Skip to comments.
Dems Want Law Forcing Rove Firing
Fox News ^
| July 14, 2005
| Fox News
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 ...
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-145 next last
To: Moral Hazard
When do we start arresting democrats, like Leahy?
61
posted on
07/14/2005 12:19:54 PM PDT
by
KC_Conspirator
(This space outsourced to India)
To: MEGoody
I realize the dims are the majority Party Huh?
The Dems are running the show. Period.
62
posted on
07/14/2005 12:21:04 PM PDT
by
Phantom Lord
(Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
To: CarlEOlsoniii
Just imagine if they oozed this type of integrity when the White House attacked Linda Tripp. Maybe they would have voted for Impeachment of the Xlintoon!
NOT!
To: Wristpin
Then why does Sandy Berger still have his ?
64
posted on
07/14/2005 12:25:30 PM PDT
by
cinives
(On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
To: Buke
Give me one second...I read it somewhere, although I believe that your words are true. Bush said they would be dealt with, which means some sort of punishment would occur...firing just seems like the logical punishment. Taking away someones security clearance would pretty much be the same as firing them. How good would someone in that position be if they had without a security clearance? Bush's quote: "If anybody broke the law, they will be dealt with".
To me, that means that they will be dealt with the same as most lawbreakers: in a court of law or plea bargain with a prosecutor, not by their employer.
To: Phantom Lord
It must have been a different Harry Reid.
To: CarlEOlsoniii
Well, that's ok. Plame was NOT a covert agent at the time Rove spoke to Cooper. Even 36 news organizations agree with that in their legal briefs filled to keep their reporters from being compelled to testify before the grand jury.
To: kaktuskid; All
68
posted on
07/14/2005 12:27:51 PM PDT
by
bitt
('We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.' Victor Davis Hanson)
To: cinives
It might be different with high ranking politicos. As long as you have a current 5 year back ground investigation on file, the clearance can be reactivated within days.
69
posted on
07/14/2005 12:28:39 PM PDT
by
Wristpin
( Varitek says to A-Rod: "We don't throw at .260 hitters.....")
To: MEGoody
How else can one explain the actions, or rather inactions, of this completely flustered and outmaneuvered Republican Party?
"Huh?" ... indeed!
70
posted on
07/14/2005 12:31:22 PM PDT
by
G.Mason
To: bitt
RE: "...think Kerry should lose his security clearance?" Yes indeed...right along with Leahy...and NOT just temporarily, either.
...but I am still trying to figure out why this turkey is still in the Senate at all... since he's OBVIOUSLY not eligible to hold any Federal OR State public office (...in THIS country at least.)
71
posted on
07/14/2005 12:32:51 PM PDT
by
Seadog Bytes
(“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”—Edmund Burke)
To: Moral Hazard
72
posted on
07/14/2005 12:33:05 PM PDT
by
bitt
('We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.' Victor Davis Hanson)
To: 1Old Pro
I'm thinking about making this image with interchangeable heads...
just about any cRAT head will work (along with a few rinos)
73
posted on
07/14/2005 12:33:10 PM PDT
by
Zacs Mom
(Proud wife of a Marine! ... and purveyor of "rampant, unedited dialogue")
To: Buke
I think they know what Bush said. Scott McClellum is the one who was most forceful hence the questions to him do you regret stating that Rove had any knowledge of this. I do wish McClellum was a little better than he is.
To: SERKIT
The Dem and media story line from Day 1 has been that there was a carefully orchestrated White House plan to "get" Wilson. But if the Cooper memo is all they have, to quote Bill Clinton, "There's no 'there' there." Cooper called Rove, late in the day, just as Rove was going on vacation, to purportedly ask about welfare reform. Then he switched to the Wilson topic, and Rove mentioned - in response to some unspecified question - that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and apparently had a role in getting Wilson the Niger assignment.
That's it, that's all they've shown as far as Rove is concerned. Even if one admits he shouldn't have mentioned Wilson's wife, and that is arguable, we do not have anything at all resembling a smear campaign. In fact, this is not a smear at all, just a simple fact about how Wilson ended up going to Niger. But the story line is that Wilson was smeared and punished and attacked, and this offhand comment about his wife is no such thing.
To: CarlEOlsoniii
76
posted on
07/14/2005 12:34:20 PM PDT
by
processing please hold
(Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
To: bitt
77
posted on
07/14/2005 12:35:12 PM PDT
by
Zacs Mom
(Proud wife of a Marine! ... and purveyor of "rampant, unedited dialogue")
To: CarlEOlsoniii
I can agree with this legislation. "Deny security clearances to officials who disclose the identity of an undercover agent." Undercover agents should remian undercover at all cost. Including the arrest and conviction of a spouse revealing the identity on a personal website.
Can someone elplain to me how a person who is seen walking into the CIA offices in Langley on a daily basis is considered an Undercover Covert Operative?
To: Buke
"How good would someone in that position be if they had without a security clearance?"
Rove is a political strategist, not a national security advisor, so IMHO he could function quite well without a high security clearance.
To: CarlEOlsoniii
Do they honestly think if he is fired he will stop working against the Dems? Perhaps he will start operating outside the constraints of being a government employee and then he will be REALLY dangerous to the Dems. They should be careful what they wish for.
80
posted on
07/14/2005 12:38:15 PM PDT
by
msnimje
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 141-145 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson