Overshadowed

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:02 AM

For one brief, shining hour, Karl Rove was the lead story in America. Okay, an hour and a half.

Then the White House disclosed that President Bush had stealthily arrived in Baghdad, and Rove's avoiding indictment in the Valerie Plame case was relegated to distinctly secondary status.

If I were him, I'd be teed off. Rove has endured months of will-he-or-won't-he speculation in the press, and the one day his lawyer gets to tell the world he won't face charges -- and that Rove in effect gets to keep his job -- the boss upstages him.

Obviously, the Baghdad trip was planned in advance and the timing was coincidental. But just as surely, it knocked Rove out of the lead position on every network broadcast and front page.

This is not to say Rove has been utterly vindicated. After all, we learned that he discussed Plame's identity with two reporters--and didn't remember his conversation with Time's Matt Cooper in an initial grand jury appearance--after the White House had assured the world that he had no involvement in the tawdry matter. That's not exactly a badge of honor.

Prosecutors, special or otherwise, aren't in the business of "clearing" people. They decide whether they have enough evidence to bring a criminal charge with a reasonable chance of winning at trial. This was obviously a close call, or Patrick Fitzgerald wouldn't have let it drag on so long, but in the end he made the call in Rove's favor.

The NYT has the basic outlines:

"The decision by a special prosecutor not to bring charges against Karl Rove in the C.I.A. leak case followed months of intense, behind-the-scenes maneuvering between the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Rove's lawyer, according to lawyers in the case.

"The move, made public by Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, early today, brought a surprise ending to the investigation of Mr. Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, who at one point last fall seemed to be close to facing possible perjury charges for lapses in his early testimony about a conversation with a Time magazine reporter. . . .

"A spokesman for Mr. Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Mr. Rove had made no deals to cooperate with the prosecution in any way, and that the decision was purely based on Mr. Fitzgerald's own findings."

Okay, so he didn't flip.

The LAT has some reax:

"Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Democrats owe Rove an apology. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich hailed the news. 'Certainly for the White House and for Karl Rove this is a very important morning and a very positive one.'

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean was having none of it. 'His real sin . . . is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during a time of war,' Dean said on NBC's 'Today' program. 'He doesn't belong in the White House.' "

Some observations by Dick Polman :

"This is what passes for great news at the beleaguered Bush White House: The president's chief political guru gets word from federal prosecutors that he is not an accused criminal. Nevertheless, the news that Karl Rove will not be charged in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case is clearly a political victory for the Bush administration. (In the careful words of Rove's lawyer, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald sent word that he 'does not anticipate seeking charges.') Disappointment in the opposition camp is undoubtedly palpable. After all, Bush critic Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband, had publicly expressed his hope that Rove would be 'frog-marched' out of his White House job; and liberal blogs have been giddy for months about a supposedly imminent 'Fitzmas' present."

Josh Marshall doesn't quarrel with Fitzgerald's legal judgment, but:

"The question going back three years ago now is whether Karl Rove knowingly participated in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative for the purpose of discrediting a political opponent who was revealing information about the White House's use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

"That was the issue. From the beginning, Rove, through Scott McClellan, denied that he did any of that. There weren't even any clever circumlocutions. He just lied. From admissions from Rove, filings in the Libby case, and uncontradicted reportage, we know as clearly as we ever can that Rove did do each of those things.

"So he did do what he was suspected of and he did lie about it."

Power Line's John Hinderaker begs to differ:

"One of the silliest news stories of modern times is stumbling toward a conclusion with the trial of former Cheney aide Scooter Libby.

"This case has never been about much other than politics; of the dozens of CIA leaks over the last five years, the one relating to Plame was probably the least significant from a security standpoint. Yet it is the only one, so far, that has engendered a criminal indictment. Libby's lawyers seem to be giving Fitzgerald all he can handle; don't be surprised if, when Fitzgerald's prosecution finally sees the light of day in court, it collapses due to the ultimate triviality of the whole incident."

America should breathe a sigh of relief, says Salon's Walter Shapiro :

"Beyond the partisan sound bites, there is a compelling argument that the nation -- and possibly even the Democrats -- is better off with Rove free to roam the West Wing plotting strategy for the 2006 Republican campaigns rather than hunkered down in his lawyer's office preparing for the trial of century.

"Special prosecutors bring with them the proven danger of Starr-chamber justice, as the Ahab-like pursuit of Bill Clinton demonstrated. Fitzgerald, in contrast, displayed uncommon restraint last October by limiting himself to going after Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, for what appears to be, judging from the indictment, a brazen case of perjury. . . .

