Just to follow up on the earlier posts on [tag]Karl Rove[/tag]’s big day, I find it more than a little surprising that conservatives are somehow under the impression that a lack of an indictment is tantamount to a full exoneration. That’s not only foolish; it’s silly.
The Corner rhetorically asks, “So where does Karl Rove report to get his reputation back?” Don Surber said, “The left owes [Rove] apologies. Big time.” Captain’s Quarters called Fitzgerald’s investigation a “useless…witch hunt.” Gloating about dodging a bullet is one thing, but these [tag]Bush[/tag] supporters seem to genuinely believe that today’s outcome is proof that [tag]Rove[/tag] did nothing wrong.
The facts show otherwise. As Dan [tag]Froomkin[/tag] charitably put it, “Just because Rove wasn’t charged with a crime doesn’t mean his conduct meets the standards the public expects from its [tag]White House[/tag].”
If Rove was irresponsibly lax with [tag]classified[/tag] information, if he intentionally [tag]misled [/tag]the press, the press secretary and the president, if he conspired with fellow White House aides to punish someone who spoke out against the president — all of which appears to be the case — what is he still doing serving as the president’s most trusted aide? […]
We know that Rove was the second of two sources for syndicated columnist Robert Novak ‘s column, in which Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, [tag]Valerie Plame[/tag], was outed as a [tag]CIA[/tag] operative. We know Rove confirmed that to investigators, although he testified that all he did was say something like “I heard that, too” after [tag]Novak[/tag] asked him about it.
We also know Rove was one of Time Magazine reporter [tag]Matt Cooper[/tag]’s sources, for his story mentioning Plame’s CIA status. Rove eventually confirmed that to investigators after insisting that he had previously forgotten about the conversation.
Apparently, none of this rises to the level of a slam-dunk criminal case, according to [tag]Fitzgerald[/tag].
Apparently not, but since this scandal broke nearly three years ago, Rove’s critics have labeled him a [tag]leaker[/tag], a [tag]liar[/tag], and a lawbreaker. As of today, two out of three are still accurate.
On Sept. 29, 2003, ABC News producer Andrea Owen and a cameraman approached Rove as he walked toward his car. Owen asked, “Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?” Rove said, “No.” The truth, we later learned, was the opposite. Nearly a year later, Rove again said, “I didn’t leak her name,” despite the fact that he had.
Rove even told Scott McClellan he wasn’t involved at all, which McClellan then passed on to the nation. It wasn’t true. And while Rove was lying to the White House staff, he may have even lied to Bush directly.
Noting that the political question all along has been about leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative for the purpose of discrediting a political opponent, Josh Marshall explained, “[Rove] just [tag]lied[/tag]. From admissions from Rove, filings in the Libby case, and un-contradicted reportage, we know as clearly as we ever can that Rove did do each of those things. So he did do what he was suspected of and he did lie about it.”
That’s not only accurate, it’s well-established fact. Forget opinions and analysis — we know with certainty that Rove leaked Plame’s name and then lied about it. Period. This isn’t even controversial given what’s already in the public record.
Rove’s allies are upset because his reputation has been tarnished? Of course his reputation is tarnished. He leaked, lied, and got caught. Rove’s critics owe him an apology? This turns reality on its head: the White House owes the public an apology for the abhorrent conduct of the president’s top aides.
But, the right says, Rove’s behavior didn’t amount to an indictable offense. If today’s reports are accurate, that’s absolutely true. But George W. Bush vowed to the nation that his presidency would “always maintain the highest ethical standards” and ask “not only what is legal, but what is right.” One wonders if even the most loyal sycophant could repeat the same phrase with a straight face today.
As for what happens next, Froomkin offered White House reporters a few pertinent questions that deserve answers.
Here’s a question for Bush: You said you’d fire anyone involved in the leak. Rove no longer faces criminal charges, but undeniably was involved. Now that nothing you do or say can in any way influence the criminal investigation, will you tell us what you know and when you knew it? Will you fire him? Will you strip him of his security clearance?
It seems to me that the White House has a variety of options: Admit Rove misled the president and his colleagues; admit the president and his colleagues misled the public on his behalf; admit they intentionally engaged in legalistic hairsplitting; or sweep it all under the rug.
Call it a hunch, but I suspect they’ll go with Door #4.