Rove’s Law
by Big Dog on Jul 15, 2005 at 23:19 Political
Several months ago we went through the fiasco of watching the courts sentence Terri Schiavo to death. There was a point where the Republicans in Congress introduced a bill that would have protected Schiavo’s life. Many lawmakers flew back to Washington to work on this and the President flew in to sign the bill. Surfside posted at that time commenting on the enormous cost of such an action. A co-worker of mine has a sign that lists things you won’t see the President fly to Washington to sign (mostly dealing with worker related issues).
At the time this was going on the democrats made sure this was front page, top of the fold stuff. They commented about how the Republicans were trying to enact laws that interfere with one’s right to choose though they failed to tell us how they knew what Schiavo actually chose since she was not able to speak and there were conflicting stories about her wishes. Howard Dean made sure that he told us that the donks intended to make this an issue in the next election. The donks want us to believe that they would never politicize an issue and try to enact laws for political reasons.
Fast forward to now. Karl Rove has been accused of revealing the identity of a CIA agent. Rove has not been found guilty of anything but the feeding frenzy continues. Those very donks who would never politicize an issue with laws tried to pass a bill that would bar anyone who discloses the identity of a CIA operative from holding a security clearance. This bill was aimed directly at Karl Rove. How many times in the past 50 years have we heard of any operatives being outed? It might have happened but it is rare indeed. The law is designed with one purpose and that is to score political points with the part of the public not intelligent enough to see what is going on.
Fortunately, the Senate rejected this Democrat proposal. But lets us take a look at this and see if there are legitimate reasons to pull security clearances that the Senate could address. How about a law taking away the clearance of any person who aides and abets an enemy of this country. We could enact a law that says if you met with representatives of North Vietnam and helped them then you may not have a clearance. How about one that says if you are an elected official (even the President) and you lie to a Grand Jury then you may not have a clearance. Perhaps if you are an elected official and you sell missile technology to communist countries like China then you may not have a clearance. Perhaps if you are an elected official and you drown a girl while driving drunk and then cover it up you may not have a clearance. Perhaps if you are the wife of a President and you lie to a Grand Jury and tell them you do not have papers they are looking for (even though you are carrying them everywhere you go) and then you miraculously find them two days after the statute of limitations on the crimes you committed expires, then you may not have a clearance.
The donks had better be careful or they won’t have any officials with clearances. They actually did these things and yet they see no problems. Rove on the other hand would have to meet several tests to be guilty. He had to know that the person was a covert agent, that the CIA did not want the identity revealed and he would have to deliberately reveal the fact that the agent was covert. Revealing the name of an agent is not an issue. The issue is revealing the name of a covert agent AND the fact that the person is covert. Rove said that this woman apparently worked for the agency. I think that revelation fails the sniff test yet those lovable donks want to enact a law to pull Rove’s clearance.
Yeah, I can see how Howard Dean would want to make an issue out of the Schiavo case. Those donks would never do such a thing.
Tags: Political
With Plame working a CIA desk at Langley for 6 years prior to being “outed,” it’s a little hard to sell the “covert agent” assignation too. But, why bother with the facts when trying to encourage a good lynching party? They certainly cared little for the facts when they were after Bush for his guard record (and that was after they elected a draft dodger as the previous president).
Come to think of it, I don’t remember any Dems losing sleep over Sandy Berger stuffing classified secret documents in his socks and whatnot. Yeah, it’s OK to divulge, hide or sell just about anything when the Dems are in power.
And, somehow the real story of how Wilson and Plame “fixed” information around the story they wanted to sell that Saddam didn’t try to buy Nigerian uranium. We now know that Saddam had attempted to buy the uranium, although it’s not clear the purchase was ever consummated. Guess the Dems want to obfuscate that fact. It doesn’t really help their: “Saddam was not a threat” and “There were no WMDs in Iraq.”
By the way, does anyone know what the charge/punishment is for lying or misrepresenting critical information to your President? Hmmmmm.
What was it with the Clinton administration and their pants? You had Berg(l)er stuffing documents in his pants and Billy stuffing interns in his pants.