Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Karl Rove - Conservative Martyr

So let me see if understand the emerging defense of Karl Rove (courtesy of WSJ, NRO, etc):

Karl Rove should be commended for leaking Valerie Plame's identity (though not her name) to the press. However, it's not clear from Matt Cooper's email that he, in fact, did it, which isn't a crime anyway. So what's the big deal?

Well, for starters:
  • Scott McClellan, speaking on behalf of the Administration and the President, claimed that there was absolutely no inolvement of Rove in the leak (which didn't happen, is not illegal, but still very commendable, by the way). Now, we know that - commendanble, legal, or otherwise - Rove was at the very least "involved" in this matter. So either Rove lied to the Administration (best case scenario) or they knew about his involvement and chose to deny it anyway.

  • Rove and the White House have let this matter languish for nearly two years while Fitzgerald has gone about his business. Now that the first piece of evidence (or non-evidence) is revealed, conservatives come rushing to Rove's defense (which is not necessary because what he didn't do was very commendable). Where was the Administration's commitment to clearing this whole thing up in 2003? And if this whole thing is such a farce, why have we been wasting tax-payer dollars on it for so long?

  • Someone told Rove that Valerie Plame was a) a CIA operative and b) had recommended Wilson for the Niger assignment. He won't reveal who that was. So the White House is on record deploring this behavior, while Rove sits tight and protects his own source. Does Rove work for the President, or is it the other way around?

There's a lot of lefty fantasies about Rove going to jail. Forget it. Fired? Fat chance. The conservative talk machine has already dug its heels in to defend Rove. Bush has never acknowledged one mistake ever made in Iraq, or during his entire Presidency for that matter. Does anyone really think that he's going to get worked up about a few glaring inconsistencies in this case?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home