If Karl Rove is, infact, the leak...

[Stonecutter]

Strangler nailed all the facts there.

As for:

Originally Posted by The Strangler

The journalist then outed the agent in a column (and how that isn't being investigated, I have NO idea).

I'm pretty sure Novak had every right to use the information given to him by Rove. So long as Rove never said "you can't print this" the blame still falls on Rove.


Thing is, according to one of the Newsweek articles, Rove and Novak have been butt buddies since the 70s, so the info getting out through Novak is probably entirely Rove's doing.

Keep diving on those grenades, Bond.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

Keep diving on those grenades, Bond.

Grenade, Stoney, grenade. Lets lot let things get out of hand and let this incident validate every crazy thing that the Bush administration has been accused of. I could easily bring up numerous scandals under the Clinton administration and use any one of them to justify everything that he was ever accused of and the rediculous empeachment he was put under, but I won't.

Why? Because just because one thing is true, it doesn't mean everything is true. That and I like to think I have some sense.

[Stonecutter]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Grenade, Stoney, grenade. Lets lot let things get out of hand and let this incident validate every crazy thing that the Bush administration has been accused of. I could easily bring up numerous scandals under the Clinton administration and use any one of them to justify everything that he was ever accused of and the rediculous empeachment he was put under, but I won't.

Why? Because just because one thing is true, it doesn't mean everything is true. That and I like to think I have some sense.

It was more a commentary on Bond's unwavering, blind support of anything related to the grand olde party.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

It was more a commentary on Bond's unwavering, blind support of anything related to the grand olde party.

Oh Jesus, here we go... first of all, I simply stated that "if" was your keyword, which it was. I don't believe it has been proven that Rove was "the" leak, and I believe in this country we presume innocence until proven guilty. Now, if Rove was the leak then yes, I believe he should be fired. I believe he should be fired right now infact for being a complete moron to even let this situation start altogether.

[Stonecutter]

Yeah, but rather than actually answer my question the first time, you have to highlight the "if" part of the equation.

I find it quite funny.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

Yeah, but rather than actually answer my question the first time, you have to highlight the "if" part of the equation.

I find it quite funny.

he did answer your question, its because nobody's sure whether or not he is the leak. Therefor he cannot be charged with anything until proof is given.

[Stonecutter]

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

he did answer your question, its because nobody's sure whether or not he is the leak. Therefor he cannot be charged with anything until proof is given.

Uhh, no, he didn't answer my question. My question was and remains.

"If Karl Rove is, in fact, the leak...

.....explain to me how he's not guilty of treason?"

"If Karl Rove is the leak" is not a question. It's a hypothetical statement necessary relative to the actual question which is:

"Explain to me how he's not guilty of treason?"