Rove isn't any more unsavory than W. They were made for each other. Not an ethical bone in either's body.

Damned if I know. Or care.

I'm concerned about lawbreakers. Folks who legally compromise the security of the USA need to go to jail, and I don't mean Martha Stewart "jail", either. But I don't think that people should go to jail for offending one's sense of political balance. Those folks should lose election, not go to jail.

Bot

The White House press corps is addicted to the money and prestige that comes with the job. Their addiction is why they put up with McClellan's nonsense. They don't even stand up to him when he impugns their integrity. Like here: If the reporter had any self-respect, he would have called McClellan on the accusation that the reporter was being disingenuous, but then he might not get invited back. The same lap dog mentality pervades the media. It's a big reason why our democracy has become so dysfunctional, IMHO.

My recollection is that he said he would fire anyone who leaked classified information. Maybe someday we will know whether that happened.

Oh bull doo-doo, dculkin.

If I come to the same conclusion as somebody else doesn't mean that I want to adopt their children.

If some political jackass offends your sensibilities, that is not the same as violating a law. Cast the jackass out of office, if you can. Or suffer the fool until he's gone.

Has Rove broken a law? If not, why is he being maligned as though he had? What do you call people who malign people, without proof, with whom one has a politcial disagreements, Santa Claus? The Democrats are absolutely no more virtuous than Rove. had they been borne to each others' parents, they would be equally indistinguisable.

Who said it was?

Well, that's interesting.

If the CIA agent has her cover blown, it might be entirely possible that there is no law broken, as you have suggested above.

However, certainly, the security of the USA has been compromised by this leak, don't you think? Here is a government that goes ballistic if a reporter even hints at their location out in the desert. Now, you have a person, who is at the heart of the administration, who leaks information that could have got the agent killed, and certainly blew over a year's worth of effort, and he might not even be charged.

Just bull$hit.

Okay, which law has Rove violated?

Bot

Which desert, the one in which bad guys are trying to kill American soldiers? Have you no concept of targeting?

The key question about teh CIA employee, as I understand the law (which is poorly, I admit), is whether the employee is involved in clandestine activities. If she was, then whomever let her identity out should go to jail. However, if she was not operation (as I understand the law) then revealing her identity is not important nor is it illegal. That is yet to be proven.

But there is a hint. The prosecutor has told Rove's attorney that Rove is not a target of prosecution.

Bot

That's the desert. You could never target anything from a stray comment generated by a reporter.

So, the issue is "clandestine activities". Well, I suppose that most CIA agents would be involved with "clandestine activities", don't you think? But, I also suppose that there is a legal definition for "clandestine activities" and that Rove will slip around it.

None, as far as I know, but we should ask more of our leaders than that they just be non-criminals. The administration's current spin on the Rove situation reminds me of a fictitious political campaign from when I was a kid. I think the candidate was Alfred E. Newman of Mad magazine fame. His campaign slogan was something like, "Alfred E. Newman, Not Insane."

I don't think the relevant question is whether Rove is a criminal. The question is whether he has the country's interests at heart. The Plame matter, no matter how it turns out, tends to argue against Rove on that score, IMHO.

Really? I missed the part of the statute that said what is and isn't "important."

My understanding is that Plame reported to work regularly at the CIA. Not something that one does if one is an undercover CIA agent. Thus there's no reason to believe she was an undercover agent. In addition, what a stupid idea to have an ambassador's wife be a secret agent. "Sure, tell me all you know, I'm just Joe Wilson's wife, I don't work for the US". My question is why did the CIA send an obvious political hack with no investigative experience and no experience in WMD (Nuclear or otherwise) on an investigative trip to begin with? Wilson wouldn't have known yellow cake if it jumped up and smacked him.

Smells like there was some political tomfoolery going on prior to Wilson's trip. It would be very Rovesque if there was all this political blood in the water and the investigation eventually led straight to a high ranking Democrat.

As far as violations of national security and complete disdain for security clearances and procedures... during a high level worldwide investigation no less... 2 words:

Sandy Berger.

As he was Clinton's National Security Advisor I guess he could claim ignorance as a defense.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

For one thing, I think you are entirely mistaken about whether covert agents work at Langley. For another, what about the "private" company she worked with? Now that she has been outed, so are they. Gee, thanks, Karl.So that makes it OK to blow her cover? That's even sillier than the story the RNC guy was concocting on TV yesterday. Maybe because he had years of experience in Niger and was one of the most knowledgable people the US had available for the job? Plus, has anyone identified any mistakes in his analysis?That's the truth. I think W and Rove are just playing rope-a-dope. Their lap dogs in the media are going to ensure that the Dems wind up looking stupid, again.Oh, that's really relevant to the Rove situation.