I am not sure what happened in the Karl Rove/Joseph Wilson/Valerie Plame Affair or subsequent events, but let's look into the hypothetical crystal ball. In the last six years that I have known Karl Rove, I have observed that he never gets caught with his pants down. I will say it again: Karl never gets caught with his pants down.

Here is what has happened. The media has jumped all over Rove, he denies wrong doing and competing camps are becoming established---the resign or don't resign crowd start their vigorous campaigns. The camps are broken down neatly among political lines. There are those either for or against Karl--and unlike local politicians such as Ward Crutchfield or Chris Newton---Rove knows what to do, and when to do it and he will step down on his own accord. Unless there is a criminal indictment, Rove does not have to go anywhere. It makes it hard for people to call for the resignation of an un-indicted official when there are so many indicted officials and party leaders in Tennessee who have remained silent. It must be a hard time to really bite that tongue or there are a lot of hypocrites out there.

Make no mistake if Karl Rove leaked Plame's name and the US Attorney indicts him he should go, and the President needs to keep to his word and remove him. However, there has probably never before been a prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Questions of how Rove got the information initially probably do need to be asked. However, if or when it is proven that Rove really did not do anything wrong. People will scratch their heads and ask themselves why Ol' Joe Wilson went on a trip to Africa to investigate whether Iraq had tried to obtain enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, probably with pre-determined outcomes in mind. The trip may even have been arranged by his wife a CIA weapons of mass destruction specialist or was she at least involved having knowledge in orchestrating it? Wilson and Plame may be true patriots for all we know or political opportunists waiting to cash in.

We do know Wilson had retired in 1998, but was brought back for this 2002 trip. That is a question worth asking by people: who wanted Joseph Wilson to go to Niger? And why? Then after he returns, Wilson for some reason writes a book The Politics of Truth, 528 pages critical of the Bush Administration and American Foreign Policy just in time for the 2004 election and then profits nicely. Who becomes the villain? That in of itself is the story. Glancing at the January 2004 Vanity Fair photo which features both Wilson and Plame, called "the most famous female spy in America," posing in their Jaguar did not endear the couple as victims merely yearning for anonymity on the heel of the book.

Here are a few points the pundits need to remind themselves of: Nobody has ever proven Rove has said Valerie Plame was a covert agent in deep cover. Rove simply warned reporter Matthew Cooper to stay away from the idea that Wilson's trip had been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney. Was Rove right? Again find out who sent Mr. Wilson to Niger.

If Rove was not to blame and is in fact correct, neither Tenet nor Cheney were involved think of the damage he prevented by telling Cooper his story was wrong. The media has never tried to go out of their way to make sure the Bush administration was portrayed in the most flattering light. Unfortunately, the media the purveyors of doom and gloom certainly can live with innuendo or outright accusations. By preventing the damage Rove could swing public opinion over to his side. It will mean Wilson and Plume are not
heroes.

If Rove lied to the grand jury investigating this case, I expect Rove himself would have already resigned-because I firmly expect President Bush to terminate him, rightly so. But I expect Karl Rove was truthful before the Grand Jury. After all Rove gave the media, Matt Cooper and assumedly Judith Miller, permission to give his name to the grand jury as a source. Yet he really did not reveal anything damaging so he comes out of this
incident cleanly. And remind yourself Rove had no problems with Cooper testifying. And why not you may ask? Because Cooper's own emails suggest that Rove didn't reveal the name of Joe Wilson's wife.

There is a world of difference in saying look you are going to screw this article up, you are going to blame the wrong people unjustly and unfairly and oh by the way Wilson's wife apparently works at the agency, What Rove did not say was "Hey Matt, did you know Valerie Plame is a covert CIA agent?" The real shocker of this story may turn out to be that Matt Cooper's source for "Valerie Plame" may have been fellow journalist Robert Novak. Yet in the end, the media may just play right into Rove's hand.

Meanwhile Supreme Court hearings will dominate until October 2005. The question is will we have one or two? If the Democrats are seen as obstructionist it will hurt them in the 2006 campaign. No offense: the Republicans have Fred Thompson to help them. The Democrats have George Mitchell. Hands down Fred Thompson sells in Tennessee and Fred Thompson sells in America. George Mitchell? He sells in France. Fred Thompson would be a great choice for the job himself. Right after the news coverage of the
Supreme Court nomination, especially if controversial, we will witness the Saddam Hussein trial. The trial could combine the best or worst elements of the OJ, Scott Peterson, Robert Blake and Michael Jackson proceedings. It will be more intense than anything since the Nuremberg Trials. But if Kato Kaelin or McCauley Caulkin show up I suspect viewers will tune out.

Meanwhile the Republicans scrambling for a candidate in 2008, may select the somewhat monotonous, but benevolent Bill Frist and if a freshly exonerated Karl Rove joins his team to manage this campaign, and they recruit and bring in as the VP nominee someone like George Allen, Jeb Bush or Condi Rice for the charisma or any combination of the above the GOP will return in 2008 for an encore. There will be two major issues in 2008: Hillary and Health Care. Provided of course we have a feasible exit strategy in Iraq and a promising democracy there. Who will the Dems pick for VP to go along with Hillary---who really wants to serve as Hillary's running mate and can provide geographic balance? Harry Reid aka "Dr. No" or Howard Dean or the dark horse possibility Phil Bredesen?

Dr. Frist, the noted heart surgeon, a man untouched by scandal, becomes the front runner in 2008 and Rove ends up more powerful than ever. Hillary Clinton can never win on health care issues, look at TennCare for example, which Tennessee Governor Bredesen has not fixed and clearly Frist owns the issue--he is even bucking the President on Stem Cell Research. Hillary is either loved or hated. She has to run against herself. The more Democrats or the media bash Karl Rove the better it is for the Republicans and it keeps the focus off of Iraq, social security, world-wide war on terror, and anything else people deem as important. The media seems overtly eager, perhaps politically motivated, to go after Rove on this issue, yet there is no evidence that he broke the law. This may spark discussion at the corner bar but it will not address real issues confronting our country.

In 2008, we are likely to see Rove versus James Carville. The Ragin' Cajun is exciting, nevertheless Rove wins every time. Carville, he will make you think he is winning. Rove does one thing extremely well and that is: he wins! Think about it, some of the crystal ball is certainly plausible. The old saying, what does not kill you makes you stronger certainly could ring true for Karl Rove. The Democrats would be better served finding a
messenger and getting their message out. What ails Karl Rove will not kill him. In the end, it seems to me like a media generated uproar. The backlash could be felt in 2006 and 2008. Karl Rove should have perhaps exercised better discretion, but Democrats seemed poised to make the same mistake.

JC Bowman
flapolicy@hotmail.com