Posted on 07/14/2005 11:55:22 AM PDT by CarlEOlsoniii
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats on Thursday pushed for legislation to deny security clearances to officials who disclose the identify of an undercover agent, an action that clearly responds to the controversy surrounding top White House aide Karl Rove (search).
Sens. Harry Reid or Nevada, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Joe Biden of Delaware and Dick Durbin of Illinois were offering the amendment as an add-on to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill now being debated in the Senate.
"No federal employee who discloses, or has disclosed, classified information, including the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency, to a person not authorized to receive such information shall be permitted to hold a security clearance for access to such information," the amendment language reads.
The effort is one of many taken by Democrats in light of confirmation that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove discussed the identity of Valerie Plame (search) with a reporter for Time magazine in July 2003.
Despite the brouhaha, Bush gave his deputy chief of staff a visual show of support Thursday morning when the two departed the White House for Indiana. The president emerged from the Oval Office side by side with Rove, whereas Rove usually shuffles behind him. The two chatted as they walked towards Marine One together and both appeared very jovial.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
oh-oh, there goes Leaky and John F'n...
but don't tell those dummies they're cutting off their noses....
I propose it be retroactive so that Leaky Leahy be forced to relenquish his cushy job.
How about amending that to also state that no current or former National Security Advisor, or the President who appointed that Advisor, or that President's spouse can have a security clearance?
Typical In-Your-Face Bush response.
Should Kerry be kicked out for outing Armstrong (the CIA agent) during the Bolton hearings? (why is no one on this forum talking about this?)
this would not affect Rove: Plame was no longer a covert operative in 2003 when Rove spoke with the reporter. She'd been benched after the Ames mess, in '97 iirc, and her non-disclosure status would have expired in 2002.
Um, I inadvertently dropped the part about sneaking out classified information in their pants...
Good Grief! We still have many vacancies in the federal courts, no UN Ambassador, SCOTUS vacancies growing, and the 'rats biggest priority is nailing Karl Rove who got ambushed on a phone call.
I realize the dims are the majority Party, but I don't think they quite have enough votes yet.
good point.
was Armstrong, unlike Plame, still a covert operative (or under non-disclosure protection) at the time of the outing?
Too bad for them they don't have power and aren't setting the agenda.
Hilarious, these people have totally and completely lost their senses.
How about anyone who no longer holds the job that got them the security clearance has it revoked when they leave the job ?
Good Grief! We still have many vacancies in the federal courts, no UN Ambassador, SCOTUS vacancies growing, and the 'rats biggest priority is nailing Karl Rove who got ambushed on a phone call.
***
And you forgot to mention: a federal law regarding pedophiles.
Ah...but it's far more important to go after Mr. Rove than to protect our defenseless children from predators.
Harry Reid? Would that be the Harry Reid who made mention of the contents of a confidential FBI file on a judicial nominee on the Senate floor? Would it be the same Harry Reid who if he looked at it committed a felony as he doesn't have a security clearence to look at said file? Is this the same Harry Reid who told others who do not have clearence to go look at the file?
That Harry Reid?
Translation the democrat fear Rove II.
They want congressional oversight in order to surround a president with their own approved non-partisan partisan advisers.
This is just democrats trying to encroach upon the executive the same way they wanted to force the homeland security czar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.