John Gibson of Fox News Channel gives an interesting point on the case for (or against, whichever) Karl Rove.
I won't excuse Rove for what he did (that is, if he did it; it's interesting how fast many Democrats and liberals have jumped on the Newsweek bandwagon, a pretty unreliable one at that), but sending a CIA operative's husband to check out a situation when he would almost certainly say that Hussein was not looking for weapons materials (whether true or not) or not report back at all was irresponsible. Rove does need to be punished (in what way is under debate) because there is no excuse for violating security clearances, but Rove was not the one guilty of treason. It is one thing to not like the idea of going to war, but if the evidence was right in front of Wilson and he failed to report it, then Joe Wilson
is the one guilty of treason (perhaps Waldo
needs to be shown this). Unfortunately, there is little that can be done to prove this, but one would hope that Wilson is being completely honest (though one, being myself, would also retain a bit of doubt for the time being).
UPDATE 7/15 9 PM: John Gibson continues with his views here
. Also, Brit Hume interviews David Rivkin, a lawyer, over the specifics about revealing a "covert" officer