mean Tricia–for her first substantive post!
And I agree. I mean, no harm, no foul. Nobody was hurt, so no investigation is needed.
After all, it isn’t like outing a CIA agent is as serious as someone getting semen on someone else’s dress.
IOKIYAR
(It’s Ok If You’re A Republican)
Edna is right about you CF.
Lefty,
I served with Lefty. I knew Lefty. Lefty was a friend of mine.
Lefty, you’re no lefty.
As for the substantive issue here, which is the leaking of a CIA operative’s name for political payback, of course Rove won’t go to jail. Bush will pardon him, just like Republicans often do when one of their own is convicted of high crimes.
IOKIYAR
Good exchange for seeing the difference between the right and the left and how they think.
The right just slanders their opponents: it’s just liberals, they’re all liberals. Hey, JoeW., Judith Miller was the primary go-to gal for building case of WMD’s in Iraq.
The left uses facts, like the difference between what Bush says (”I want the leaker to step forward and take responsibility”) and what he does (absolutely nothing).
When will the right wake up and realize that even if one is conservative, this president doesn’t even live up to those values.
Bush is neither conservative nor liberal–he’s just a huge lying rascal. And I base that on facts, not opinion.
Is anyone else aware of the fact that Rove was fired from Bush Sr.’s presidential campaign in 1992 for leaking a negative story to…Bob Novak? Seems Novak is his reporter of choice for leakage.
Treason? I doubt they can nail Rove on that. He’ll claim he didn’t know she was an operative. Was it done for payback? Absolutely. But let’s not forget that Rove testified under oath that he didn’t tell anyone anything. Perjury? Oh, yeah. And even better than Clinton’s since it hints, if nothing else, at treason.
So’s who’s the second person involved?
Yaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnn.