Rove's Security Clearance Widely Questioned

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
KKKarl Rove should be indicted as a traitor but even if he isn't indicted he should be stripped of his security clearance.

He knew better and even if he didn't incompetence is just as bad as malice and all the more reason to get sensitive information out of this traitor's hands permanently.

Rove's Security Clearance Widely Questioned

Federal workers under suspicion of smaller lapses have had access to classified data yanked.
By Peter Wallsten and Tom Hamburger
Times Staff Writers

November 6, 2005

WASHINGTON ? An intelligence analyst temporarily lost his top-secret security clearance because he faxed his resume using a commercial machine.

An employee of the Defense Department had her clearance suspended for months because a jilted boyfriend called to say she might not be reliable.

An Army officer who spoke publicly about intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks had his clearance revoked over questions about $67 in personal charges to a military cellphone.

But in the White House, where Karl Rove is under federal investigation for his role in the exposure of a covert CIA officer, the longtime advisor to President Bush continues to enjoy full access to government secrets.

That is drawing the attention of intelligence experts and prominent conservatives as a debate brews over whether Rove should retain his top-secret clearance and remain in his post as White House deputy chief of staff ? even as Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald mulls over whether to charge him with a crime in connection with the operative's exposure.

"The agencies can move without hesitating when they even suspect a breach of the rules has occurred, much less an actual breach of information," said Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who has represented more than three dozen intelligence officers in security clearance cases, including those cited above.

If Rove's access to classified information were taken away, it would prevent him from doing much of his job. His wide portfolio includes domestic policy and national security issues, and he is at the president's side often during the day.

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) joined Democrats last week in questioning whether the advisor should retain his policymaking post.

Bush has resisted demands in recent days from Democrats and other administration critics that he revoke Rove's security clearance or fire him; he says he is deferring comment until Fitzgerald finishes his inquiry. But there were signs this weekend that the White House was sensitive to the charge: It has scheduled a series of staff refresher lectures on ethics and classified information.

Several intelligence experts and a prominent conservative said in interviews that the White House should take the question of security clearance much more seriously.

Some said that whether or not Rove was ultimately charged with a crime, he might have violated policies governing how officials are expected to treat classified information.

Rove, like all White House employees granted security clearance, was required to sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" acknowledging that "unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation," according to a blank form posted on a federal website.

The form also notes, "I have been advised that any breach of this agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the departments or agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances."

Every employee given a secret, top-secret or higher clearance is also required to undergo several hours of training on dealing with classified information.


Rove is said to have one of the highest levels of clearance. The level held by senior White House officials is a special subset within the group cleared to see top-secret documents. This high clearance is called TS/SCI clearance ? which stands for Top-Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information.

A former White House official described going to a conference room in the Old Executive Office Building soon after joining the staff to watch an instructional video and get in-person training from federal agents who emphasize the need to take care with secret information. The former official was warned not to discuss any classified information learned on the job with those outside the complex who might not have the same clearance.

Each employee was asked to sign the nondisclosure agreement after the training and given a booklet explaining the rules, which include prohibitions against providing classified information ? or even confirming it ? to reporters.

A briefing booklet typically given to government employees when they receive their security clearance states that an official cannot confirm information that is classified, even if it has been published in a newspaper article.


Fitzgerald is probing whether Rove and other administration officials broke the law by disclosing Valerie Plame's identity as part of an effort to discredit her husband, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, who emerged in 2003 as a critic of Bush's Iraq policies. Wilson had undertaken a mission to Niger for the CIA to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium for nuclear weapons and found little evidence of it.

It is a felony to knowingly disclose the name of a covert agent, and the prosecutor has not charged anyone with that crime. However, an indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged him with perjury, obstruction of justice and giving false statements to investigators. Libby resigned and last week pleaded not guilty.

Fitzgerald has said his inquiry is continuing, focused at least partly on Rove.

Rove has maintained through his lawyer that he did nothing wrong in this case. Although he has acknowledged discussing Wilson's wife with journalists on at least two occasions, he has emphasized that he did not know Plame's name or covert status at the time of those conversations.

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testified that he had learned about Wilson's wife from a July 11, 2003, conversation in which Rove told him that Wilson's wife was "responsible" for the diplomat's trip to Niger.

Cooper said Rove did not mention Wilson's wife by name or mention her covert status.

