Karl Rove should have his security clearance yanked...

Let's get this straight... while Bush was waging war on a WMD premise his top aide was outting a classified CIA agent working against WMDs, and endangering the lives of anybody who had worked for Brewster-Jennings.

Rove deliberately and maliciously divulged Plame's identity to multiple reporters, and some accounts say that Bush knew about it. Rove's reward? Instead of having his security clearance yanked Bush promoted him to Chief of Staff.

Let's not forget, either, that Bush lied when he said he'd fire anybody involved in the leak.

As it turns out, what Rove did was not only scummy, unethical, and treasonous, it also compels Bush to remove his security clearance, according to Executive Order 12958 signed by Bill Clinton in 1995.

The Democrats should immediately and quite publicly insist that Bush comply with E.O. 12958. What responsible president could ever seriously deny the wisdom of revoking the security clearance of somebody who leaks national secrets?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9899512/site/newsweek/

 

1. Sorry Rex. No proof. He wasn't indicted which means it officially didn't happen.

2. Gore and Kerry lost. Get over it.

 

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

And you do? Proof, Rex. Not allegations. Undeniably, Rove is a scumbag. That's his job. If you don't think every President since Washington hasn't had one of these cretins hanging around behind the scenes, then you are a naive fool. Still, Fitzgerald tried for 2 years to come up with enough evidence to indict Rove on these charges and he couldn't do it. So, deal with it and move on.

 

Read the indictment and what "Official A" is said to have done.

 

Is said to have done? Are you familiar with hearsay? Maybe they should indict "Official A". You are a trip, dude.

 

Fitzgerald, who is the prosecutor, says in the indictment what Rove has done. And it's not hearsay... it's Rove's own admissions.

 

Well he obviously did nothing illegal.

 

No, that opinion is not biased. Not biased at all.

Back to the "leak" story.......which is what it is, a story, like a fairytale. Rove, Libby....NO ONE was indicted for leaking anything. If they leaked the woman's name, then indict them. But that hasn't happened and it probably won't happen and here is why........

In Libby's obstruction indictment, which is the result of an investigation into whether a "leak" happened, Plame is mentioned but she is never referenced as a "covert" agent. That is important. For a "leak" to happen or for anyone to be leaked, wouldn't you think they would at least make reference to what the entire investigation was about? They did not because they can't indict anyone over a "leak" when the "leak" wasn't about a "covert" agent.