cobb said:
What is the big deal? Did an administration bigwig and leading neocon philosopher, Karl Rove, give up the name of a covert CIA agent? Is it possible that this is another liberal attempt to bring down the Bush II administration by any means, much like they tried with Bush Sr. and Reagan? My take on this mess is that the Administration, with Karl Rove at the head, tried to discredit the agent’s husband for having the audacity to question the President’s information regarding Saddam Hussein’s intentions. Neoconservatives have neither the time nor patience for people who do not follow their lead, and are willing to take them down by any means necessary. Do Rove’s actions constitute a felony? No. It seems that he was simply stating information that was already well-known. Liberals will take any opportunity to throw a monkey-wrench in the works. Neocons have providing them with a great opportunity to mire our government in yet another scandal.
If you have time, please visit
Cobbtown Political Forum
I'm not sure whether you support Karl Rove's actions or not. But here is my analysis of the situation.
The U.S President is an elected U.S citizen, who is meant to represent the American people. He is not a demi-god, therefore it is every American Citizen's right to be able to question any of the directives or policies of the U.S President.
Dissent is a healthy part of any democracy. Especially crital analysis of information provided. Now the intelligence that George W. Bush presented as reasons to go to war, were sketchy, non-specific, out of date, and even some of it was written by think tanks. Now if someone from the intelligence community knows that what the President is not entirely accurate, or specific enough, isn't it that individual's responsibiltiy to share that with other American citizens? Serving you country goes past party politics. Intelligence officers don't swear an oath to defend whatever the President or current administration says.
The Karl Rove should have know better. But I suppose his do 'anything to make my team win' attitude has blinded his judgement. His actions also potentially put a CIA agent at risk.
Though the question still remains, why did so many Senators and Congressmen, not question the intelligence reports? Seems that far too many politicians feared being labeled un-patriotic.
But who is the greater patriot? The citizen that questions the intelligence, to make sure that lives are not put at risk needlessly? Or the person basis a decision to go to war based on a presumption?
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the removal of Saddam. In Australia, we got the impression that every U.S politician was just repeating the intelligence reports over and over verbatim.
