Well, there has been one positive development in the Rove case. Conservatives are finding love in their hearts for lawyers. The fine right wing folks over at Little Green Footballs are defending Rove with the classic defense that his lawyer said he didn’t do it.
Just one problem. According to Rove’s lawyer, Rove is indeed mentioned in the notes turned over by Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper—but not as the source of the leak
Oh, I see. His lawyer said he didn’t do it. He must be innocent. It’s funny, but I don’t remember that answer being enough for the right wing during the endless parade of meaningless scandals that plagued the Clinton White House. It seems quite reasonable to spend a fortune investigating worthless charges about 10 year old land deals, but to basically ignore a senior White House official’s involvement in outing AN UNDERCOVER CIA AGENT. While, I might add, as the president never ceases to remind us, we are at war.
The article goes on to selectively quote a Michael Isikoff report about Rove’s involvement, missing this piece of information
But according to Luskin, Rove’s lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak’s column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove “never knowingly disclosed classified information” and that “he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.”
That doesn’t sound like a lawyer carefully answering a question, does it?
Once again, the question is, will the media go along with these Bush implausibilities? For all the ranting about supposed right wing bias in the press, this President and his ethically challenged staff have received a free pass on almost every issue.
But perhaps I am wrong. I am sure that if this were a story about Bill Clinton and one of his senior advisers, the right would take the same line that we should ignore this non-issue. Right?
Karl Rove Plame: 245
“Natalee Holloway”: 11,200
“Shasta Groene”: 2,720