Lose-Lose (and Lose) Proposition

Let's review Bush's options:

1. Karl Rove under oath: a dream come true. Enough said about that.

2. Karl Rove testifies in private, not under oath: public assumes that Rove can't possibly testify under oath without lying and/or incriminating himself. Implication: Rove and Bush have done something wrong.

3. Resist subpoena, claim executive privilege (i.e., no testimony of any kind): public assumes Bush and Rove have something to hide. Leahy's brings resolution citing Rove for contempt of congress. Resolution passes. Congress asks U.S. Attorney (ironic, yes) to bring charges.

--U.S. Attorney does not bring charges: public is reminded that U.S. Attorney was appointed by Bush. We know eight have been fired for not going after Democrats. Is this one of the ones who survived, i.e., a Bush guy? Did he/she not indict for political reasons?

--U.S. Attorney brings charges: litigate. Bush morphs into Nixon. Bush tries to run out the clock until January 2009. While he does, he gets nothing.