Karl Rove: What's not being talked about on the KXYL Airwaves !

Plame is the real victim
Re: "Thanks, Judith – An open letter to a New York Times reporter," Sunday Editorials.
You write that, as a journalist, Judith Miller has every right to challenge authority. I agree, but in this case, she is going along with authority. She is allowing a "high-ranking White House source" to destroy an American undercover agent's career because Valerie Plame's husband dared to inform the American people that our president was lying about Iraq.
Ms. Plame, the innocent victim, was protecting your right to a free press. Sadly, her career is over because a rodent in the White House sought revenge on her husband who was doing what you are supposed to do – tell the truth.
Hopefully, Ms. Miller's choice is not out of fear that the same source will seek revenge on her.
Candy Fowler, Dallas
source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/letters/stories/071205dneditueletters.1b5c5d9.html
------------------------------
Dallas Editorial
Let's Shine the Light: Rove should ask that his testimony be released
12:02 AM CDT on Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Enough with the mincing of words. Presidential adviser Karl Rove can end the to-and-fro over his role in the Valerie Plame imbroglio by requesting that the grand jury investigating it make public his testimony.
Mr. Rove's lawyer now acknowledges that his client spoke to reporters about Ms. Plame's job at the CIA before columnist Robert Novak revealed her identity publicly. Mr. Rove still insists that he did not "name" her to reporters because he did not know her name – only that she was the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was saying things that reflected poorly on the White House's war planning. Mr. Rove also maintains that he did not know that Ms. Plame's job as an analyst looking at foreign weapons programs was a covert one.
If he was ignorant on those counts – a matter difficult to prove or disprove – he is probably insulated from legal liability. But, given the White House's early, emphatic denials that he was "involved in" the Plame leak, damaging suspicions are bound to linger.
In October 2003, about three months after Mr. Novak's revelation, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said: "Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he was not involved."
Later in the same news briefing, Mr. McClellan reiterated: "I made it very clear. I've spoken with him [Mr. Rove]. I've spoken with him. I've spoken with him. I made it very clear that it is not true that he was involved in the leaking classified information or that he condoned some of what you're suggesting."
Mr. Rove himself was asked, "Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?" He said simply, "No."
In the hyper-hair-splitting world of lawyers, Mr. Rove may be able to claim no "involvement" or "knowledge," but most citizens don't live in that world, and the more forthrightness the White House can muster at this juncture, the better pleased they will be. Political subtlety – which Mr. Rove possesses in abundance – is not a crime, but an excess of it can become a political liability.
source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/071205dnedirove.1b5764b.html
-----------------------