Karl Rove is Not a "Target"

Don't the Dems look ridiculous?

So, what else is new?

From AP:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Rove ought to be fired, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she agreed with Kerry's position.

..."The fact that he didn't give her name, but identified the ambassador's wife _ doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who that is," Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said on CNN's "Inside Politics." "If that occurred, at a minimum, that was incredibly bad judgment, warranting him being asked to leave."

They are making fools out of themselves.

John Kerry sent out this e-mail today:

Dear ----,

Less than two weeks ago, members of the johnkerry.com community demanded that Karl Rove be fired for his deliberate attempt to, once again, use the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to divide America. Now Karl Rove is embroiled in another controversy concerning the leaked identity of a covert CIA agent, which was done to punish her husband, a man who had the courage to tell the truth about manipulated intelligence in Iraq.

Karl Rove is the President's top advisor in the White House and what he has admitted doing has deep and troubling consequences for our national security.

It's hard to understand how the President can tolerate his top advisor being involved in exposing a CIA agent in the name of politics by telling reporters about her work - making her already dangerous job that much more dangerous.

In order to do what the President called on us to do earlier this week - "continue to take the fight to the enemy" - the White House and Karl Rove must stop taking it to their so-called political enemies here at home.

It's perfectly clear that Rove - the person at the center of the slash and burn, smear and divide tactics that have come to characterize the Bush Administration - has to go.

http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove

The problem is that, instead of protecting the American people from real threats to our security, this Administration spends its time protecting Karl Rove. That's not leadership.

They're doing their best to brush off this new Rove controversy as just another political story, but this time they are having a harder time getting away with it. That's why, if we raise our voices now, we can really make a difference. Please ask all your friends to sign our "Fire Rove" petition today:

http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove


Despite carefully worded denials, it is now apparent that Karl Rove discussed the identity of an undercover CIA agent with a reporter. His clear aim was to discredit that agent's husband who had dared to challenge the Administration in the buildup to the war.

There appears to be no limit to the lengths to which Rove - and this Administration - will go. But, there is a limit to the patience of the American people - and we have reached it. President Bush has a choice to make: Spend the months ahead focused on protecting Karl Rove's job security or spend them focused on protecting America's national security.

We are asking the President and the White House to do what they promised. When the scandal first broke, here's what the President's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said:

"If anyone in this Administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this Administration." (9/29/03, White House press briefing). Now we will find out if the Administration honors its word. Call on President Bush to keep his word and fire Rove now:

http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove


It's as simple as this: We need President Bush and his White House staff to focus on finally taking action necessary to avoid a quagmire in Iraq. The American people can't afford to wait while the White House spends its time and energy defending a top presidential aide's dangerous political maneuvers.

In the days ahead, the President will either make good on his promise to hold accountable those who shared the identity of a secret soldier in the war on terror - or he'll prove that promise hollow.

We now know that Karl Rove "was involved" in a breach of national security. Decency - and the interests of the American people - demand an end to Karl Rove's days in the White House. It's time for you to demand it as well.

http://www.johnkerry.com/firerove

I urge you to take action right now.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

Do you believe this guy? It appears he has nothing better to do than to organize leftist nuts. What a complete doofus!

This is what the Dems have become. What are they offering Americans? NOTHING!

The Democrats and their liberal mouthpieces in the mainstream media need to shut up for a few minutes and read Byron York's interview with Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin.

In an interview with National Review Online, Luskin compared the contents of a July 11, 2003, internal Time e-mail written by Cooper with the wording of a story Cooper co-wrote a few days later. "By any definition, he burned Karl Rove," Luskin said of Cooper. "If you read what Karl said to him and read how Cooper characterizes it in the article, he really spins it in a pretty ugly fashion to make it seem like people in the White House were affirmatively reaching out to reporters to try to get them to them to report negative information about Plame."

...Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."

...Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.

It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify.

When Judith Miller was sent to her jail cell on July 6, I wrote:

Fitzgerald said that the source for both Cooper and Miller had waived confidentiality. So, based on the source taking the burden of confidentiality off, Cooper has agreed to cooperate and Miller won't. The source said it was OK for Miller to talk.

What's her problem?

If her source has informed her that it's OK to talk, why doesn't she behave like Cooper?

I don't get it. She doesn't have to go to jail.

To me, this waiver was the story.

I wondered why Miller had opted for jail when Cooper had not.

A week ago, it was clear that something weird was going on. I thought the New York Times chose the dramatic route and wanted to make Miller out to be a martyr.

That theory is looking increasingly misguided. Most likely, the NYT's intent was not to get mileage out of Miller's lack of freedom. It seems to be that the Times and Miller aren't acting on principle. Instead, it appears that they're covering up something.

There's a reason Miller didn't opt to take advantage of the "get of jail free" waiver. In all likelihood, it's in the best interest of the Times to keep her source a secret.

The real story here isn't Rove. It appears that he hasn't committed a crime. All of this bluster about him is a smokescreen. It's a deflection.

The libs have something to hide.

Byron York writes:

Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a "target" of the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe.

It's time for the Dems and the MSM to quit grandstanding. They look like idiots, already convicting someone that Fitzgerald has said is not a "target" of the investigation.

I guess Rove should be flattered that so many on the left want so desperately to get him out of the picture.