Rove/Plame/Wilson

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader watched Scott McClellan squirm under reporters questions yesterday as more information becomes public about Karl Rove's involvment in the leaking of Valerie Plame's name to reporters. The latest installment of reporting from the Washington Post on this matter is here.

There are a few points which your Maximum Leader would like to make on topic.

As your Maximum Leader said to his loyal ministers over the weekend, if Rove leaked the information he should pay a price for it. We are now seeing the beginning of a sematic arguement about whether or not Rove leaked the information.

This sematic game is separate from the legal considerations. Frankly, your Maximum Leader feels that no law was violated in this matter. Valerie Plame was an analyst, not a field agent working undercover. That is a key consideration from a legal perspective. With the exception of the reporters involved, no one will be sent to prison for the commission of a crime in this whole matter.

Now, back to the semantics. Rove, from what your Maximum Leader has read, didn't actually mention Plame. From Rove's perspective this is probably tantamount to not leaking her name. But it has been reported more than once that Valerie Plame's connection to the CIA was one of the worst kept secrets in Washington. You can't exactly keep a low profile on the Washington social circuit when your husband is an Ambassador and well connected. So, looking at it slightly differently, by mentioning in passing that Wilson's wife (who ever she may be) might be involved in the authoriziation of the trip to Africa you are pretty much the same as telling anyone in the know to ask someone who Joe Wilson's wife is.

There is plenty of legal cover for Rove in this, but not much from a public relations/politics perspective.

And that is really what we're talking about here. Much criticism was leveled at Bill Clinton (and his aides) taking precisely the position that is seems Karl Rove might be taking here. That position is "I didn't break any laws, thus there is nothing to hold be accountable for." And as your Maximum Leader recalls, that line seemed to work pretty well in the Clinton years. But your Maximum Leader isn't here to bash Clinton...

Now, insofar as your Maximum Leader is concerned, he would prefer if George Bush's Administration held itself to a higher standard than the Clinton Administration. Indeed, the President, Scott McClellan, Andrew Card and others are on the record about being committed to a higher standard. It would seem that under this higher standard the President (who we all know is loathe to let go people he trusts) should let Rove go.

That would be a great loss for the President. But let's try and think through what it might mean in the greater context. If you were a Democrat wouldn't you rather have Karl Rove sitting in a lame-duck White House working on policy? If he isn't working for Bush, he's gonna be working for some other Republican. Some other Republican with presidential aspirations. Do you really want that? Be realistic, Rove isn't going to go back to Texas and raise some organic cattle and watch re-runs of The West Wing and cry in his Lone Star. He is going to start scouting out candidates for whom he will try and work his electoral magic.

So for Rove's opponents this doesn't look like quite as fun a victory as it might. Force Rove out for leaks, but then let him loose on the field of Republicans with presidential aspirations...

We'll see out this plays out. Your Maximum Leader, for one, will be more than a bit disappointed if all the information comes out, and Rove is obviously responsible for the leaks, and retains his job. To allow the President to focus on the work at hand, Rove should resign.

Carry on.

UPDATE: Dr. Rusty says pretty much the same thing as your Maximum Leader. Only a lot less politely.

UPDATE 2: Skippy has a thoughtful breakdown as well.