The Libby indictment also indicates that Rove spoke with syndicated columnist Robert Novak before Novak's July 14, 2003, column, which cited two unnamed administration officials linking Plame to her husband's trip ? the first time Plame's name made it into print. The indictment says that on July 10 or 11, 2003, "Official A," later identified by sources as Rove, told Libby that he had spoken with Novak. "Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife," the indictment says.

Rove's lawyers have maintained that he breached no law because he learned Plame's name from journalists and did not know of her covert status. A source close to Rove defended the aide's actions, saying Saturday: "There has been no determination by anybody that Karl disclosed classified information. There's news reports about events, but there's been no formal finding by anyone that classified information was divulged."

Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration who as a Senate lawyer helped write the 1982 law protecting undercover agents, said there was no evidence that Rove had violated either the law or the nondisclosure agreement. She said an official must have known the information was classified to be punished for a disclosure.

Some administration allies argue that it was "common knowledge" that Plame worked at the CIA. If that's the case, Toensing said, "you wouldn't think that it's classified."

But there are hints that Rove might have known he was dealing with classified information in his talk with Cooper. Recounting that phone conversation in Time magazine, Cooper said his notes and e-mails indicated that Rove told him "material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings." He remembered Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much."

Intelligence experts and even some prominent conservatives say that the fate of Rove's security clearance should not depend on Fitzgerald's conclusions ? and that the White House should err on the side of caution rather than on technical questions of Rove's legal culpability.

"This president, who has raised to the top of the priority list the issue of national security, certainly should be concerned if any evidence has been developed that would indicate misuse of classified information by any member of his team, certainly somebody as high as Mr. Rove," said Bob Barr, a former Republican congressman from Georgia and a former CIA official and federal prosecutor.

Barr said the Justice Department should examine Rove's actions, apart from the Fitzgerald probe, to determine specifically whether Rove's security classification should be stripped.

Another leading conservative, William F. Buckley Jr., a covert agent in the 1950s in Mexico, said in a National Review column last week that disclosing the identity of a covert agent could carry "terminal consequences." Buckley did not directly address the Rove matter. Still, he wrote, "In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted."

Democrats, led by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) in the House and Minority Leader Harry Reid in the Senate, have called repeatedly for the revocation of Rove's clearance. Intelligence experts don't go that far, but want to know more.

Retired Navy Adm. Stansfield Turner, who was director of the CIA during the Carter administration, said Rove's actions needed to be "fully aired" and reviewed by intelligence and Justice Department officials.

Turner acknowledged that revoking or suspending Rove's secret clearance would "almost certainly end his usefulness as a top White House aide" and would be a "drastic step." But, he said, "you can't hold lower-level people accountable for possible leaks and not act when leaks occur at a higher level."

Turner said that among other consequences, the unmasking of an operative makes it difficult for intelligence agents to recruit sources, who may be skeptical of confidentiality pledges.

Jeffrey H. Smith, a general counsel to the CIA during the Clinton administration, said the president had "an obligation to look hard at this, especially because Rove has said he had nothing to do with [the exposure of Plame], and now we know he was discussing it."

White House officials and Bush himself have declined to publicly address Rove's security clearance and his future. Bush waved off repeated questions on the subject Friday during his visit to Argentina, saying, "The investigation on Karl, as you know, is not complete."

But the White House did take steps to quell growing criticism of ethical lapses under a president who campaigned in 2000 on restoring the "honor and dignity" of the office ? scheduling a series of mandatory refresher lectures to be held this week covering ethics and the proper use of classified material.

White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers and her staff will conduct the lectures, which are required for staffers with a security clearance at any level, according to a memo to White House staff released Saturday to reporters traveling with Bush in Latin America. That would apply to Rove. "Your attendance at one of these sessions is mandatory," the memo says. "There will be no exceptions."

Leon E. Panetta, a former Army intelligence officer who was White House chief of staff under President Clinton, said the White House was typically populated by staffers who, like Rove, landed there after years of experience in political campaigns, not in military or intelligence positions.

"To be frank," Panetta said, "I was always a little nervous in the White House about a lot of people who got clearances who were not really fully aware of the impact of dealing with that kind of documentation."

Times staff writer Edwin Chen, traveling with Bush in Mar del Plata, Argentina, contributed to this report.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?

Wrong standard . . . apparently even the possibility of marginally negligent behavior is grounds for loss of privileges. It kinda makes sense that one would apply stringent criteria to security clearances . . . don't you think?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?

