Skip to comments.Intel Officers: Bush Needs to Punish Rove for Plame Outing
Posted on 07/22/2005 5:33:43 PM PDT by LSUfan
Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security.
In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the War on Terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.
"I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief protect and defend the Constitution," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Proof enough that the CIA needs to be purged of Democrats.
Sounds about right. If I were a former CIA agent I would hide in shame for the catastophic errors in the past 15 or so years.
This was NOT a hearing. It was a bunch of people getting together to trash Bush. And they have BEEN WARNED previously.
I'd bet anything John Conyers is involved, even though none of these articles mention him or anybody else who was there, nor where they held this "meeting."
From The Hill:
|Judiciary GOP pulls the plug on Conyers 'forums'|
If the Financial Services Committee is the best in the House when it comes to bipartisan comity, then the Judiciary Committee may well be the worst.
Do they not know how totally stupid that sounds?
This is not news - this "testimony" was a partisan event held by the Democrats.
There was a guy defending Joe Wilson's honesty, even though Joe Wilson himself was forced to admit he's a liar (or what did he call it..."Literary Flare.")
Look closely at the article. This was not a committee hearing - but a partisan event put on the by Democrats that these men agreed to give their "testimony" to.
These are the intel officers that didnt see 9/11 coming? The ones that were never fired for the deaths of 3000 Americans? Please....
Henry Waxman and Dick Durbin were there....I didn't bother watching long enough to see who else was.
Yes, that is exactly what it was.
Then the facilities and services should be billed to the DNC as well as the television time at commercial rates.
Yea, I know but somehow it still wreaks. I have no problem with CIA agents having opinions, strong or otherwise. I do have a problem with with them even though they may be "retired" playing such politcal games.
There are two potential criminal charges that the prosecutor is trying to learn if anyone, including Rove, violated. One is the leaking of an undercover agent's identity, and the other is perjury before the fed grand jury.
Proving the first crime is impossible, because it didn't happen. The instant Plame began working under her own name, her undercover status disappeared. That was over 5 years ago. Therefore, it is legally impossible to have "outed" Valerie Plame.
IMHO, perhaps the prosecutor has two motives for keeping the case going: First, he may have conflicting testimony on some facts, indicting that "someone" is lying, which would equate to the perjury investigation; Second, at the moment he closes the investigation (ie, no crime, etc), Judith Miller gets released, and I'm sure he wants to keep her in jail for the max, since she stiffed his investigation by refusing to testify.
BUT....If Plame couldn't be outed, why is Miller in jail?
If her source couldn't have outed Plame because she was already out, what's to protect? Seems to me that it could save someone some embarassment, but is that worth four months in jail? This is the only mystery in the whole thing!
Along with there being no crime of outing, perjury also will not apply in any case. Perjury, to be a crime, must always be MATERIAL. IOW, the lying has to bear some weight on the case. Clinton lied to cover his misdeeds in the sexual harassment trial....those were material lies because they had an impact on the case in chief. An example of non-material perjury would be if the witness lied about the weather at the time of the crime, but that had no impact on the material facts of the case.
But even if Rove lied about where he got Plame's name, it's not material, because there is no case in chief.
The press continues to maliciously use the word "undercover" to report on this. They know that's incorrect, but it makes Rove and Bush look bad. MSM and the loonies are going to eat it again. What a bunch of punch-drunk losers. I think they're starting to enjoy getting beat up.
ping to Sam Hill!
Where in the world are you getting your information? I think you need to broaden your sources a bit - not even the most rabid Wilson-hater believes that she was never covert.
She (Plame) did work NOC (non-official cover) up until 1997.
That much was established.
Not here. I had a running two-day battle with Howlin' for saying the same thing you just said.
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.