Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Hold Bush to His Word and Fire Karl Rove

Last year, Bush pledged to fire anyone who had any role in outing Valerie Plame. Well, that anyone includes Karl Rove. Now is his opportunity to true to his word and fire Karl Rove.

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

Oct. 10, 2003, the White House specifically said that Karl Rove had absolutely no involvement in the matter.

In 2003, McClellan said it was "a ridiculous suggestion" that Rove was involved. "I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was," he said. He also said that any culprit in the White House should be fired "at a minimum."

If what Karl did was no big deal, why did it take almost two years of investigation for this to be brought forth?

But, of course, the Bush spin machine is already at work, trying to "massage" the truth. They are claiming that Rove did no wrong since he did not actually give Time reporter Matt Cooper Valerie's name... Big whoop. If you say, "by the way, there is this woman who is working on WMD matters over at the CIA and she is married to Joe Wilson," I think almost any person in America with access to Goggle could have figured out that that person married to Joe Wilson was Valerie Plame.

You can not get around the fact that he broke the law and betrayed his nation for political retribution. Just because he did not say her actual name does not mean he is not culpable in this. If we allow him to get away with this, it will only lead to more of this Nixonian kind of crap. A clear message needs to be sent - personal political retribution will not trump our national security.

At White House, a Day of Silence on Rove's Role in C.I.A. Leak

Bush Aide Deflects Questions On Rove

Update: This is the best editorial I have seen written on the subject yet.

The real Rove scandal


Sigmund, Carl and Alfred said...

If Rove did anything wrong, fire his ass.

Already CNN was reporting, 'Well, it was Clinton-esque' as in, it resembles the 'it depend on what the definition of 'is' is...

We don't need more of that crap.

Welcome back.

Sigmund, Carl and Alfred said...

I read the LA Times editorial- interesting, but in the end, preachy. I'm all for booting Rove if he really outed her- but lets do it on the strict merits.

That was the standard for Mr Clinton and Teddy Kennedy before him.

Had they been subject to what the LA Times is dishing out, they'd have been gone.

Dingo said...

what instances are you speaking of?

And I think the fact that the White House made claims that there was NO involvement by Rove and Rove only allowed Cooper to speak about it after Time agreed to hand over the papers speaks volumes as to the real intentions of Rove. I believe that Bush probably didn't know anything about this before the leak, but I don't believe for a second that Bush didn't know about Rove's involvement before last week.