Karl Rove is guilty…

Guilty of managing successful presidential campaigns.

That's still not a crime though.

The leftists certainly are not good losers.

Losers, yes.

Good losers, no.

They have no evidence that has been made public showing that Karl Rove did anything wrong, much less criminal, in trying to persuade Time's Matt Cooper not to misreport.

Sean Hannity knows that.

Alan Colmes knows it too.

But Colmes is helping the loony left demagogue the situation and demonize a man who has served his country and his President faithfully and well.

Dick Morris knows what's going on: "The 'gotcha' game is in full swing in Washington as the vultures circle slowly over the White House, hoping for Karl Rove's scalp."

Saith Morris: "[T]he Democrats demanding his head are not very interested in upholding the statute in question. Their motives are totally political. They want revenge against Rove for his successful role in piloting the Bush election and reelection campaigns, and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl's advice in the remaining years of his second term."

What the vultures lack in evidence they hope to make up for in innuendo and shrillness.

Justice Clarence Thomas might call it an attempted "high-tech lynching."

And he'd be right.

Colmes should be demanding proof instead of deploring criticism of Ambassador Wilson, who bet on a Kerry victory and lost and is consoling himself with his book profits.

Morris explains the play:  "A White House insider is accused of doing something, the news media hype the story and, finally, without proof or presumption of innocence, the staffer resigns so as not to become a 'distraction' from the president's agenda."

And hopes that "maybe this time the cycle can be stopped before it runs its bloody course."

Because:

"Karl Rove did nothing wrong. The statute he allegedly violated has a number of very specific triggers. The person who reveals the identity of a covert CIA operative has to intend to uncover her identity, know she is a covert operative and know that he is blowing her cover.

"The law is designed to stop the likes of Philip Agee, whose 1975 book Inside the Company revealed secret CIA information to sell books. Rove's actions are a far stretch from those the statute was designed to cover."

Rove spoke to Cooper.

That's not a crime.

Or even something the media generally is against.

They spoke confidentially.

That's fine too. 

Rove did not call initiate the conversation at issue.

Cooper called him.

Do you really thing Rove was out to out Valerie Plame, waiting at his desk for Cooper to call and talk to him long enough to mention that she inspired her husband's visit to Niger?

Does Colmes?

Morris writes: 

"[Rove] did not mention Valerie Plame's name. He may not have even known it. He had no intent to reveal her identity. The context of the conversation was that Rove was trying to disabuse Cooper of the impression that CIA Director George Tenet had been the moving force in choosing former Ambassador Joe Wilson to investigate the nuclear dealings reported to be going on in Niger.

"Rove said that it was not Tenet who pushed the appointment but that it likely stemmed from the fact that Wilson's wife 'apparently works' at the CIA."

Morris' conclusion:  " To call that conversation a deliberate revelation of an agent's identity designed to blow her cover is a far, far stretch of the statute's wording and intent."

Precisely.

So why is Colmes supporting the effort to crucify Rove? 

Morris notes that "Washington is a mean town where human sacrifice has been raised to an art form."

But that's no excuse.

According to Morris:

"Karl Rove does not deserve this fate. He has served loyally and well, resisting enormous opportunities to leave midway and reap a bonanza of income in the private sector. He has shown himself to be a man of uncommon integrity and selflessness in serving this administration and this country. He should not be tossed to the partisan wolves."

No one should be.

And Colmes knows that too. 

Morris noted: "[T]here is some question that the reporters who took Rove's lead, looked up Plame's name and published it may themselves be more likely to have violated the statute than is Rove himself. Whoever took the information Rove provided and outed Plame was, in fact, deliberately outing a CIA operative and may be a better fit for the statute's intent than Karl Rove."

Perhaps Colmes should investigate that. 

----------------------------------------
Email: GaynorMike@aol.com