Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Let Karl Rove go

Right off the bat, let me state in my best armchair-lawyer fashion that based on the evidence, Karl Rove broke no laws in telling Matthew Cooper that Joseph Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Two things need to be true (and provable) for Rove to be guilty under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act: first, Plame had to be a covert agent and second, Karl Rove needed to knowingly reveal this information. The latter point appears unanswerable; on the first there has been much confusion and, official designation aside, it seemed to be the worst kept secret in Washington:

When Matt Cooper went on deep background with Karl Rove, before all of this came out, he asked Rove about Wilson's credibility. Rove warned Cooper not to trust Wilson. The White House knew Wilson lied about both the report and the nature of his assignment, and gave Cooper the information to back that up. Plame's status as CIA agent hardly qualified as a secret; NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell concedes that most of Washington's media elite already knew it. Novak simply printed it, although no one knows who gave it to Novak. At any rate, on the evidence given so far, Rove never broke the law as even the Times article makes clear in its final paragraphs.
The problem for the White House, then, is the political fallout of a top advisor to the President misleading the American people. And while Joe Wilson and his wife are both partisan, media-hungry, liars and the blowdry brigade in the mainstream media is sniffing for blood, and it would set off raucous celebration among the MoveOn rabble, the White House should allow Karl Rove to resign.

Two reasons:
1.) Karl Rove was hired to get President Bush elected and re-elected. He succeeded. Take a vacation.
2.) If he remains, Rove will be a diversion at a critical moment in President Bush’s second term between legislative battles, Supreme Court nominations and the War on Terror. On this last point, here’s the eloquent Dr. Shackleford:

I dunno about the rest of the world, but I for one did not vote for Karl Rove. I voted for George W. Bush. And I didn't vote for him because I was worried about indexing the alternative-minimum-tax to the inflation rate. I voted for Bush because I want a President who will respond to threats against the United States with force and without hesitation. Rove will only prove to be a distraction to the [expletive] on the Left looking for any excuse to appease our enemies. So, Mr. Bush, fire Karl Rove and then do what we elected you to do: Kick. Some. Terrorist. Ass.
I think Rove can frame his exit in the sense that he doesn’t want to be a distraction for the President and the ongoing investigation. Freed from the constraints of the White House, Rove can meet with the press and explain why he felt it was his duty to discredit Joe Wilson who dissembled on his wife’s role in his Niger trip and the details of his report. After the dust settles, and there’s no frog-marching, Rove can go on the lecture circuit or join the lobbying corps and earn ten-times what he’s making as a White House advisor.

Let’s throw Karl Rove into that briar patch.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

so we should throw Rove under the bus because the big bad Liberals might keep throwing eggs at him? What a bunch of pansy asses Republicans have become. He broke no laws and said he was not the leaker of her identity and it turns out he WAS NOT THE LEAKER OF HER IDENITY. So throw him out? I usually agree with your take, but you are waaaaay off on this one.

Anonymous said...

But if Rove has done nothing wrong then why should the President toss him over the transom? To appease the radical leftists and the press? They are going to go on hating George Bush whether Rove is working for him or not.

This idea is not much different than pulling the troops out of Iraq because ABC News says that's why the Muslim terrorists are angry at us so if we come home they will like us again.

You can't make other people like you by doing something they want at the cost of your own principles.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't we wait for the investigation to wrap up first?

Anonymous said...

It's not as though you can buy these people off - they'll whoop and holler about something, so it might as well be this. The only way Rove should leave is to go to work for Guiliani Associates.

Eric said...

Believe me, it pains me to give comfort to the enemy (Reid, Pelosi, etc.) but I’m trying to look at this on a cost-benefit ratio. Defending Rove will devolve into Clintonesque circumlocutions as to what a “leak” is, even if he did nothing illegal. Yes, Rove has been loyal and effective for this President but I don’t want to be in the position of using the same logic to defend Rove that the Democrats used to defend sock-stuffer Sandy Berger.

Also, I think Rove can be more effective as an outsider unrestrained by the diplomatic patina that he would have to maintain as a West Wing wonk. Maybe Rove could go on an “administrative hiatus” until the investigation clears him. But if he’s going to take that step, he might as well go all the way and make a million on the lecture circuit.

