The flip side to the gloating

June 13, 2006

Now that Karl Rove will apparently avoid criminal charges in the Plame scandal, the White House’s allies are having a lot of fun this morning. A little gloating here, some dancing there, a call for a mass apology for Rove here … it’s all pretty understandable, I guess.

The right was more-than-a-little afraid of this story. After Rove’s fifth appearance before a federal grand jury, Bush backers didn’t have to struggle to imagine another criminal indictment and “The Architect’s” unavoidable resignation. If this morning’s reports are accurate, Rove — and his admirers — dodged a bullet.

But before they gloat too much, consider the fact that this scandal has led to a multi-year criminal investigation of the White House. Rove may not be indicted, but Scooter Libby was. As talking points go, arguing, “Only one top White House aide was brought up on criminal charges!” isn’t much of a rallying cry for the president’s supporters.

For that matter, the number of unanswered questions on this story are pretty high. Why did Rove tell at least two reporters about Plame’s work? Why wasn’t his security clearance pulled? And why did Bush refuse to follow through on his promise to fire anyone involved with the leak?

What’s likely to be far more annoying than just the “Rove skated” story is the inevitable “Bush comeback” story. Zarqawi’s death, coupled by Rove’s non-indictment, give reporters anxious to write a new, more flattering, narrative about the White House something to work with. Stay tuned.

Ummmm, the only problem with this story is that Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t have a history of making his announcements via third parties. Why would this time be any different?

  • Wow. A member of the WH administration allegedly escapes criminal indictment, which is then seen as something to gloat about?

    That’s quite a low bar for accomplishment. But I suppose one has to take what one can get.

  • One of the major polls, post-zarqawi death, indicate a DROP in bush’s approval rating of 2 points, from 35 to 33 percent. I think I saw it at a post over at Eschaton.

  • “And why did Bush refuse to follow through on his promise to fire anyone involved with the leak?” – CB

    Now that Karl isn’t in danger of an indictment, ask that of Tony Snow.

    It’s all proof of Bushite incompetence. And they are so wrong if they expect an apology.

  • I’d say the Democratic strategy – if you can call doing nothing that – has just blown up in their faces.

    Good by November.

  • Well, this is very, very disappointing–there’s no happy spin to put on it. It seems White House stonewalling has saved Karl’s fat butt. Fitz doesn’t indict without evidence. It is odd that both Rove and Novak have gotten off scot free here. Score another one for the Criminal Chimp. We can only hope that Fitz is looking at Darth Cheney now. But no evidence will be forthcoming on him for sure. Very disappointing…

  • i agree that we will see “bush comeback” stories, but for them to work, bush has to, like, come back! i can’t see a lot of circumstances in which bush breaks 40%….

  • Frame it this way.

    “Pres Bush: Only 2 of my top 3 advisers have been brought up on charges – Not all 3! I’m batting .333 which is pretty dern good.”

    Rove walks but his top foriegn policy guy, Scooter, and top domestic advisor Claude A. Allen may be going to the pokey.

    I

  • Worse than the figurative rim jobs Bush will be getting from the media all week, I think this latest rash of news will open the floodgates and the cash will start flowing again. Look for June to be a banner month for Republican fundraising. Every single one of those dollars will be used to stiffle a Democratic campaign.

  • Fitz doesn’t indict without evidence.
    Comment by Frak — 6/13/2006 @ 10:26 am

    There’s a difference between knowing that someone did something wrong and being able to prove it in court. Fitz probably believes that Rove did something wrong, but Fitz is also smart enough to know whether his evidence is strong enough to convict.

    Not that I’m disposed to this view, but it’s always possible that Rove & company played hardball with Fitz. Rove isn’t exactly a shrinking violet, and it wouldn’t surpise me in the least if Rove threatened some dirty tricks or even outright played some.

    Whatever the case, it’s a shame that a scumbag like Rove can’t have his comeuppance.

  • slip kid no more, i suppose what i should have said was “i can’t see a lot of circumstances in which bush breaks 40% in the aggregate of polling data” or something like that: you’re certainly right that the rasmussen polling tends to show bush higher than anyone else’s does….

    • Comments are closed.