Dick Morris On The Rove Matter
A good summary on the Rove - Wilson - Cooper - Plame story, via Dick Morris:
Morris
Morris makes several of the points I have been making:
Karl Rove did nothing wrong. The statute he allegedly violated has a number of very specific triggers. The person who reveals the identity of a covert CIA operative has to intend to uncover her identity, know she is a covert operative and know that he is blowing her cover.
But just as Rove did not intend to blow Plame’s cover, so the Democrats demanding his head are not very interested in upholding the statute in question. Their motives are totally political. They want revenge against Rove for his successful role in piloting the Bush election and reelection campaigns, and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term.
(its not about the law, it's completely political. Dems have zero interest in upholding the law and from their coverage neither does the MSM)
Bush, having appointed a special prosecutor and pledged to fire anyone who was responsible for revealing Plame’s identity, cannot just sweep the matter under the rug. But he should allow Rove to clear his name through the normal process of investigation and testimony.
(absolutely, and I don't think there is any question that he will be allowed to)
Indeed, there is some question that the reporters who took Rove’s lead, looked up Plame’s name and published it may themselves be more likely to have violated the statute than is Rove himself. Whoever took the information Rove provided and outed Plame was, in fact, deliberately outing a CIA operative and may be a better fit for the statute’s intent than Karl Rove.
(again, is that why Miller is sitting in jail still today?)
Bush should not fire Rove. He should stick by him until or unless the criminal investigation makes it evident that he may have violated the statute. Otherwise, he should stay on the job.
(I agree and think that is just what will occur)
Morris
Morris makes several of the points I have been making:
Karl Rove did nothing wrong. The statute he allegedly violated has a number of very specific triggers. The person who reveals the identity of a covert CIA operative has to intend to uncover her identity, know she is a covert operative and know that he is blowing her cover.
But just as Rove did not intend to blow Plame’s cover, so the Democrats demanding his head are not very interested in upholding the statute in question. Their motives are totally political. They want revenge against Rove for his successful role in piloting the Bush election and reelection campaigns, and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term.
(its not about the law, it's completely political. Dems have zero interest in upholding the law and from their coverage neither does the MSM)
Bush, having appointed a special prosecutor and pledged to fire anyone who was responsible for revealing Plame’s identity, cannot just sweep the matter under the rug. But he should allow Rove to clear his name through the normal process of investigation and testimony.
(absolutely, and I don't think there is any question that he will be allowed to)
Indeed, there is some question that the reporters who took Rove’s lead, looked up Plame’s name and published it may themselves be more likely to have violated the statute than is Rove himself. Whoever took the information Rove provided and outed Plame was, in fact, deliberately outing a CIA operative and may be a better fit for the statute’s intent than Karl Rove.
(again, is that why Miller is sitting in jail still today?)
Bush should not fire Rove. He should stick by him until or unless the criminal investigation makes it evident that he may have violated the statute. Otherwise, he should stay on the job.
(I agree and think that is just what will occur)
posted by Steve at 12:35 PM