Hey, I’m all for fighting when the fight is justified. Hit that “nuclear option!” Recess appoint John Bolton! But I’m not sure the Rove distraction is worth it. Bush will probably tough it out anyway since 90% of the people outside the beltway don’t know or care a whit about the whole thing.

Anonymous said...

Hey come on, Bush is Loyal to those that are loyal to him. Loyalty is an American value and tradition, unless your a Demorat. People are not looking to see Rove gone, Only the kookie left. Screw them. Rove better stay or GW is a Phoney.
Mike Stevenson

Anonymous said...

While I agree with most of your ideas, I'm on the other side of the fence with this one.

Why should the GOP fire the most talented campaign manager they've ever had in order to appease their opponents? These are people who have proven themselves on dozens of occasions to be impossible to work with, regardless of how far the GOP will go to work in a partisan manner. A fair comparison would be the Israeli/Palestinian talks a few years back when the Israelis offered to meet 99% of the demands of the PA, only to have the middle east's original terrorist (Arafat) refuse to give in, most likely only because it would put him out of work.

The Democrats have made a career (albeit a very unsuccessful one) of just one thing... opposing Republicans. Firing Rove would have no positive effect on the GOP, while emboldening the Democrats who would have the help of their media flunkies touting the 'apparent guilt of Rove'.

uh uh.. Rove should stay right where he is.. winning elections and driving the Democrats even more insane.

Anonymous said...

The White House stated unequivocally that Rove had nothing to do with this and that they would eject anyone involved. They did not parse their language or put a series of conditionals on their statements. That is being taken care of by Rove's lawyer (who is doing his job to keep his client out of jail) and those who have a knee jerk reaction to defend Rove because his troubles please the Other Side.

The Kool-Aid tastes sweet but the GOP faithful should remember that public disgust with Democratic shenanigans and a desire to bring dignity back to the White House had no small part in Bush's victories.

Anonymous said...

So in the interest of expediency, Bush should contribute to the smearing/public hanging of a a friend who worked tirelessly and loyally to get him elected?

Because the hairsprayed pretty boys like David Gregory and Terry Moran believe they are hot on the trail of the ultimate "gotcha", Bush should disregard the fact that by all reasonable accounts so far, Rove did nothing remotely illegal, dishonest or subversive and throw him overboard like so much bloody chum?

(Can anyone say Clintons redux?)

Personally, I would lose all respect for GWB if he allowed Rove's reputation to be shredded simply because it's less hassle.

Sorry, I don't buy the "for the good of the country" argument. The media is conducting a witch hunt to get at Bush, and even if Rove was willing to "take a bullet" for The Man, do you really think Gregory et al would be satisfied?

Yeah, right.

Bringing down Rove would only embolden them to begin the drumbeat for Bush's impeachment. What did he know...etc.

No, I want W to draw a line in the sand here. I'd love to see some righteous indignation and some plain speaking for a change. I voted for a cowboy warrior in a white hat who will not compromise core values that built this country, values that I share and believe have been terribly erodes after eight years of the co-presidents Clinton.

As you said, Eric, we are at war, so why should a leftist cabal of preening, manicured, waxed, blow-dried, botoxed, TV ready self-important windup dolls be allowed to deprive a war-time president of one of his most trusted advisors/confidants?

As St. Augustine said:
"Wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it. Right is right, even if no one is."

Anonymous said...

Throwing Rove under a bus will do nothing but egg on the crowd. The MSM and Democrats will smell blood in the water and move to the next target. Grow a backbone.

Anonymous said...

The White House defined what was right and wrong when they said repeatedly that leaking this information was an unacceptable act. They defined the consequences when they said that they would fire anyone who did. They did not quote chapter and verse from the IIPA - they said that the act of leaking was unacceptable and that they would fire anyone who did it.

Look to Machiavelli or Nietzsche rather than St. Augustine for inspiration as to what to do here.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info, I added you to my favorites.
If you are interested in home business
, I have a home business
site.
Feel free to drop by and tell me what you think.