"Many Bush critics see the Fitzgerald investigation as the only window into the manipulation of intelligence before and after the Iraq war. But a legal proceeding is different from the congressional hearings that should have been held on the decision to go to war in quest of illusory weapons of mass destruction. As Fitzgerald pointedly said during his press conference after the Libby indictment, 'I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feeling for or against shouldn't look to the criminal process for any answers or resolution to that.' "

So how does Jason Leopold, who wrote on the Truthout Web site some weeks back that Rove had been secretly indicted , deal with the news that no charges are being brought? He still insists he was right:

"I am standing by the story I wrote a few weeks back regarding Karl Rove's indictment. Today's announcement by Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, stating that he was informed that his client will not be charged in the CIA leak case leads to more questions than answers. Specifically, what took place behind the scenes over the past four weeks that led to Rove's sudden change in status? Did he cut a deal with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald? And did the story I reported factor in to the equation?

"Until there is an official announcement from Fitzgerald confirming the claims made by Rove's attorney that Rove is in fact cleared of wrongdoing and no longer part of the investigation I will continue to stand by my report and so will Truthout. Now is the time to get to the bottom of this story and it requires additional reporting to find out what took place behind the scenes that led to Tuesday's announcement."

No comment necessary.

MSNBC has the backstage machinations on POTUS's secret trip.

Look who is against the war after he was for it:

"Senator John F. Kerry is placing himself at the center of congressional action over the war in Iraq this week with a crisply worded resolution to require President Bush to withdraw almost all US troops by the end of this year," says the Boston Globe .

"The measure has exposed Kerry to attacks from Republicans and some Democrats, as critics rushed to tag the plan as a 'cut-and-run' strategy. But it also has made him a rallying point for antiwar activists."

Another Democratic senator isn't pleasing her party's left:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was treated to both heckles and cheers yesterday by liberal activists in a mixed day for the New York Democrat on the campaign trail," says the Washington Times . "Yesterday morning, Mrs. Clinton spoke at the 'Take Back America' conference, held at the Washington Hilton. Protesters upset with Mrs. Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war in 2002 stood outside the hotel with a sign that read, 'It takes one bomb to raze a village.' "

Is Iraq starting to get less media attention (other than yesterday and on the day of Zarqawi's death, obviously)? The Chicago Trib's Tim McNulty runs the numbers:

"In the first five months of this year, Tribune editors placed Iraq on the front page on average every third or fourth day--there were 41 Iraq stories in 151 days. In the same period last year, there were 74 Iraq articles on Page 1. There were 138 stories in 2004.

"How does that compare to other newspapers? . . . The Washington Post led all U.S. newspapers with 132 front-page articles on Iraq in the first five months of this year. The war is not only a national story for the Post, it is a local story with the White House, State Department and Pentagon in its back yard. Still, this year's number was down from the 161 articles on the front page in the same period of 2005. The Post ran twice as many stories in early 2004 as it has in 2006.

"At the other end of the spectrum of front-page coverage, USA Today, the nation's largest circulation newspaper, had 21 Page 1 articles on Iraq in the first five months of this year, 22 the year before and 42 the year before that. "For those who want to keep track, here are other statistics. The New York Times 113 (2006), 143 (2005) and 216 (2004). The Los Angeles Times, 127, 155 and 238. Looking at a smaller paper, The Boston Globe's count was 32, 65 and 143."

An unfair comparison, says USA Today's Baghdad correspondent , Cesar Soriano, in a letter to Romenesko:

"Comparing USA Today's Page 1 coverage of Iraq with 'traditional' newspapers is like comparing apples and oranges. The very nature of USA Today's design and layout limits us to running about three front page articles per day, versus about six 1A stories in other newspapers. Those other papers also have larger staff in Iraq. To somehow suggest that USA Today or other media care less about Iraq coverage based on a byline count is wrong and an insult to the brave U.S. and Iraqi journalists and staff who risk their lives everyday to bring the news to our readers.

"For the record, USA Today has maintained a Baghdad bureau since beginning of the war, currently headed by Rick Jervis. A quick search of our archives reveals USA Today has published a total of 433 articles in 2006 that mention Iraq in the headline or lede."

And this parting shot: "To all the Chairborne Rangers advancing the vast 'negative media' conspiracy from the safety and comfort of their parents' basements: If you think you can do better, I've got a spare bed in the Baghdad bureau."

I know everyone had this story, but it just reads better in the New York Post , under the Category 5 headline "HURRI-CON":

"In a shocking rip-off of taxpayers, federal hurricane relief bought 'Girls Gone Wild' videos, Caribbean vacations and French champagne, as thousands of brazen scam artists bilked the government out of $1.4 billion, a bombshell report reveals."