perfidy

Lie about a blowjob => Impeach the President!

Lie about outing a covert CIA operative for political gain => Excuse for noise.

I call bullshit. Think Rove should still have his top secret clearance?

Ross,
The "Impeach Bush" stuff has been going non-stop since 2000. The guy can't read the pa...erm, have the paper read to him without hearing about someone wanting to impeach him for something.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath; doesn't really matter so much what he was lying about.

I don't know that Plame was a "covert CIA operative" when all this originated, but if she was, and Rove outed her, yeah he should be fired. And if she was on a mission to boot, he should be indicted too.

As for his security clearance, yeah alot of that has to do with character. But we both know that influential people don't have to go through the same checks the Little People do. Otherwise how do you explain all those congresspeople on high-level committees?

Or look at Sandy Berger- the guy *stole* classified documents, then lost some of them. If that were you or me, we'd be in jail brother- and/or paying off a crippling fine.

Plame was not some daring agent on a secret mission behind the Iron curtain, whose unveiling could have resulted in death.

Wait a minute, here. Whatever else she was, Plame was an undercover operative working NOC, who, thanks to the hard work of Rove and Bob Novak, had her covert status compromised, her cover company revealed, and all her previous contacts compromised. You're really perfectly OK with this? We're so swimming in good intelligence in the area of WMD that we can afford to deep-six an agent publicly as long as it benefits the Bush White House?

This is a stupid scandal -- not because of the nature of the crime that may have been committed, but because it is becoming too complex to be an effective political tool for Democrats. The press is focused on the minute details of who said what, the precise wording, and definitions. Too much "definition of is" stuff. If Dems succeed in getting Rove removed, they will look bad. They need to redirect attention in the case: why didn't that administration see fit to send someone to Niger to investigate the documents? why was it hostile to the information produced by the CIA and State department? The scandal, to be effective, needs to have a broader meaning rather than a tight focus.

I have to agree with Phil. Anyone who is covertly working for the CIA, regardless of their mission cannot be exposed. There are plenty of people who would attack innocent Americans for being Americans. Agents of the CIA more so.

GHW Bush, our former president and director of the CIA once said in 1999 that it's a serious thing to expose an agent. Given that, I'm appalled at the inaction of the current administration. It's short sighted. How do you get an agent to work for you if they can't trust their identity to be protected?

As far as NDR's comment about the political hay, perhaps Rove shouldn't have outed an agent. If there is a political scandal brewing, it's because the President himself should be gravely concerned about this breach, and he is not. I think the politcal hay is deserved.

Let me find that Bush Sr. quote for you. It was dug up by the Democrats and it's important since he was speaking as the former director of the CIA.

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

GHW Bush, in a speech on April 26, 1999.

BRC Mapgirl,

I strongly disagree. If there is a crime, there is little scandal -- nothing that will change the political landscape. I don't see any evidence that Rove's admission will move public opinion, nor will his resignation, termination, conviction, or imprisonment. The audience for this affair has barely grown in the two years since Novak printed his story.

As much as the investigation into the outing of Plame must go forward, does it mean that it is prudent for Democratic leaders to invest significant political capital in it (assuming that the investigation is pursued professionally rather than politically)? Compared to other scandals faced by both this administration and those in the past, the Plame affair won't move people like Iran-Contra or Lewinsky. It's not even as interesting as Whitewater (just by going on the gossip) or as simple as Halliburton. Proviso: Democrats can redirect attention from the scandal outwardly.

(BTW, I don't mean any personal attack: your comments here are often insightful and enjoyable.)

NDR,

I am glad that you respectfully disagree. You and I have a different take on politics, and that's ok. I think I see your point in that there isn't necessarily a huge political gain for Dems. But I really think if a crime has been committed, there is an obligation to pursue, whether or not it politically advantageous. I'm not naive enough to think that the world is all about black and white in terms of justice or moral absolutes. It's just that I think the revelation of a covert operative's identity is a VERY BAD thing in the bigger picture of national security, congressional seats be damned.

Obviously you don't know me if you think I take your comments personally. I would never let some "random idiot on a political blog" goad me into a flame war. I reserve that ire for ppl I can scream at in person. It's MUCH more satisfying that way. I love to see my opponents cry.

Honestly, I could care less about politix. I only comment here because Johno and Buckethead will badger me if I don't leave traces of a visit... ;-)

mapgirl