Forgive me if this point has been brought up before, it has, but I just want to highlight it's importance.
There has been alot of parsing about whether or not Karl Rove broke the law when he spoke to Matt Cooper about Joe Wilson's wife, and whether, regardless of if he broke the law, he should be fired. All of that is important, but all of that pales in comparison to whether or not it can be proven to the American public that Rove spoke to Cooper because he was either:
A)The Right Wing Version: Rove was trying to steer Cooper toward the fact that Wilson was never assigned to investigate the Iraq/Niger uranium claims by any top White House or CIA officials, but in fact was given that assignment solely because of his wife.
or B)The Most Likely to be True Version: Rove was lying to Cooper because he was trying to cover up the fact that Wilson's findings that the Iraq/Niger uranium claims were false had been ignored by top White House and CIA officials and the claim had been included in Bush's SOTU speech with an additional qualifier "The British have found..." because they knew the claim was untrue.
The question is not Did Karl Rove leak a covert CIA agent's identity, the question is Why?This is the question that is of the utmost importance and of the utmost relevance to the American public. If Karl Rove is found guilty of outing a covert CIA agent, that will happen because of the Justice Dept investigation and will happen regardless of our efforts. But, even if he is found to be guilty, there are still two possible ways this case could then proceed:
1)The case could end with Rove's indictment. The Right wing spin machine will pound their version of Rove's intentions into the heads of the American public so that people believe that Rove may have been guilty of a crime, but only because he made a stupid and careless mistake.
or 2)The case could raise further disturbing questions such as: Did Karl Rove and the White House attempt to cover up evidence that they had intentionally manipulated Iraq WMD intelligence so that they could sell (lie to the country about the need for) a needless war? This could only happen if it becomes conventional wisdom that not only did Karl Rove out a CIA agent, but he also knowingly lied to Matt Cooper when he told him that Joe Wilson was assigned to investigate the Iraq/Niger uranium claims solely because his wife worked for the CIA and got him the gig.
Note: it is not of the utmost importance that Rove may have merely been trying to smear and discredit Wilson (many people in this country think that is just a part of the "hardball" game of politics), what is important is that Rove may have been trying to do something much more incriminating: attempting to counter evidence he was afraid may have surfaced that showed top White House and CIA officials had knowledge of Wilson's findings that the Iraq/Niger uranium claims were bogus, but purposefully ignored those findings because they were trying to sell the war.
Last night, I watched as several Right wing pundits were successful on cable news shows at spinning their version of Rove's intentions. Deborah Orin did it on Hardball. Michael Isikoff (trying to appear non-partisan) repeated the Right wing talking points on Countdown. Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, Jeff Birnbaum, and Britt Hume on Special Report all treated the Right wing version of the case as a proven truth.
And lastly, I watched as Monica Crowley, the soulless foot soldier that she is, dutifully parroted the Right wing spin on The Situation. Finally, finally, on that show, somebody called them on their bullshit. Rachel Maddow, god bless her, correctly accused Crowley and Carlson of carrying the Bush administration's water.
Kudos to Maddow for stepping up, but she can't do it alone. Unfortunately I think it is the case that many on the Left assume that it is a given that Rove was engaging in a smear and a cover up and that this point need not be argued. Well, it will, and it is.
The feeling I got from watching the Right wing spin was that they either know or are afraid that he is going to be found guilty, and they are getting off to a running start by spinning the coming indictment as a case of Rove simply being careless and irresponsible but of having the best of intentions while he did so.
If that spin isn't countered, that will mean that Rove's indictment will be where the case ends. But if that spin is countered, this case could lead so much further than just the banishment of Karl Rove. It could lead to further investigations into the Bush administrations manipulation of Iraq WMD intelligence and of their willful cover up of anything that may have proved what they had been up to.
It is all well and good to call for Rove to be fired and to argue about his guilt, but his guilt with regards to the law will be found out in due time by the Justice Dept. The real question should be whether or not Karl Rove not only leaked a covert CIA agent's identity, but also if he lied to the press while doing so because he was engaging in an attempt to cover up incriminating evidence.
