Why does Rove still have security clearance, Mr. President?

We now know for certain that Karl Rove participated actively in revealing the actual employment of a CIA official who was working on intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when that employment was classified information because her cover was CEO of an international trading company. We now know that Rove knew she worked for the CIA, which, of course, whether he actually knew she was acting undercover or not, should have been more than adequate warning to the closest confidante of the President of the United States of America, the most powerful person in the world, that he should be careful before revealing her actual employment to a member of the press who had no need to know that information.

We know that Rove is subject to an agreement with the Federal Government under an Executive Order of the President that he will not improperly reveal classified information to anyone without a genuine need to know the information. We know that President Bush at the time the breach was publicized made an absolute promise to deal strictly with any person found to have leaked such classified information. Is the press pushing the administration to explain why it has applied no sanctions to Karl Rove, and why in light of that egregious and potentially catastrophic breach of national security obligations Mr. Rove still has his security clearance? If the press is not pushing those questions relentlessly until it gets an answer, why not? Does it not mean the press corps does not consider deliberately revealing the identity of an intelligence agent to be a serious matter?

We also know for a fact that Rove was under an affirmative legal duty to formally report his breach of duty to protect classified information to the White House Security Office, and that he did not do so. We know for a fact that the White House Security Office (which received notice of the breach from the press despite Rove’s failure to report it through proper channels) was under an immediate affirmative legal duty to investigate the breach for determining appropriate sanctions and corrective action before any criminal action was filed, and even after such an investigation was announced several weeks later, to continue its an investigation for national security purposes with due consideration of and consultation with the authorities conducting the criminal investigation. We know for a fact that the White House Security Office did not undertake any such investigation and did absolutely nothing about the breach. So the question arises, is the White House Press Corps pushing the administration to explain why Karl Rove failed to report his breach to the White House Security Office, and why in light of that egregious and potentially catastrophic breach of national security obligations in a time of war against terrorism, the White House Security Office failed to conduct the investigation that was its legal obligation? If the press is not pushing those questions relentlessly until it gets an answer, why not? Does it not mean the press corps does not consider failure to follow proper legal procedures and meet critical national security legal obligations to be a serious matter? Does it not also mean the press corps does not consider deliberately revealing the identity of an intelligence agent acting under cover of employment by an international trading company to be a serious matter

If the reporters are, in fact, asking the questions, and the answers are ludicrous to non-existent, and the reporters are trying hard to follow-up until the questions are answered truthfully, but the TV networks are not reporting it and the editors of the major national newspapers are not publishing the stories or are burying them deep inside the paper, does it not mean the TV networks and the editors of the major national newspapers do not consider deliberately revealing the identity of an intelligence agent to be a serious matter, and do not consider failure to follow proper legal procedures and obligations concerning a serious and even potentially catastrophic breach of national security to be a serious matter?

Just asking. There’s an awful lot to cover these days, granted. Hope this is coming soon on the national agenda. The need for this to be exposed in order to short-circuit the treason accusations by right-wing goons – the traitors are your own heroes, you flaming idiots – goes far beyond political considerations. By the way, in case you missed it, which is no disgrace given its minimal play relative to its importance, Valerie Plame testified the other day. Yes, she was under cover, yes, her actual employment was classified information, no, it was not well-known on the Georgetown cocktail circuit, yes, her job before the war was to try to locate Saddam Hussein's supposed WMDs, no, she did not "suggest" her husband go to Niger, yes, she has sometimes operated outside the country within the last five years.)