In what way?

She lied about her main source of income.

I still want Rove to fry.

Wouldn't her checks and W-2 have the name of the cover company on them? ;)

Admittedly, I've always had this funny idea that if you get a gumint paycheck you shouldn't be allowed to vote. This would extend to folks who work for companies who do guv biz as well. Of course, the way our economy is structured we wouldn't have much of an electorate.

She was undercover CIA! As far as the law was concerned, the cover company WAS her employer.

I don't care. :) I know laws are for the rest of us.

Ah, you weren't serious. Sorry. Sometimes it's hard to tell satire from the actual excuses.

I'm much more concerned with the CIAs snatching suspects on the streets of our allies than this stuff. It is worrisome when laws don't apply to folks in government, but the line probably shouldn't be drawn at something as irrelevent as campaign finance.

And the hits just keep on coming.

Why is this story different? Is this an abberation of the normal behavior? Is this the odd time the WH made such remarks, or is this the odd time the WH has been "caught" or is this the odd time the WH is unable to spin it completely in their favor?

**news flash** This just on the radio right now

GWB has clarified his position on the investigation

"Now, I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we can know the facts, and if somebody committed a crime, they would no longer work in my administration."

Also:

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here, and its important that people wait."

EDIT: Got the quote right from another newsbreak.

<strike>ARRRGH. Sh*t. I was trying to type as I heard the item on the radio and missed the last part of the sentence, so don't quote me on quoting the President.</strike> The essence of the sound bite that I heard is that the WH is no longer content to let their previous stance on the issue go unqualified. Why do they feel the need to revise their remarks? <strike>(Hell, for that matter, what were the remarks. I have tried to scare up the quote and failed. I'm sure it'll be available soon, though.)</strike>

Bush said anybody in his administration who committed a crime would be out, unless they were part of the center ball of scum. ;)

:vomit:

Funny, I don't remember a crime being commited by Dan Rather. He was never convicted of libel, because noone could ever prove intent on his part, either. And yet he was forced into retirement.

I'm not buying the 'Karl Rove set up Dan Rather' conspiracy theory. However, I would like to point out that most of Mr. Rove's most ardent defenders are the same people who demanded Rather's head when he screwed up, even though no 'crime' had been committed.

I've been hearing a few whines from Republicans lately that the anti-Karl rhetoric is 'just politics'. Well, duh. However, at the center of it is someone who used his position to attempt to nail a working CIA agent, declaring her 'fair game', with no regard for the importance of her work or her usefulness as an intelligence asset. Also, with no proof that she was in any way actively engaged in any activities against the President, other than her association with her husband. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Ms. Plame has kept her mouth shut, which makes her seem to me to be the most professional individual in this whole circus.

For some reason, I keep flashing back to the Army vs McCarthy hearings. Joe McCarthy finally tanked trying to make it appear the the Army was harboring Communists because one of his aides got drafted. It appears that Karl was picking on a publicly non-political CIA agent because he was in a snit over comments her husband made.

Will this be a bridge too far for Mr. Rove?

I sure hope so.

Rather did screw up, and thereby corroded his credibility, and fatally impugned his own judgement. WRT whether Valerie Plame was actually undercover or not, National Review Online thinks she was not, and had not been for some years' time.

National Review Online -- McCarthy, July 19