You Are Among The Elite!

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Rove is Finally Cleared

I say it is about time. It has been absurd that this man has been under the microscope, testifying before a grand jury five times (I think it is five) about something that should have been decided two years ago.

Victoria Tensing, the author of the statute that has been in question, has maintained from day one that there was no violation. Plame did not meet the standard for "covert operative" as she worked a day job at a desk at Langley. I am not going to rehash all of the facts, but suffice it to say this was nothing but harassment, pure and simple. The Dems don't like Rove because they can't beat him in elections.

Howard Dean said that this is "...bad for America." Go figure. To the left, it is a terrible thing when a government official didn't break the law. Wait...when a GOP official didn't break the law. Dems like William Jefferson (D-La) should be excluded from a legal standard.

A short applause for Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) who expressed confidence in the decision, as he considers Fitzgerald objective and fair.

7 Posts From Readers:

TM said...

Hello Robert.

My two cents on this whole thing?

1) I think outing a CIA agent for political purposes is B.S. Criminal. Oughta be punished severely.

2) Could I see someone in the Bush administration doing this? I mean hypothetically? Yeah, I could. Not because I think they are all a bunch of crooks, but just because of human nature.

3) After a while, the whole thing became so dang complicated that I couldn't make heads or tails of it. To be blunt, I didn't know who to believe. So I looked at Fitzgerald as I would look at an accountant or a lawyer. Someone who is qualified and has the time to figure out my problems. You may not understand everything your lawyer tells you, but if you trust him, you take his advice.

And since he seemed to be a straight shooter, when he decided to indict Libby, but not Rove, well that was good enough for me.

Yeah, it sounds like a cop-out, but I don't have the time to try to sort through all the legal codes and hundreds of conflicting witnesses and what not. But he does, and he gets paid to do it too.

And in retrospect, I don't even know exactly what Libby got indicted for. Perjury, I think. Which isn't the same as outing a CIA agent. Which I guess just helps to prove my point that this whole thing was more complicated than I felt like dealing with.

It is funny that just how you sit on the political fence can really totally adjust how we perceive facts and situations. All the democrats swore she was maliciously outed. All the republicans swore she wasn't.

Jeeze.

Anyway, I hope we can put this whole mess behind us and get back to running the country and fighting the war. And for all of his faults (and he does have them), I still admire and respect Bush and am glad we have him as a president.

My two cents.

Very respectfully,

TM

Anonymous said...

Thanks TM for your comments. Respectfully noted.

Yes, it is complicated. The government has so many statutes, it is impossible to spend a career without violating something. What I do know is that political witchhunts, no matter who engages in them, are vicious and ridiculous. Both sides are more right than wrong. I am sure that there were conversations aimed at placing someone in a bad light. Was it illegal? I don't think so. No one has been charged with anything like it, and Libby was charged because he didn't remember a particular conversation, and he is charged with perjury.

The simple thing to do when analyzing these things is to keep it simple. The author of the statute said that the facts don't meet the standard of the law. Original intent is an important concept.

No one was charged. As far as I am concerned, that ought to settle it.

TM said...

Yeah, I thing that settles it too.

Very respectfully,

TM

TM said...

Yeah, I think that settles it too.

PIMF.

Nicho said...

No one was charged. As far as I am concerned, that ought to settle it.

You know, I think the men in Mississippi who got away with murdering three civil rights workers probably thought the same thing at the time. Rove is guilty of far more than what Fitz is looking into. Forgive us on the left is we're a tad bit disappointed that Fitz couldn't get a legal grip on his slippery arse.

Even more interesting has been the conservative take on Fitz who was, at the time of Libby's indictment, not fit to be the prosecutor and strung up by his short hairs. Now he's a fine prosecutor, destined for good things.

Robert said...

Reference the comments on your blog about the irresponsible musings on the part of both sides.

I have personally been impressed with Fitzgerald from day one. He strikes me as being fair, objective, professional, and non-partisan. Even with the indictment of Libby, I think it was done to the letter of the law.

Robert said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Other Stuff