Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 05:56:41 -0700, "Charlie Self" wrote:
...
I love the recent one about Bush maybe firing Rove for leaking Ms.CIA's
name. It would be just a bit like Charlie McCarthy firing Edgar Bergen.
Conspicuously absent from articles about the alleged converstaion
between Rove and Cooper is the _date_ of that alleged conversation.
If is was after Novak's article was published, Rove may not have
comitted a crime. Given that Cooper got into the matter to do a
story about Novak's story, that relative timing seems likely.
Questions such as that are important as actual guilt or innocence may
turn on finer points of the law. However, criminal liability is not
the only issue. Also at issue is the proper handling of classified
information. As anyone who has a security clearance and is free
to discuss the matter will tell you, people with such access are
prohibitted from divulging classified information even if it has
previously been published on the front page of the New York Times.
Why do suppose Wilson's published criticisms do not make any
direct reference to classified informaion he must have been
privy to? Do you suppose maybe he has not been so authorized?
To break that national security policy for petty political revenge
is proof that the party doing so is not morally fit for access to
classified information. As soon as it became known that someone
(according to Novak, two someones, right?) had broken that policy
the morally correct course of action, as well as the best course of
action from the standpoint of national security was for Bush was to
demand their resignations.
You realize of course the Ms CIA was *not* a clandestine operative during
the time period in question, she had transitioned back to US postings
almost 9 years earlier.
No, I do not. Clearly there is no going back now. It has also been
published that some of her contacts in the field had to be hastily
recalled. I don't know if that is true either.
You also realize that Wilson had named her in his
own biography ...
On what page (so I can check quickly without buying the book if I
find it in a bookstore), and when did he publish?
and of course you also realize that most of her friends
and neighbors knew that she worked at the CIA.
Possibly so, again I don't know. Even so knowing she worked at the
CIA is not the same as working covertly for the CIA.
i.e, working at the CIA is
not necessarily a matter of national secrecy and certainly not in this
case.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml
I've caught NewsMax publishing blatant lies before. I will not
trust them. I do note that the author in that article accuses
Rove of confirming for the Russians, information allegedly provided
by the infamous spy, Aldrich Ames, assuming the Russians read US
newspapers. But as I said, _NewsMax_ is not a reliable source.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8428
My guess is you mean:
'Gergen and Sanger agreed that "everyone" knew Joe Wilson's
wife worked at the CIA." Sanger confirmed this as "common
knowledge" to TAS. Perhaps these facts aren't yet Conventional
Wisdom. '
Absent is any evidence proferred by Gergen and Sanger to support that.
Conspicuously absent is a statement by either man, or anyone else,
that they _themselves_ knew this befor Novak's story was published.
Again, that is not a factor concerning policy for handling classified
information.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/49903.htm
Requires online registration.
Again, the men in question, both the two who published the classified
information to Novak and Rove, should Cooper's story be true, and
shold ROve prove to NOT be one of the two who contacted Novak, have
proven that they cannot be trusted with classified information.
That Bush has changed his position from promising to fire "anyone
involced" to firing "anyone who has comitted a crime" speaks for
itself. His next statement will probably be that he'll fire
anyone convicted of a crime, followed by anyone convicted of a
crime whose conviction is not overturned on appeal. Cleary it
is the administration's policy to drag this out as long as possible
so that the perpetrators can be pardoned late enough in his term
to not cause an political damage. Reminds one of Clinton, eh?
Again, he should have demanded their resignations immediately
upon publication of Novak's story.
Also, let's not forget that neither Novak nor anyone else has
ever shown that marriage ro a CIA operative implies that a man
is not qualified for a job, receives preferential treatment in
his selection for it, or is biased in his performance of it.
--
FF
|