Jonah Goldberg has this one line post up at The Corner.

So where does Karl Rove report to get his reputation back?

It occurs to me that this may be meant in jest. Jonah is not without a
sense of humor. But I'll assume for the sake of discussion that he's being
serious.

As Andrew Sullivan aptly quips, maybe Rove can go look for it in South
Carolina. More to the point, let's not forget the salient facts here. The
question going back three years ago now is whether Karl Rove knowingly
participated in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative for the purpose
of discrediting a political opponent who was revealing information about the
White House's use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War.

That was the issue. From the beginning, Rove, through Scott McClellan,
denied that he did any of that. There weren't even any clever circumlocutions.
He just lied. From admissions from Rove, filings in the Libby case, and
uncontradicted reportage, we know as clearly as we ever can that Rove did do
each of those things.

So he did do what he was suspected of and he did lie about it.

Now, I'm happy to take Patrick Fitzgerald's word for it, his evaluation of
the evidence, that there's not enough evidence to indict Rove on any criminal
charge. As Rove's defenders have long made clear, the underlying statute dealing
with revealing the identities of covert operatives is very hard to bring a
charge with. Same goes for making false statements or perjury. Hard to prove and
you need lots of evidence as to intent and so forth.

In fact, not only am I happy to take Fitzgerald's word for it, if this is
in fact the case, good for Fitzgerald. A prosecutor's role is not to punish
people for malicious acts. It is to ascertain whether they've committed specific
criminal acts and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a
charge.

But none of this changes the fact, for which there is abundant evidence,
even admissions from Rove himself, that he did the malicious act. And he lied
about doing it. Indeed, on top of that, President Bush welched on his promise to
can anyone who was involved.

So, what reputation is it exactly that Rove wants back? I think this
development leaves Rove's reputation quite intact.

By requiring the director of national intelligence to vet the president's
statements, your legislation almost seems like a concession that the usual
Senate oversight isn't working. That's something the Senate Intelligence
Committee might have been able to do itself.

You know, it's interesting. I'm very concerned about this. And so I
called two people who I care about a great deal who were both chairs of the
Intelligence Committee, Bob Kerrey and Bob Graham. You know, there were
different things that could be done because [the Republicans and the Bush
administration] were just simply ignoring us. We could all resign, say, "OK,
well, this doesn't work anyway."

But the intelligence committees that we have in the House and the Senate
were set up to serve a purpose, so that there would not be the assassination of
Pinochet. Not Pinochet, but who was the leader of the country, who'd they kill
-- Allende. That's how this all came about. And so it was after due
consideration -- going to hang in there. It's not as if nothing is happening.
You know, all the hot spots, they come in and tell them about that. So there's
still some function.

But I think we've come to learn that the intelligence community in America
is run by one person -- one person -- and that's the vice president. [Sen. Pat]
Roberts, who is the supposed chair of that committee -- I shouldn't say
"supposed chair"; he is the chair -- he can't do anything without [Dick Cheney].

Let me give you an example. Jay Rockefeller had surgery, and it turned out
a lot worse than we expected. It was spinal surgery, so he could not do his job.
He had to stay home. We had worked and struggled to have a three-member
Democratic oversight committee to oversee NSA stuff. They could review
everything. That was the deal that was made -- Rockefeller, Levin and [Dianne]
Feinstein. Rockefeller can't be there, so I talk to [Senate Majority Leader
Bill] Frist, and I say, "What we need to do is have somebody replace, at least
on a temporary basis, and the fourth person in seniority is [Oregon Sen.] Ron
Wyden."

So Frist, he doesn't do anything. After a couple of days, he says, "Talk to
Pat Roberts, talk to Pat Roberts." And a day or two later, Pat Roberts says,
"The vice president doesn't want me to do that."

Everything is run through the vice president -- everything.