What the Karl Rove Issue Is Really About

[-Cp]

Subscriber e-mail from Elizabeth Dole | Monday July 18, 2005 18:16:02 | Elizabeth Dole


Dear Friend,

The attacks from certain members of the Democratic Party against Karl Rove this week have been an absolute disgrace. This is an attempt at personal destruction and political opportunism at its very worst-it is downright shameless.

It has been reported that the liberal extremist group MoveOn.org has been giving the Democratic leadership direction over the last several months. It comes as no surprise that MoveOn.org was the first to call for Karl Rove's resignation this week.

But for members of Congress to take part in this smear campaign, that's an entirely different and truly unfortunate matter altogether. The Democratic leadership even brought the political attack against Mr. Rove to the floor of the United States Senate on Thursday by offering an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill that would strip his security clearance. Strip his security clearance based on what, hearsay? What an absolute sham!

This excerpt from a statement from Mr. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, should help demonstrate why the Democrats are so completely and utterly off base in their political antics:

"Rove has cooperated completely with the special prosecutor, and he has been repeatedly assured he is not a target of the investigation. Rove has done nothing wrong. We're confident that he will not become a target after the special prosecutor has reviewed all evidence."

Majority Leader Bill Frist summed it up quite well in saying, "this is a sad and disappointing afternoon here in the United States Senate."

Based on the information at their disposal, the Democrats have taken reckless partisan attacks to a new level. The Democratic Party leadership is in disarray and they are desperate-attacking has become their modus operandi. They have personally attacked the President's well qualified judicial nominees. They have attacked every single plan that is put forth to address saving Social Security. Howard Dean personally attacked the Republican Party, saying its members have not worked an honest day in their lives. And the Minority Leader Harry Reid personally attacked the President of the United States by calling him a loser and a liar. The Democratic leadership has guided the Party into an abyss-no new ideas, no agenda, just negativity.

Below are some quotes from Senate Democrats that fully acknowledge the points that I am making and should serve as a reminder why it is so important to support the Republican Majority in the United States Senate.

With warmest best wishes,

Elizabeth Dole

 

[Max Power]

Actually, it was Bush and McClellan who first said something should be done to Rove.

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." September 30, 2003

 

[kurtsprincess]

Actually, it was Bush and McClellan who first said something should be done to Rove.

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." September 30, 2003

JimminyCricket......my eyes are really getting bad, and so is my hearing. I cannot see Rove's name anywhere in this sentence, nor do I hear it when I listen to this sentence played on major network news stations.

Now I know why I'm not a Democrat......I haven't learned to read between the lines and add my own spin to facts.

 

[Gabriella84]

 

[manu1959]

Actually, it was Bush and McClellan who first said something should be done to Rove.

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." September 30, 2003

classified would mean that no one would know it unless they had clearance......if that is the case why did the press know that she was a "spook" before they asked rove the question.....her own husband aknowledges that she was not undercover and that those without classified clearance knew she was a "spook"....

 

[freeandfun1]

Actually, it was Bush and McClellan who first said something should be done to Rove.

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." September 30, 2003

The ACTUAL quote... nice how you left out a important piece of the entire quote...

"There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington," Bush said in Chicago on Sept. 30, 2003, adding "and if there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600147956,00.html

 

[Annie]

JimminyCricket......my eyes are really getting bad, and so is my hearing. I cannot see Rove's name anywhere in this sentence, nor do I hear it when I listen to this sentence played on major network news stations.

Now I know why I'm not a Democrat......I haven't learned to read between the lines and add my own spin to facts.

Look who jumped from one thread to another.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22989&page=2

 

[Annie]

Look who jumped from one thread to another.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22989&page=2

Whoops, not KP, rather Max. Sorry!

 

[Annie]

Actually, it was Bush and McClellan who first said something should be done to Rove.

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." September 30, 2003

A little more reading and links:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/07/moving_the_goal.html

Moving The Goalposts (Back To Their Original Position)

The goalposts were moved while Scott McClellan, White House spokesfolk, wasn't even watching. We need to find Scott!