Wrong standard . . . apparently even the possibility of marginally negligent behavior is grounds for loss of privileges. It kinda makes sense that one would apply stringent criteria to security clearances . . . don't you think?

There are at least two dunces here who aren't embarassed to admit publicly that they can't grasp that concept.

Read the article SoG, Zendari -- or at the very least the bolded sections. Security clearances have been pulled for far less. KKKarl and everyone else who receives a security clearance is made very well aware of the rules.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?
Why changing his name to "KKKarl" - duh!
"Why don't you address what they are saying instead of trying to flippantly dismiss it?"

Anyone want to guess who said that, just a few minutes ago?
 

PELarson

Platinum Member
Mar 27, 2001
2,289
0
0
Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?

It is called "YOU DON'T DO THAT!". He has admitted to talking to a reporter, Novak, about a CIA employee and then add to that not telling the White House Security Officer about that conversation.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?
Why changing his name to "KKKarl" - duh!
"Why don't you address what they are saying instead of trying to flippantly dismiss it?"

Anyone want to guess who said that, just a few minutes ago?

Awww, poor baby can't take a joke. :roll:

Look at the OP, junior. Calling Rove - "KKKarl"? Give me a break.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?
Why changing his name to "KKKarl" - duh!
"Why don't you address what they are saying instead of trying to flippantly dismiss it?"

Anyone want to guess who said that, just a few minutes ago?

Awww, poor baby can't take a joke. :roll:

Look at the OP, junior. Calling Rove - "KKKarl"? Give me a break.

In other words, you have no answer so you're trying to hijack the thread with your usual bullsh!t.

Junior.

 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?
Why changing his name to "KKKarl" - duh!
"Why don't you address what they are saying instead of trying to flippantly dismiss it?"

Anyone want to guess who said that, just a few minutes ago?

Awww, poor baby can't take a joke. :roll:

Look at the OP, junior. Calling Rove - "KKKarl"? Give me a break.

In other words, you have no answer so you're trying to hijack the thread with your usual bullsh!t.

Junior.

No, I was reponding to someone elses post, and used the garbage from your OP to make a joke. You and bowfinger need to pull the board out of your backside and step out of the fantasy bubble you live in once. Here in reality we like to have have a little fun once in a while.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?
Why changing his name to "KKKarl" - duh!
"Why don't you address what they are saying instead of trying to flippantly dismiss it?"

Anyone want to guess who said that, just a few minutes ago?

Awww, poor baby can't take a joke. :roll:

Look at the OP, junior. Calling Rove - "KKKarl"? Give me a break.

In other words, you have no answer so you're trying to hijack the thread with your usual bullsh!t.

Junior.

No, I was reponding to someone elses post, and used the garbage from your OP to make a joke. You and bowfinger need to pull the board out of your backside and step out of the fantasy bubble you live in once. Here in reality we like to have have a little fun once in a while.

Here, I'll make it easy for you to read only the bolded sections again.

Rove, like all White House employees granted security clearance, was required to sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" acknowledging that "unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation," according to a blank form posted on a federal website.

The form also notes, "I have been advised that any breach of this agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the departments or agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances."

Every employee given a secret, top-secret or higher clearance is also required to undergo several hours of training on dealing with classified information.


[...]

A former White House official described going to a conference room in the Old Executive Office Building soon after joining the staff to watch an instructional video and get in-person training from federal agents who emphasize the need to take care with secret information. The former official was warned not to discuss any classified information learned on the job with those outside the complex who might not have the same clearance.

Each employee was asked to sign the nondisclosure agreement after the training and given a booklet explaining the rules, which include prohibitions against providing classified information ? or even confirming it ? to reporters.

A briefing booklet typically given to government employees when they receive their security clearance states that an official cannot confirm information that is classified, even if it has been published in a newspaper article.

Now, other than your usual obfuscating bullsh!t, what do you have to say?

 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
OK, so what exactly are you trying to claim Rove did?

To me this seems like a desperate attempt to slime Rove since you couldn't get him in the so-called leak case. Some people call this - "Moving the Goal Posts".
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
OK, so what exactly are you trying to claim Rove did?

To me this seems like a desperate attempt to slime Rove since you couldn't get him in the so-called leak case. Some people call this - "Moving the Goal Posts".

READ!!! DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?

You're just being obtuse now. Like I said, nothing to offer so you repeat your usual bullsh!t.

 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
OK, so what exactly are you trying to claim Rove did?

