<p>This should be interesting if report is true…</p>
<p>“interesting” is definitely an understatement !! But we have to wait and see what the facts are. I understand Time Magazine may have already turned over their reporter’s notes.</p>
<p>Sure, he probably outed the CIA officer at the same time that Walter Cronkite says he was conspiring with Bin Laden to release Bin Laden’s pre-election video. And he probably had something to do with the Red Sox beating the Yankees last year.</p>
<p>Maybe he can room with Bernie Ebbers.</p>
<p>I don’t know about those things, but he definitely had to do with swift boat liars and all those evangelican inuendos.</p>
<p>
Well if it is “definite” then the proof is readily available. Perhaps I missed it. Care to share?</p>
<p>What is “interesting” is the presumption that a law was even broken.</p>
<p>If true, it would be the first time Joe Wilson got anything right.</p>
<p>Don’t make fun. Doesn’t have much to do with Plume or Wilson. It would be the equivalent of Rove taking a gun to the head of informants for American intelligence around the world, all those with whom Plume ever had contact, and those who had contact with them, and pulling the trigger. And likely additional American soldiers will have died as well. That’s why the law punishes such offenses so severely.</p>
<p>We’ll see. Shouldn’t convict him before there is even a charge. If he is guiilty, there will be interesting questions regarding whether the Prez knew.</p>
<p>Something about high crimes and misdemeanors…;)</p>
<p>If Valerie Plame was a top secret agent, you’re probably right. Actually, she was a chair warmer at the CIA and anyone who wanted to know her status did not have much difficulty figuring it out.</p>
<p>It seems that people who want to say this is a non-issue do so by downplaying Plame’s position. If her job description fits the class addressed by the law, then it fits. End of story. </p>
<p>But if Rove was the leaker - still a big if - the question would be two-fold: 1) was revealing her name against the law or not; and 2) did Rove testify before the grand jury, and if he did so, did he deny he was the leaker? The second question is as important as the first.</p>
<p>So lets say, by some weird twist of law, that revealing the name of a CIA operative is not illegal, would it be moral and right?</p>
<p>So, was it moral to share her name?</p>
<p>And by the way, Rove did testify in front of the grand jury Oct 15 2004</p>
<p>"Under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it is a crime for someone with authorized access to classified information to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent. </p>
<p>Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said the disclosure of Plame’s name could be worse than Watergate “in terms of the real-world implications of it.” time magazine</p>
<p>So much wishful thinking here! :)</p>
<p>I haven’t stated anything wishful, just facts…</p>
<p>And please don’t drag in alot of extranious drivel, focus…was it right, legal or not, to share the name of a CIA agent?</p>
<p>And, how do we know what her duties were? And note, I said claim, never said for sure it is Rove</p>
<p>But say, it was John Doe, would it be right? Moral issues are a big deal with this administration, as we all know…</p>
<p>But you think it was moral to leak this CIA employees name, whether it was “easy to figure” out or not, you disagree with Former President Bush</p>
<p>Let’s also not forget that it was Robert Novak who actually printed her name.</p>
<p>Under certain circumstances, the exposure of a covert government agent would violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. The act applies itself to a person who “learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States.” [2] The Novak column did describe Plame as an “operative”, but did not use the description “covert”. Novak has claimed that the CIA made “a very weak request” that he not name Plame publicly. WSJ.com columnist James Taranto suggests that this would indicate the absence of “affirmative measures to conceal” necessary for a violation of the law. [3] The CIA has disputed Novak’s claim and indicated that he was told revealing the information could cost agents their lives."</p>
<p>And was that a patriotic thing for him to do? And who ever leakedher name, where they true patriots?</p>
<p>The question for the Prez is what did he know, and when did he know it? ;)</p>
<p>And it makes no difference whether she was a chairwarmer, or even a bedwarmer - the CIA gave her the protected status, and anyone who was known to have had contact with her would have been an increased risk.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be delicious irony if it were a democrat?</p>
<p>No. If it is a Democrat, s/he should be punished the same. And if the Prez knew, and didn’t tell the grand jury or the investigator, it doesn’t matter that he isn’t a Democrat either. (I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican.)</p>
<p>High crimes and misdemeanors…</p>