Centerfield

Um, Pat, did you really mean to link to an editorial about how Bush is the worst President ever?

Oops! Forgot to clear the cut-and-paste cache. Thanks, Brian! That's just a relic from my secret life as a DUer and kossack... lol

Actually, I agree that lack of indictment does not imply total innocense. And I'm far from a "wingnut."

Fitzgerald provided enough evidence of a "concerted effort," as I think he called it, that it's clear the White House was after Wilson. It's just not provable that he lied--we all know Rove's a master wordsmith. This is no shocker.

JP, that part of my post was a lead-in to the quote about the "crime that risked all our lives". The quote is the moonbat portion. The other is true, but of limited practical effect. Presumption of innocence and all that, maybe you've heard of it? As we have no public body charged with pronouncing ANYBODY innocent, we have little choice but to treat a lack of indictment as the closest thing to such a pronouncement. But if you prefer, we can rehash whether Hillary or Bill should have been indicted over Whitewater or the Rose billing records, etc., etc.

Yeah, Pat's right. Rarely if ever is anyone officially "pronounced' innocent. This usually only happens when officials goof and someone becomes the target of a lot of public scrutiny that turns out to have been undeserved, like when that cop-wannabee became the prime suspect in the Atlanta olympics bombing.

We don't know whether Karl Rove is purely innocent, but the law generally makes no such distinction. Ultimately all there is is "guilty under the law" and "not proven guilty."

Rove has indeed "been cleared" officially. He apparently won't be prosecuted for any alleged illegal actions related to the leak. Granted an official clearing statement will sometimes make allusions that stress to the careful listener that they really think that the person did something wrong but they can't prove it. But does that seem to be the case here? Even if so, how much weight one gives to such things is surely subject to mileage variance.

Personally, I think that some liberal folk vest Rove with far more evil power than he has. He's like a fear lightning rod that the more emotional and conspiracy-prone need in order to keep their dramatic narrative colorful. Things can't be what they seem. No, there must be an evil genius henchman behind the curtain operating beyond the law, pulling the strings, ensuring the repeated defeat of virtue. Notice how such a narrative precludes any need to look in the mirror and compare one's policy views with the sdiffering ones of the public at large. The presence of the dark lord means that virtue can be simply assumed. It's a very childish and theatrical way to look at the world.
And I don't assume for a second that its exclusive to or predominant among liberals. I'm just saying it's a thinking thread we see often among the people, and it's woven into the mythical tapestry of views about Rove that his opponents have crafted.

As always, Scrappleface hits the nail on the head with its headline: "Rove Cleared, Zarqawi Dead, GOP Doomed".

Another Fitzmas wish unfulfilled. The lamentations of the Kiddies are heard in the land as their stockings come up coal again.

My personal favorite from those links is the DailyKos one.

In keeping with their long-term tight-lippedness, the Fitzgerald folks refused to confirm or deny. But I don't think that means anything beyond the fact that they refuse to say much of anything publicly.

I'd like to note that even though a grand jury has yet to find sufficient evidence to indict DailyKos poster nathanrudy for beastiality, that doesn't mean that your pets are safe with him. Animals almost always refuse to confirm or deny, are long-term tight-lipped, and often refuse to say anything publicly....

Now they're alternating between theories: (1) Bush intervening to shut down Fitz's investigation, and (2) Rove turned on Cheney to protect himself and Bush.

Ah, for moonbat watchers, this announcement was a gift from the gods...

"Actually, I agree that lack of indictment does not imply total innocense. And I'm far from a "wingnut."
.............
Exactly right. Why is it being a moonbat to recognize what a scoundrel karl rove is? Clearly he and the white house were out to get Wilson and leaked classified information.

We can only hope karl rove ends up like lee atwater, a similar scoundrel and smear artist, although not nearly as devious and evil as rove, but repented on his death bed. I wouldn't expect rove to do that.

Laura, what's your sense of "scoundrel?"

For example, I liked Bill Clinton for his policies and how the government went while he was running things. And I think he genuinlye cared about the people and what he did in his job.

But I wouldn't deny for a second that he was a scoundrel. There's a semi-toothless literary use of the word that implies a sort of grudging respect for or likability about, but I don't feel that's what you are indicating here...

See, I'm too much of a realist to simply dismiss the notion that there's a role for people who believe that the only way to play politics is to always play hard and to win. Who said "if you're not cheating, you're not trying?"

I don't say I entirely agree, but I understand the point.

Rovism is a sort of religion. The far right is seduced by it and refuses to acknowledge any impropriety. The far left is afraid of it and uses it to enable their fantasies that in an honest world they would win, so the other side has to be cheating.

It's not exactly news that Rove lies, connives, slanders, and misrepresents in order to get his guy elected and, once elected, insulated from criticism. Every successful politico has had a bulldog like this.

My advice to the left is to ignore Rove and speak to the voters. At the end of the day, Karl will do his pennance in the hell of his deity's choice, probably in the cauldron next door to Lee "Woke Up This Mornin'" Atwater. That's nobody's concern but his.

Brian,

Notice how such a narrative precludes any need to look in the mirror and compare one's policy views with the differing ones of the public at large.

No, you're quite right there. And interestingly enough, it seems to be prevalent across social lines and barriers. For example, during his most recent trip to El Salvador, a classmate of mine (who lived with an FMLN family during his stint in the Peace Corps) was drinking with his former host family and their friends. These salvadoreños were absolutely shocked at the recent elections in the alcaldes (roughly city councils) in which ARENA (the ruling conservative party) had managed to win the elections. They concluded that the only reason the conservatives could have won was because ARENA had bribed the campesinos to vote for them. When Bob pointed out the problems with this position-- ARENA had won by 3-to-1 margins, could they really have paid off that many peasants?-- the FMLN guys refused to consider any other possible explanation.

It's tough to look in the mirror and say "My positions or values are not what the majority of Americans prefer." There has to be some other rational explanation for our defeats and failures, whether it is ARENA party members bribing voters or Karl Rove possessing Sauron's One Ring and using it to control the world around him...

Precious! Precccciiiooouuuusss!!!!

If Karl Rove didn't exist, the Left would have to invent him...

I miss Joe Kennedy...a political cheat who had enough money not to get caught. Now those were the good ol' days.

Not to mention LBJ. Now there was a master of the game.