Unanswerable questions
Politics is a game of hardball but Karl Rove plays it as bloodsport. There is no dispute he had a phone conversation with Matt Cooper, after Joe Wilson's July 6, 2003 op-ed piece in the New York Times criticizing the administration, and that he was speaking on "double super secret background" about "Wilson's wife" who was a CIA undercover agent. The Department of Propoganda has been working overtime over at the White House, the RNC and their public relations tentacles known as the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Just to give you an idea of how far the Republicans will stand by their man than on principle that publically identifying a CIA operative is a bad thing the Wall Street Journal published an editorial entitled "Karl Rove, Whistleblower" saying he "deserves a prize". Fox "News" host John Gibson said, and no I'm not making this up, "I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him. Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody. And if nobody else had the cojones to do it, I'm glad Rove did — if he did do it, and he still says he didn't."
The self-proclaimed patriots the WSJ, Fox News, Ken Mehlman, Newt Gingrich, heck basically the entire Republican noise machine is now going on the offensive, and it is offense, arguing that the public identification of an undercover CIA operative working on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is patriotic. That's the crew you voted in for a second term. Proud of yourself?
Now forget all the arguments and he said, she said etc. See if you can answer the follwoing questions and not make yourself sick:
1. Why was Karl Rove discussing a CIA agent, undercover or not, with a reporter at all?
2. Why was the inclusion of Valerie Plame's name in Robert "Novakula" Novak's July 14, 2003 outing column necessary? What was the purpose? To imply she had a anti-American/Pro-Saddam bias?
3. If, as the Wall Street Journal, Ken Mehlman and others consider Rove a whisleblowing hero, why did he tell Matt Cooper of Time magazine that he was speaking on "double super secret background?" Doesn't that by definition show Rove knew what he was doing was something you don't want people to find out what you're doing like outing a CIA agent?
4. President Bush has portrayed himself as a wartime president, if so will he protect his intelligence assets, like Valerie Plame, or his political advisors? Which is more valuable to the country? Which is more valuable to W the man?
This one's my favorite:
5. Does Karl Rove or any government employee or elected official have a right to publically identify CIA agents, analysts and employees as long as they refer to them as "so and so's wife, husband, son, daughter, mom or dad?
BONUS QUESTION:
6. Who said: "That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."? Answer: W's father, President George H.W. Bush, April 26, 1999 at dedication ceremony of the George Bush center for Intelligence.
As I've said before, irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
The self-proclaimed patriots the WSJ, Fox News, Ken Mehlman, Newt Gingrich, heck basically the entire Republican noise machine is now going on the offensive, and it is offense, arguing that the public identification of an undercover CIA operative working on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is patriotic. That's the crew you voted in for a second term. Proud of yourself?
Now forget all the arguments and he said, she said etc. See if you can answer the follwoing questions and not make yourself sick:
1. Why was Karl Rove discussing a CIA agent, undercover or not, with a reporter at all?
2. Why was the inclusion of Valerie Plame's name in Robert "Novakula" Novak's July 14, 2003 outing column necessary? What was the purpose? To imply she had a anti-American/Pro-Saddam bias?
3. If, as the Wall Street Journal, Ken Mehlman and others consider Rove a whisleblowing hero, why did he tell Matt Cooper of Time magazine that he was speaking on "double super secret background?" Doesn't that by definition show Rove knew what he was doing was something you don't want people to find out what you're doing like outing a CIA agent?
4. President Bush has portrayed himself as a wartime president, if so will he protect his intelligence assets, like Valerie Plame, or his political advisors? Which is more valuable to the country? Which is more valuable to W the man?
This one's my favorite:
5. Does Karl Rove or any government employee or elected official have a right to publically identify CIA agents, analysts and employees as long as they refer to them as "so and so's wife, husband, son, daughter, mom or dad?
BONUS QUESTION:
6. Who said: "That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."? Answer: W's father, President George H.W. Bush, April 26, 1999 at dedication ceremony of the George Bush center for Intelligence.
As I've said before, irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
posted by Crankyboy at 11:14 AM
3 Comments:
Response to quantum:
Look who's talking. Nearly 1800 U.S. military dead in Iraq and FOX News covers a missing teen in Aruba round the clock.
Actually, it's not a stretch to say that these are all parts of the same larger story - national security in the face of formidable terrorist adversaries. What Rove allegedly did was to compromise an undercover agent in the intelligence community. The implied repercussions can't even be guessed at at this point, but every operation and contact that had her involvement has been compromised. People have not focused on the scope of what that means, because it's all classified.
This isn't a joke, no matter how cleverly the White House wants to play the semantics game. It deserves to be on the front pages for as long as it takes.
Response to d.k.
Agreed. What's sad is what we are losing. We are becoming a nation of men/women and not of laws or principles.
Post a Comment
<< Home