Here is the AP reporting on Bush's latest pronouncement on the Plame investigation:

President Bush said Monday that if anyone in his administration committed a crime in connection with the public leak of the identity of an undercover CIA operative, that person will "no longer work in my administration." At the same time, Bush again sidestepped a question on the role of his top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the matter.

The AP sees a discrepancy:

Bush said in June 2004 that he would fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. On Monday, however, he added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed.

Asked at a June 10, 2004, news conference if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name, Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

We have belabored this already. In Sept 2003, Bush said that "if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

In June 2004, a reporter asked if Bush stood by a pledge Bush had not previously made, namely, to fire anyone "involved" with the leak.

Now, if the reporter had asked Bush to revise his original pledge, Bush would clearly have assented to a modification of his original pledge.

However, since the reporter did not note that he was misrepresenting or revising Bush's pledge, it is perfectly reasonable to recast their exchange as follows:

Reporter: Do you stand by your original pledge?

Bush: Yes.

Now, Bush should have avoided this verbal trap (as if!) by answering something like, "I made my position clear last fall". With any luck, the next questioner would have let him move on without forcing him to try and remember what his position was.

But don't play "Gotcha" with the President. And let's exhort the AP to do their homework - even the Times noted Bush's Sept 2003 statement, although they generally ignore it.

UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru of The Corner gracefully splits the difference.

MORE: The WaPo wants to leave the goalposts where the reporter moved them:

President Bush today appeared to raise the threshold for firing any White House official who leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent, saying he would dismiss anyone who "committed a crime" in the case.

...In June 2004, Bush replied "yes" when asked if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.

In other statements, Bush has pledged to "take the appropriate action" if anyone in his administration leaked classified information.

Wow, is that disingenuous! The "take the appropriate action" line is also from the Sept 20 2003 press avail - how did the WaPo find one and not the other?

And, in what I can only describe as a "I can blog it, but I can't make them read it" moment of headbanging aggravation, I see that not even Scott McClellan of the White House can get the darn spin story straight:

During a White House briefing today in which he was peppered with questions about the Plame case and Bush's remarks, McClellan disputed the view that the president had set a new, higher standard for dismissing someone over the leak.

"No, I disagree," McClellan said when a reporter asked why Bush added a "qualifier" -- committing a crime -- that had "never been part of his standard before" when addressing the issue. "I think that the president was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration; that if someone commits a crime, they're not going to be working any longer in this administration," McClellan said.

The spokesman refused to try to reconcile his own past statements with what Bush said today.

"I know well what was said previously," McClellan said. "You heard from the president today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the president said at this point. . . ."

I wonder if McClellan does know well what was said previously? Well, if the White House transcript [now here] shows him citing the President's Sept 30 statement, and the WaPo buried that, then the WaPo will flee before me, and I will hear the lamentations of their copy editors. Or something. [Or, having read the transcript, nothing. Can SOMEBODY PLEASE get McClellan to look at the Sept 30 2003 President's press avail, currently concealed on the White House web site? Please...]

STILL MORE: The NY Times leads with "President Bush changed his stance today...". Groan.

BUT WAIT: Brief contact with reality at, you'll never guess, the LA Times! In a story that precedes Bush's statement, they tell us that "Bush said he would fire anyone responsible for any illegal leaks." Let's see if they follow up with a story about raising the bar - yes, they oblige here:

Last year, [Bush] had said he would fire anyone who had leaked such information. Thus, his remarks today appeared to shift his standard, allowing continued service in his administration until the commission of a crime had been established, rather than simply the determination that classified information had been leaked.

A beautiful Patterico moment.

UNRELATED BUT INTERESTING: Here is the .pdf file of the amicus brief filed by news organizations arguing that the elements of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act are not present in this case. The stock rebuttal is, the CIA filed a criminal referral and the Special Counsel is clearly working on something. However, the CIA gest trounced on p. 35 of the .pdf file - their standard referral just doesn't address the key points.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Here's another article on this topic worth reading. Valerie's no victim, but a very active player in this "scandal."

http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin.asp

 

[dilloduck]

Everyone can put their thumbs back in thier pockets

THERE NEVER WAS A LEAK---REPEAT---THERE NEVER WAS A LEAK