One crucial, undeniable, unspinnable truth about the Rove leak

[ClusterFreak]

...without question....without any doubt...this is absolutely, irrefutably true...no matter how the subject of Valerie Plame was broached in any conversation involving Karl Rove (or any other White House operative)and any of the reporters involved:

Rove should have said nothing.

Absolutely nothing....no wink, wink, nudge, nudge, no "I heard that too", no "Wilson's wife" nonsense, no nothing.

It doesn't matter how the subject came up - even assuming the improbable scenario that Rove heard about Plame from a member of the media - Rove's moral and legal responsibility was ALWAYS to betray no knowledge of Plame's status to ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON. Period.

Why in fact would he be so stupid, if at all 'unsure' about her CIA status, to take the chance at revealing an agency source??

Why indeed.

"I heard that too" is at the very least unethical, just cause for firing Rove, and may in fact be Rovian revenge disguised as an innocent/careless whisper in the wind....on background.

"I heard that too" is enough. It is.

[eleny]

1. And you would expect that from a White House where secrecy is a religion

He *would* have said nothing. So, this loose lips business had to be deliberate.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Instead, he sang like a little girl.

NGU.

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Tim Russert agrees with you

He just showed the law that Rove violated. It says he was supposed to check with higher ups before he agreed with Novak that Plame was a CIA operative. And he did not. So he should fry. :)

[Cassandra]

4. As John of AmericaBlog said...

if Cooper had said, "I hear we're going to invade Syria next week", it wouldn't have been appropriate for Rove to say, "Yeh, I heard that, too."

[Cha]

5. Loose lips Sink Ships!

rove is a Loose Lipped BULLY!

[orpupilofnature57]

6. This is probably the least of his transgressions, Shrubs logistic, first

[blm]

7. Also one other bottom line - It was UNETHICAL. Showed poor character.

.

[BeFree]

8. Why indeed?

Why expose a CIA agent when he knew it was totally wrong? Why say anything?

Could it be that he wanted Plame's investigation to be exposed? Could it be Plame's group was about to finger someone in the White House, someone who had been dealing in WMD in the black market?

Why would rover set himself up to catch a tone of heat unless it was to keep ten tons of heat from falling?

It makes no sense whatsoever for rove to have so carelessly exposed a CIA operation. It does make sense that he wanted to end an investigation about to expose his friends in the White House.

On edit: Here is a link to a DU post from Ocatfish with bckground on this theory.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4117106&mesg_id=4118288

[Must_B_Free]

9. I heard that too

is not enough. It is a cleverly crafted choice of words chosen because it means nothing, yet implies everything.

If it was a rumour, he may have "heard that too". That in no way speaks to it's veracity.

[DearAbby]

11. "heard that too" should not have passed Rove's lips

In stating that he not only outted Plame, but every single covert operator that works with the cover company that Plame worked for. Thus ruining decades of work, endangering everyone.

He had to have known that and didn't care, it had to have been a wider plan. CONSPIRACY! This was not an innocent whisper "I heard that too"

[Journeyman]

10. As a child, I asked my career military dad if he knew any secrets. . .

"That's a secret," he replied . . . and that's the whole nut in its shell -- those who know secrets (and even those who don't) shouldn't discuss them. Ever.

[tblue37]

12. Cooper says that at the end of their conversation

Rove said, "I've already said too much." He knew it was more than he could legally or ethically divulge.