Defend Karl Rove!

The far Left is so much fun!

They defended for nearly a decade the Great Prevaricator, who was so much of a pathological liar that he lied even when the truth would suffice. Remember Travelgate, when he fired, and then smeared, employees that he could fire for any reason, or no reason? It's little wonder that they spend so much time attacking the Administration for "lies." I've no psychological training, but I believe the professionals call it "projection": attributing your own shortcomings to your enemies.

Now, having failed to take down House Majority Leader Tom Delay, they're trying to relive those halcyon days of yore, when in 1986, they went after President Reagan for an ill-advised, yet perfectly permissible, policy decision to appease the Mullahs in Teheran. Probably a sound tactic, that, if your opponents let it work. Recall that the result was the first Senate Democrat majority in six years, one that lasted until 1994.

This time, the target is presidential advisor-in-chief Karl Rove.

Democrats have good reason to go after Rove. After all, they credit him with making George W. Bush "presidential." I guess they figure that, if they can only get Rove, Bush will become an easy target. You know, the old "[Every Republican President] is a moron" ploy. In the far Left cloudcuckooland inhabited by today's Democrat mainstream, getting Rove is getting Bush.

While I suspect that the President is not the cretin portrayed by Democrats, though, the whole targeting of Rove is little more than the latest scandal-mongering by a party devoid of ideas, one becoming ever-more devoid of electoral victories. And their targeting of Rove for his revelation of the lies of Joe Wilson is another example of their despicable hypocrisy.

The Wall Street Journal gets it right here, where it demonstrates that Rove is the kind of whistleblower that the Dems defend... so long as the whistle is being blown on conservatives, or other defenders of America and traditional values.

The President should defend his advisor. Aside from being the right thing to do, in demonstrating that loyalty is a traditional conservative virtue, no less a personage than Clinton defender Lanny Davis has made it clear that Rove did nothing illegal, which is the ultimate determinant of Bush's course.

As the facts have come out, it has become clear that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was not an undercover operative, nor had she been one for nine years when Rove revealed whatever it was that he revealed. Indeed, all facts indicate that Rove didn't even use her name, another element of the "crime" of which he has been accused by partisan Democrats and other assorted far Lefties, violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Indeed, if it weren't for the fact that Plame happens to work at the CIA as an analyst, and once may have been an undercover operative, it is clear that the entire Democrat fantasy would fall apart.

Wilson and his wife have both been discredited, the former, by the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the whole affair; the latter, by her embrace of the celebrity accompanying the whole contretemps. In fact, the primary victim in this whole affair (aside from the truth) is the New York Times reporter who is sitting in jail because she refuses to reveal her source in the matter. And as tempting as it is to engage in a little schaudenfreunde over the fact that a New York Times reporter is in jail, it is disturbing that she is in her current fix over what is essentially a political witch hunt by partisan Democrats. Or is it just more than a little ironic?

At this point, it is or should be abundantly clear that Rove committed no crime. In fact, it was a public service.