So Karl Rove is not going to be charged with anything, according to his lawyer. Does that mean he is not guilty? No. He obviously is guilty, and not only is he guilty of being involved in the Plame scandal, he is also guilty of lying about it. We know this. So why is he not going to be charged? Some claim that Fitzgerald gave up on charging him because it was too difficult to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Personally, I don't believe this (but I am often wrong).
As we already know he was guilty, and he is not going to be charged, and the question of reasonable doubt is problematic, what else might be behind this strange situation? I think he has fingered Cheney. The almost three years Fitzgerald spent trying to make a case, the five times Rove testified before the Grand Jury, the known "falling out" of Rove/Cheney, and the fact that Rove may never have been the important figure in Fitzgerald's cross hairs in the first place, leads me to believe he cooperated with Fitzgerald who is probably building his case agaist Dick the Slimy. Fitzgerald is well known for trying to always get to the top of the criminal order. Of course I don't know that this is what is happening but it makes more sense to me than just concluding that Fitzgerald is simply giving up.
And think about it. Who is going to be upset to see Cheney go? Rice? Rumsfeld? Bush? Someone is going to have to be the fall guy for the administration. Why not Cheney? Everybody hates him including virtually the entire citizenship of the U.S. I will not be surprised to see a resignation before long. He is definitely expendable and the time may have come.
I like the explanation that in a "war" of this type you can never know who the enemy is - apparently it might even be children from six months to six or seven years of age. Israelis seem to be particularly accomplished killers of children. Remember that famous phrase from our previous Indian wars, "nits make lice." There is no excuse for this, none.