Meanwhile, a lot of the press is trying to lynch someone without evidence. Rove, loathed by the left for masterminding the Bush defeat of John Kerry, is accused of leaking the name of a double-secret CIA agent to get even with the spy's husband, who had criticized Bush in a New York Times op-ed column.I have been asking in comments on this topic for a while the same question, and now I will ask it of Bronson. IF PLAME WAS NOT A COVERT CIA AGENT, WHY IS THIS BEFORE A GRAND JURY? Peter might also do himself well to understand that her name was never classified. She was known as Wilson's wife. What was not public was that she was a CIA agent. That was the classified part. That is where someone broke the law. I think Bronson is ignorant on this issue, and is not thinking into the legal aspect of this, only that the Grand Priest Rove must be innocent. The case against Rove is strong. It is obvious to me that Rove leaked Plame’s identity. Saying her name is meaningless. The issue is did Rove repeat something another White House official leaked, or did he initiate the leak? If he just repeated the leak, knowingly, he will skate. The issue pushing this forward now is perjury. That in the end, as history shows, is where he will get it.
Except that she was no undercover agent when the leak occurred. "Jane Bond" and her husband were so Maxwell Smart "secret," they posed for Vanity Fair celebrity photos. And it looks like Rove never revealed her name. He only offered a helpful tip to a Time magazine reporter - who repaid the favor by trashing Rove. Classy guy.
Bronson is not always a yes, man, but when it comes to pulling the weight on issues like this for BushCo, he goosespteps along with the rest.