I've met Karl Rove twice and I don't have a single interesting anecdote to tell about him. Unless you like to discuss poll numbers the way baseball geeks go on and on about ERAs and RBI, he's a pretty ordinary guy - not the SMERSH mastermind behind the James Bond spy fantasies of the paranoid left. But never mind the facts. In news stories and columns he became "the as-yet-unindicted Karl Rove who leaked the name of a double-secret spy at the CIA." The "spy," Valerie Plame, was not even a spy, but an analyst who sent her husband on a phony mission to discredit the president.But someone at the White House told the truth, and everyone knows only journalists are allowed to leak government secrets in the newspaper. So the media went on its own DaVinci Code chase to find its Holy Grail - a scandal that would bring down the Bush presidency. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd told David Letterman to simply remember two words: "Cheney's guilty."
Another New York Times member of the Bush Haters Club, Frank Rich, ramped it up to "Bush and Cheney are guilty," and said, "Well, of course, Karl Rove did it." Former ESPN yakker Keith Olberman proved again that sports geeks should stick to ERAs and RBI. More than 26 times he predicted the indictment of Rove on his MSNBC talk show. But when it was announced there would be no indictment, Olberman had nothing to say. What class.
Even that was better than Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. He still insists Rove is guilty: "If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin, which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House."
Rovegate is dead. But Dr. Dean prescribes another transfusion of lies. They can't let go. The same thing could be happening with the overhyped "Marine massacre" in Haditha, Iraq. News stories didn't wait for the facts or an investigation. They accused Marines of murdering 15 to 24 civilians in revenge for a roadside bombing that killed a Marine. But now blogs and news reports are yanking loose threads, and the story may be unraveling.
Sources for the massacre story may be linked to insurgents who have played the press like a kazoo. Their stories keep changing, and the "witnesses" did not tell anyone about it for months. Some American "witnesses" were not even there. And some alleged photo evidence doesn't exist.
Finally, we are starting to hear from the Marines who were there. The father of the Marine who was killed said the patrol was attacked by terrorists who hid behind women and children.
Other Marines said they were under attack and followed rules of engagement to protect themselves in a village where Marines had been ambushed and killed.
Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich told his attorney that "there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield," the Washington Post reported. "He's really upset that people believe that he and his Marines are even capable of intentionally killing innocent civilians."
That story did not make big headlines. But it's at least as credible as the "massacre" based on shaky sources. So why believe the worst? Why not defend the Marines who defend us?
They deserve the same protection we should give to any ordinary guy - even Karl Rove: innocent until proven guilty.