ok, politics again.
karl rove’s sole defense in the valerie plame affair is that he didn’t identify her by her name.
he maintains, through his lawyers, that he’s innocent of wrongdoing because he referred to her as ‘an operative within the cia who’s married to joseph wilson’.
oh, come on…
that is arguably the dumbest defense in the history of very dumb defenses.
there is nothing general or vague about saying that someone is the wife of someone else.
we live in a culture wherein marriage is, by legal definition, a monogamous institution. when you say, ‘the husband of laura bush who lives in the white house’ you know that you’re referring to george bush.
when you say ‘the wife of bill clinton who is a senator from new york’ you know that you’re referring to hillary clinton.
so when karl rove said ‘the wife of joseph wilson who is a cia agent’ it was pretty clear that he meant valerie plame(who, as it turns out, is a cia agent who happens to be married to joseph wilson).
no ambiguity. no vague references. this was a direct and specific reference and at the very least the republicans should accept that one of their own has done something very, very wrong.
gw bush promised that anyone in his administration who knowingly leaked valerie plame’s identity would be fired.
but yet rove still has his job.
bush has lied and contradicted himself many times before(about wmd’s in iraq, about the cost of the medicare bill, about his military service, about the end of hostilities in iraq, about when he stopped drinking, etc), but this is such a direct and blatant contradiction that even bush supporters should seem surprised.
it’s simple, bush said that anyone in the administration who was involved in leaking valerie plame’s identity would be fired.
karl rove was involved, directly, in leaking valerie plame’s identity.
george bush should live up to his word and fire karl rove.
-moby