To me this seems like a desperate attempt to slime Rove since you couldn't get him in the so-called leak case. Some people call this - "Moving the Goal Posts".

READ!!! DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?

You're just being obtuse now. Like I said, nothing to offer so you repeat your usual bullsh!t.

Yes, specifically state what you are claiming Rove did. Every detail, not just some generic charge.

Again, it seems like this is just another lame attempt for the left to smear "KKKarl":laugh: without actually having anything to back it up. Where are the charges? Are there any?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
OK, so what exactly are you trying to claim Rove did?

To me this seems like a desperate attempt to slime Rove since you couldn't get him in the so-called leak case. Some people call this - "Moving the Goal Posts".

READ!!! DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?

You're just being obtuse now. Like I said, nothing to offer so you repeat your usual bullsh!t.

Yes, specifically state what you are claiming Rove did. Every detail, not just some generic charge.

Again, it seems like this is just another lame attempt for the left to smear "KKKarl":laugh: without actually having anything to back it up. Where are the charges? Are there any?

Well Cad... I mean SoG... Rove, after signing a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" stating his responsibilities regarding classified information and training on what NOT to do with classified material, INCLUDING being "warned not to discuss any classified information learned on the job with those outside the complex who might not have the same clearance" and "prohibitions against providing classified information ? or even confirming it ? to reporters" as well as "an official cannot confirm information that is classified, even if it has been published in a newspaper article," KKKarl did precisely THAT.

Are you going to remain as obtuse as ever?
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
OK, so what exactly are you trying to claim Rove did?

To me this seems like a desperate attempt to slime Rove since you couldn't get him in the so-called leak case. Some people call this - "Moving the Goal Posts".

READ!!! DO I HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?

You're just being obtuse now. Like I said, nothing to offer so you repeat your usual bullsh!t.

Yes, specifically state what you are claiming Rove did. Every detail, not just some generic charge.

Again, it seems like this is just another lame attempt for the left to smear "KKKarl":laugh: without actually having anything to back it up. Where are the charges? Are there any?

Well Cad... I mean SoG... Rove, after signing a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" stating his responsibilities regarding classified information and training on what NOT to do with classified material, INCLUDING being "warned not to discuss any classified information learned on the job with those outside the complex who might not have the same clearance" and "prohibitions against providing classified information ? or even confirming it ? to reporters" as well as "an official cannot confirm information that is classified, even if it has been published in a newspaper article," KKKarl did precisely THAT.

Are you going to remain as obtuse as ever?

According to you. And? So you think he crossed the line. So? Sounds to me like this is just an attempt to lower the bar since you didn't get him in the so-called leak case.
We get it already, you want him to quit. Atleast be honest enough with yourself to acknowledge you have nothing. After all your attempts to "get" Bush and "KKKarl", you have nothing.
(should be interesting to see your reaction to that truth)


BTW, what is with you leftists? First it was conjur and some other loonie claiming I was some "NoSmirk" guy and now you and Bowfinger call me "Cad". As I've stated to the others who have an over active imagination - I am Grey Shaddon(as you would know if you looked at my profile) and this is the only account I post under. Sorry to disappoint you though.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


According to you. And? So you think he crossed the line. So? Sounds to me like this is just an attempt to lower the bar since you didn't get him in the so-called leak case.
We get it already, you want him to quit. Atleast be honest enough with yourself to acknowledge you have nothing. After all your attempts to "get" Bush and "KKKarl", you have nothing.
(should be interesting to see your reaction to that truth)


BTW, what is with you leftists? First it was conjur and some other loonie claiming I was some "NoSmirk" guy and now you and Bowfinger call me "Cad". As I've stated to the others who have an over active imagination - I am Grey Shaddon(as you would know if you looked at my profile) and this is the only account I post under. Sorry to disappoint you though.

Don't read much, do you, "SoG"?

According to me and...READ the freakin' article.

An intelligence analyst temporarily lost his top-secret security clearance because he faxed his resume using a commercial machine.

An employee of the Defense Department had her clearance suspended for months because a jilted boyfriend called to say she might not be reliable.

An Army officer who spoke publicly about intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks had his clearance revoked over questions about $67 in personal charges to a military cellphone.

But in the White House, where Karl Rove is under federal investigation for his role in the exposure of a covert CIA officer, the longtime advisor to President Bush continues to enjoy full access to government secrets.

