home

Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove

President Bush has now had enough time with his advisors to come up with a response to questions about Karl Rove. Unlike yesterday, where he just ignored reporters who asked him about Rove, today, with Rove seated right behind him, he said:

"I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation. I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports," Bush told reporters in response to a question. "We're in the midst of an ongoing investigation and I will be more than happy to comment further once the investigation is completed," Bush said.

Thank you, Mr. President, for that illuminating answer.

< Bernie Ebbers: 25 Years, a Life Sentence | Trespassing on a Public Street >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    Last night on 'The Daily Show' Jon Stewart mentioned how Karl Rove could be our next supreme court justice based on how Bush rewards his 'friends.'

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    If you look at the picture closely, you can see the puppet strings in Rove's hands.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#3)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    et al - Cute comments, but it is traditional that Presidents do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations. Hmmmmm??

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#4)
    by txpublicdefender on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    So, if the president receives evidence that someone on his staff revealed classified information to at least one reporter (and likely others), he must wait until a criminal investigation is completed before revoking that person's security clearance or firing him? That's ludicrous. It's also ludicrous to say that he won't comment on an ongoing investigation when they have previously repeatedly commented by saying that Rove was absolutely not involved. Give me a break.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#5)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    tx - The problem with your strawman is that it assumes that Rove broke the law. That is the question. What you posit is that the President should act against Rove based on a claim that he did was illegal.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#6)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    Just for some bona-fides, PPJ... were you as skeptical or reserved about all the bad-press about Bill Clinton? The Whitewater investigation? The rumors of the Arkansas Mafia? The innuendoes about Foster?

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    Question for erudites on this board – Could all of this be ‘deflection’ for some other bigger cause -? Like say take heat off of Downing Street Memo. Firing someone get what at the end -? It seems just to take focus/effort off of something much much importance. First time post – please be gentle.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#8)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:10 PM EST
    Was Plame a covert operator? Yes. Many contend she was not. And "many" forget to account for all of the sources above who say otherwise.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    PPJ says
    My point is merely that reasonable people will wait until facts are known.
    I suppose that includes your president, and his puppydog mouthpiece, Scotty? Both of whom spoke on the record about this case, while it was ongoing, in support of Rove. Without knowing the facts, I might add.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    the prez and his minions have been commenting all along on the case while the investigation (the one they tried to stonewall) has been taking place. bushco has also been consistently saying anyone found to be involved in the leaking would be fired, not anyone found to be in violation of fed law, just anyone who leaked. the only folks who contend the bushco meant otherwise are meerely repeating rnc talking points. It is also only proper than anyone under investigation for revealing nat'l secutity secrrets should be suspended until the investigation is complete. You don't leave a suspected traitor in place just because he hasn't been found guilty yet.
    Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? BUSH: That's up to -- Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so? BUSH: Yes.
    McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.


    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#11)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    ppj; wrong again but still true-blue to the RNC.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    What does Mrs Plame say about all this?

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    john horse,

    That statement was said tongue-in-cheek, for PPJ's benefit. I agree with your assessment, and should have noted that.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#14)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    Eric Alterman asks an interesting question. "Where is the conservative outrage? After all, the man outed an undercover CIA agent, blew numerous operations, cost the country millions of dollars and quite possibly endangered national security and could conceivably have cost lives. (For all we know, he did.) And he did it all for pure political advantage." As Russert has pointed out (in one of his rare moments of lucidity) if this was a Democract there would be congressional hearings.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    bush said "I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation. " Why didn't he just walk down the hall and ask him?

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    Was she undercover? the CIA seemed to think so: The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman's husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush's since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    Bush of course had no way of knowing for two whole years that Rove did this. He's a babe in the woods! Bush had no way of checking the facts because his fact-checker broke back in 1975 when he was snorting coke off a gay hooker's nipple ring. Bush had no credibility and no way to find any, after his lies turned up bupkis. Rove's lies? More bupkis. The reason for their actions has NO other explanation, though they have tried to say that Rove was actually PROTECTING Plame. Like Bush is protecting Iraq.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#18)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    Bush said that he would fire whoever leaked information on Valerie Wilson, and he is a man of his word, isn't he?

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#19)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    Kos has a link to a msnbc poll showing that the majority of Americans no longer believe their President. (sarcasm alert) What I wonder is what do we tell our children? Here we have the President of the United States lying and not taking responsibility for his lies. What do we say when they start to think that lying is ok because "the President does it"? What do we tell our children?

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    We tell our children that Karl Rove is a traitor. We tell them that we have an agency called the CIA that operates worldwide to develop information covertly and are willing to put their lives in jeopardy for the greater security of our nation. We tell them that the CIA requested an investigation of the leak that named a CIA operative. We tell them the leak came from the President's administration, which is unprecedented in our history. We tell them the President promised to fire those responsible. We tell them that he has now changed his mind. That members of the CIA and protection of their identities is not as important as protecting your friends. We tell them that being a traitor is only indefensible when you are not friendly with the president. The moral of the story kids, is that you can lie and betray your country, but first it is essential that you make some friends in very high places that can protect you. We should probably also mention to make sure that their voting registration card says "republican" because if this were a democrat they would already be at Gitmo.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    P.S. Never use the name of the Agent you are outing sonny, make sure you say something very hard to find out like, Karl Rove's wife for example. My guess is that finding out who his wife is will be too hard for most reporters anyway.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#22)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    PPJ, Let me understand what you are saying. If the Republicans only conduct investigations into possible abuse of power by Democrats but not their fellow Republicans, that would mean that if Democrats achieve control of Congress, they should only investigate possible abuse of power by Republicans but never Democrats. However, if you limit your investigation to the actions of your political enemies, then isn't that in itself an abuse of power? Why should anyone's political affiliation matter? You said that it is "traditional that Presidents do not comment on ongoing criminal investigations." Why was it ok to for Bush to comment about Rove a few months ago, but not now? Stop dodging the subject. After all, you raised the point.

    Re: Bush Answers (Not) Questions on Rove (none / 0) (#23)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    PPJ re: "As for Alterman, he presumes that Rove outed a covert agent..." It turns out Alterman was right. According to the Blumenthal article in todays Salon, "In early 2002, Valerie Plame was an officer in the Directorate of Operations of the CIA task force on counter-proliferation, dealing with weapons of mass destruction, including Saddam's WMD programs. At that time, as she had been for almost two decades, she was an undercover operative. After training at "The Farm," the CIA's school for clandestine agents, she became what the agency considers among its most valuable and dangerous operatives -- a NOC, or someone who works under non-official cover. NOCs travel without diplomatic passports, so if they are captured as spies they have no immunity and can potentially be executed. As a NOC, Plame helped set up a front company, Brewster-Jennings, whose cover has now been blown and whose agents and contacts may be in danger still."