Rep Henry Waxman has published a PDF that explains SF 312 and how it relates to Karl Rove's leaking of the identity of a CIA agent working on WMD issues. Rove had an affirmative duty to verify that the information he was passing on to a reporter was unclassified. For him to say "I didn't know it was classified" is an unsatisfactory defense. The CarpetBagger Report has more on SF 312 and Seeing The Forest has more reports from all over.

The ABC News poll shows that roughly three-quarters of all three groups, Independents, Democrats and Republicans think Rove should be fired.

As DailyKos puts it:

September 29, 2003:

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

September 30, 2003

"Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."


Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Do I believe Bush is telling the truth when he claims that he didn't know Rove, a person with whom he's worked with for over a decade, outed a CIA agent? Sure, as long as we accept that we're using a Clintonian parsing of phrases. Remember, when Clinton said “I have not had sex with that woman.” he was telling the truth. It's just that people thought that when he said “sex”, he was referring to sex in a very general manner. Anything more risque than holding hands, that is. They didn't know that Clinton was referring to sex in a very highly specific manner, to mean “sexual intercourse”. They thought sex meant doing anything in the way of man-woman intimacy.

So has Bush known for the past two years that Rove was the fellow who betrayed his oath of office and the national security of the United States of America? I'm willing to believe he hasn't, but only if we define “known” in a very precise manner.

No comments: