Xtisme, the way I’m reading it the perjury itself isn’t what matters to the dems… the subject of the perjury is.
By the way, some folks in this thread are using the charge of ‘treason’ incorrectly.
And although hamstringing out intel agencies hurts us, it isn’t going to war against the Republic, nor is it giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
What “new” Republican hypocrisy? It’s the same Republican hypocrisy we’ve been getting for over a decade now – or did everyone conveniently overlooked at all the folks who were hounding Clinton during the Lewinsky mess while having affairs and dalliances of their own?
Nowadays I just find it amusing how many of the Kool-Aid drinking Bush apologists can simultaneously shriek about how we must be resolute in preventing terrorists from acquiring WMDs while dismissing the outing of a CIA agent who was searching for WMDs as no big deal. Almost makes me want to erect a neon sign for the terminally clueless…
The only thing you can do is be consistent. I don’t expect that from our politicians, all they do is play the game of politics. They say what they think will advance their position, regardless of whether or not it is consistent or if it accurately reflects their beliefs.
Clinton did perjure himself in that deposition. The questions about Lewinsky were relevant since the deposition was for a civil suit charging sexual harassment. Harassment of a state employee by the governor. His actions with other employees while president sure seem relevant to me. FTR, I think that getting sexual favors is just about the worst abuse of individual authority an executive (of any type) can do to an employee.
Here, if these people perjured themselves in this investigation, I will be more than happy to see their asses nailed to the wall.
BTW, what did Hutchison mean when she said this:
What other charges, and how could they possibly compare to charges of treason?
This is not treason.
Come on, I made a post with a cite that’s just two above yours.
To repeat:
Rove did not levy war against the United States, nor give our enemies aid and comfort.
It is certainly an action which harms our country, but it is not treason.
wouldn’t/couldn’t public identification of a covert agent be considered giving aid/aiding enemies?
Because there’s a world of difference between taking a short sighted action designed to punish a political rival and giving aid to our enemies, even if the result of that shorted sighted action does indeed end up giving our enemies an advantage.
Or, to put a finer point on it:
Yes, perhaps in a rousing game of lawyerball there could be rationalizations for various charges, but it seems far more likely that Rove’s aim was not to give aid to our enemies. I think that the lessser charges will be much easier to make stick.
Absolutely right. I meant to convey “newest,” as in most current or most recent, and not “new,” as in any sort of novelty. My bad.
So this isn’t about Republican hypocricy, it’s about Kay Bailey’s hypocrisy.
Kay Bailey != all Republicans.
You beat me to the punch on that one. Early on, much was made of whether or not
Ms. Plame was an active covert agent at the time of the alleged exposure. I maintain
that, for practical purposes, it doesn’t matter. Outing a covert agent, past or present,
exposes foreign persons, who may have had a previous relationship w/ her, to
suspicion, scrutinization and possible jeopardy, even death. To do so for something
as trivial as political retaliation is despicable.
I understand that the statute against this has a high threshold and for that reason I
think anyone who perjured themselves in this investigation should be prosecuted even
if a case can’t be made for exposing an active covert agent.
Our President’s father, George H.W. Bush, former President and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, disagrees with you.
I don’t give a flying fuck what Rove’s aim was. If he outed a covert agent, and that outing assisted our enemies, he is a traitor.
Outing a covert agent is just not something you do lightly, if ever. It’s insane to think that it could be a reasonable or justifiable act to gain political advantage. Shit, how many people died because our intelligence hasn’t been up to snuff, and our own leadership is tanking our agents? I’ve got a good 5,000 dead Americans because of bad intel and security, yeah, let’s just fuck up our own network some more by outing agents.
Who gives a rat’s ass what his aim was? I think it’s going to take a rousing game of lawyer-ball to make this not look like treason, not the other way around.
Besides the base charges of sexual harassment that led to the perjury, there was Whitewater, Travelgate, the murder of everyone who got too close to his cocaine cartel, and so on.
Yeah, because outing our covert agents in NO WAY could be construed as aiding our enemies. n :dubious:
A traitor, perhaps, in some non-legal sense. But still not guilty of treason.
Or are you honestly going to suggest that anybody who commits an action, legal or illegal, which ends up through no conscious design being an advantage to our enemies… is guilty of treason?
It can be construed however you want to, I suppose.
Which specific enemies, however, were helped by Plame’s outing?
Those who think that motive is essential in determining guilt?
I still see no proof, at all, that Rove was ‘adhering to our enemies’.
As was pointed out several times during the Lewinsky episode, “Whenever anyone says, ‘It isn’t about the sex,’ it’s about the sex.”
Unfortunately for the Republicans, saying “It isn’t about the criminal act of outing a covert CIA operative, it’s about the perjury.” doesn’t have the same effect.
In a court of law, maybe. In the court of public opinion, fuhgeddaboutit.
Are you honestly going to suggest that Libby et al. (whoever, we’ll soon know) weren’t conscious of what they were doing, or why, or perhaps hadn’t thought out the consequences or legality of it? “Known or should have known” is the usual phrase, I believe.
The ones who are emboldened by public protest of the war, perhaps. You know, the terr’ists.
The most applicable term might be “aid and comfort”. We haven’t seen Fitzgerald’s indictments yet. Would you agree to withhold judgment for just a few days more?
You try construing outing a covert CIA agent as something other than aiding our enemies. Good luck. I await your response with bated breath.
Given that Plame’s CIA duties involved tracking down WMD’s, I would guess it would aid those of our enemies who are interested in obtaining WMDs. Nasty bunch, but would probably include Al Qaeda, for starters.
True enough.
But you can’t execute a man for being convicted in a court of public opinion… and I do believe that treason can carry the death penalty. Am I wrong?
I am reasonably certain that they knew they’d be ruining Plame’s career, and should’ve known that’d hurt CIA activity. No question in my mind about that.But I simply cannot make the leap from harming ourselves to aiding our enemies. There is, I believe, a substantive difference.
And as I’m sure folks know, I am no friend of Bush or Lon Cheney.
Seriously though… in my mind, in order to claim that he’s “adhered to” our enemies, you first have to show some connection between Rove and specific enemies. It’s not good enough to point out that we’re in a weakened global position. As I see it treason requires collusion between an American and a foreign power.
Naw, but I’d be willing to change my judgement if different facts come along. Cognitive dissonance can be dealt with, after all.
I still don’t see his actions as aid and comfort though, especially not taken in the context of “adhering to” an enemy.
I mean, hell, I’m sure that even Bush’s legal actions have helped make recruiting for Al Queda much easier. But I don’t think the man is guilty of treason.