That is drawing the attention of intelligence experts and prominent conservatives as a debate brews over whether Rove should retain his top-secret clearance and remain in his post as White House deputy chief of staff ? even as Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald mulls over whether to charge him with a crime in connection with the operative's exposure.

"The agencies can move without hesitating when they even suspect a breach of the rules has occurred, much less an actual breach of information," said Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who has represented more than three dozen intelligence officers in security clearance cases, including those cited above.

[...]

Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) joined Democrats last week in questioning whether the advisor should retain his policymaking post.

Bush has resisted demands in recent days from Democrats and other administration critics that he revoke Rove's security clearance or fire him; he says he is deferring comment until Fitzgerald finishes his inquiry. But there were signs this weekend that the White House was sensitive to the charge: It has scheduled a series of staff refresher lectures on ethics and classified information.

Several intelligence experts and a prominent conservative said in interviews that the White House should take the question of security clearance much more seriously.

Some said that whether or not Rove was ultimately charged with a crime, he might have violated policies governing how officials are expected to treat classified information.

As far as who you are, you could claim to be Princess Diana or Elvis Presley...it's the internet.

You could even claim to be George W. Bush. I might even believe that one.

You're as obtuse as he is.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: BBond
There are at least two dunces here who aren't embarassed to admit publicly that they can't grasp that concept.

Well BOBDN....I mean "BBond"......why do you insult people that have not insulted you? Why is this behavior tolerated in this forum? What am I missing here?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: BBond
There are at least two dunces here who aren't embarassed to admit publicly that they can't grasp that concept.

Why do you insult people that have not insulted you? Why is this behavior tolerated in this forum? What am I missing here?

A brain???

A worthless insult from "BBond". How original.

Hey, "Corn", I think your "kernel" might be corrupted.

:laugh:

 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?
1. The subject of the story was whether Rove's security clearance should be revoked, not whether he committed a crime.

By answering "yes" or "no", please acknowledge that you at least understand this simple fact.

2. The story points out that lower-level cleared individuals have had their clearances pulled for infractions less serious than what Rove apparently did, and that not pulling Rove's clearance for a more serious violation would therefore be hypocritical.

By answering "yes" or "no", please acknowledge that you understand this simple fact.

3. Anyone with a high-level clearance KNOWS that the identities of intelligence agents are classified. Such people also know that when asked about classified information by someone who is not cleared to receive such information and/or (even if cleared) does not have a "need to know", the required response is to neither confirm nor deny the information.

That is, even if Rove didn't know anything specific about Plame, he DID know that the indentities of intelligence agents are classified and that the reporters he spoke with were not cleared for such information. Therefore, he knew that during ANY conversation with a reporter that touched on the identities of intelligence agents, his required response was, "Whether or not I have such information, I can't discuss it".

Thus, any deviation from this required, neutral stance is a breach of security. Even assuming that Cooper broached or touched on the subject of "Wilson's CIA-agent wife", Rove was required to respond neutrally. To do otherwise provides confirmation of classified information, and as such is a serious breech of security. Regardless of whether that breach of security was a crime, those gullty of lesser breaches have had their clearances pulled. Karl Rove should not be held to a lower standard.

Now, without engaging in your usual change-the-subject evasions when a thread focuses on the wrongdoings of those in the Bush Administration, please address the FOCUS of this thread - whether or not Rove's security clearance should be pulled because of his security breaches.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Imagine that. The President's top advisor with top security clearance. Get over it, libbies. That's the way it has been for decades.

Talk about grasping at straws. Hopefully you don't choke...
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Therefore, he knew that during ANY conversation with a reported that touched on the identities of intelligence agents, his required response was, "Whether or not I have such information, I can't discuss it".

Right, but to add more....

If the persons identity in question is certainly NOT a classified or sensitive subject then you can talk about them as long as you like. Plame was no longer in the window of restriction. Howard Stern could interview her about it and there would be no violation other than bad taste.

And as far as BBond and his RANTS in allcaps...

You have to have an investigation or a significant incident to revoke a clearance. Mere unfounded accusations are not enough to revoke a clearance. If this incident had merit, Rove would have already lost his clearance until they could investigate the matter. Of course WE would never be told this by OPM because the action of removing his clearance would be CLASSIFIED. Apparently OPM doesn't feel there to be enough there to pull the clearance though, because Rove's job requires the clearance, and he is still working. So is this an outing of Roves clearance??? No. We can deduce this without ANY knowledge gained from a leak. Therefore if anyone prints it in a newspaper, they are NOT committing a crime.