The Argument: Rebutting the RNC Line on Rove

The Republican counter-attack concerning Karl Rove’s outing of an undercover CIA agent is this: Rove outed the agent in order to discredit a flawed report written by the agent’s husband. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

The line includes details concerning the supposed flaws with the husband’s (Joe Wilson’s) report. The details are childishly, obviously bogus. But no matter.

What to say about the Republican line, when it is made? Very little, I think.

Something like this: “You’ve just heard the official Republican story, and they’re sticking to it. The story misstates every fact that matters, but forget about that for the moment. Assume the CIA agent’s husband really was awful. Assume that outing the CIA agent really would discredit a terrible report. Does that justify outing an undercover CIA agent? Does that justify endangering the lives of every contact and informant the CIA agent had in a 20-year career? Does that justify ruining the ability of the CIA agent ever again to gather intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of our enemies?”

I don’t think anything more needs to be said in response. And the response feeds directly into our case.

So after making that rebuttal to the Republican’s case, you go back to our case:

1. Bush cited bogus intelligence to justify war on Iraq.

2. Karl Rove burned a CIA NOC agent because her husband corrected one of Bush’s bogus claims.

3. The Republican leadership defends Rove’s actions.

4. The White House lied for two years about Rove’s actions.

5. Bush said he would fire whoever was involved in that, but he now seems to have changed his mind.