Won't Defend? Then Attack!

How do you defend Karl Rove? The way he himself has so effectively defended President Bush over the years, of course. You attack.

The White House yesterday officially stayed mum regarding Rove's role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, its only concession being a generic expression of confidence in all who serve the president.

And this morning , asked directly if he had spoken to Rove about the matter and whether he felt Rove's conduct was improper, Bush simply refused to say, citing the ongoing criminal investigation.

"I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is complete," he said, joining in the White House stonewall that began on Monday.

But Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman yesterday began a pro-Rove media charge. His message, summed up by these talking points , is not as much a defense of Rove against the various charges leveled against him as it is an attack on the credibility of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV -- Plame's husband, and the person who Rove was trying to discredit when he mentioned Plame in the first place.

Mehlman won't say whether he talked to Rove about his approach, but either way, his methodology is tried and true Rovian genius.

As I wrote in my June 24 column , back when some Democrats were calling on Rove to apologize for describing the liberal approach to national security as being weak and possibly even treasonous: "Rove has a brilliant and so far unbeatable strategy when it comes to political warfare." He doesn't defend, he doesn't apologize, he attacks.

But there are some warning signs this time.

For example, not everyone in the Republican Party is playing along. An awful lot of senior members of Bush's party are sitting this one out for now.

And Rove and the White House face adversity on three fronts:

· There's a possible criminal charge looming.