I'm not so sure about that. It is an interesting ethical dilemma for sure. Let me fabricate an analogy:

A man (let's call him Bob) has a history of violent assault. He gets innto fights easily and throws blows without pretext or warning. He never gets caught or suffers legal consequences even though he has left a wake of pain, medical bills and fear. One day he is attacked by a man who has witnessed a few of his brutal rampages. Is it justice? Is it the price of his lifestyle? If, after the attack, Bob is arrested for assault and blamed for the attack, even though he is innocent, is it injustice?

I can see both sides of the argument. Do we look at Bob's behavior as a whole, and mete out punishment for his total lifestyle? Or, are we forced to look at each incident one at a time and treat each to its own merit?

If we consider ONLY the Plame case then the invective against Rove, for now, is uncalled for. If we look at Rove's behavior in the big picture we are less liekly to pity him. Personally, I believe he had a hand in the affair, if only because he has a history of doing exactly the same thing. George Sr. fired Rove for it....it appears that his son has more forgiveness for Rove's style.

Either way, I don't think anyone should be expected to apologize for stating their opinion. People on both sides of the aisle in Washington sling plenty of personal attacks each day. Calls of "treason" have been echoing the chambers of Congress for years now. This is a serious accusation and yet, never once, have I heard a call for apology....

There is a distinct problem with your analogy, I believe. And you highlight it yourself in your last paragraph. The vast majority of invective directed towards Rove is circumstantial, hearsay or simply opinion. He is the bogeyman of the left, he is reviled by most liberals and a frequent scapegoat.
But little factual evidence exists to tie him to the various schemes and dirty tricks that he is blamed for. While I don't really believe an apology is warranted, and I certainly don't think one is forthcoming.......comparing Rove's 'criminal' history, which is based on allegation and innuendo......to Bob, is specious at best.

I think we pretty much agree on this, but I still think that my little analogy holds for the most part.

In my analogy Bob was also "innocent" by virtue of the lack of legal proceedings. The question is this:
If we KNOW that Rove has used mudslinging before (Bush Sr. knows he has), and we know that he has been involved in situations since where mudslinging has occurred (see: the Bush White House), then should people apologize for associating him with the present dirty politics?

I think that Carl Rove is the boy who cried wolf(owitz)...

Is this the political jokes thread???

It's a little misleading, at best, to say that GHWB fired Rove for "mudslinging". What Rove in fact had done was vent to Robert Novak his frustrations about his own campaign manager. It wasn't an attack on Rove's political opponents.


What are you referring to here? If you're talking about his comments about liberals and 9/11, those were relatively tame compared to a lot of the rhetoric that gets tossed back and forth by both sides. If you're talking about something else, please provide the hard evidence.

To be honest, perhaps I am making an error in terms of the legitimacy of my argument, but I am working on some assumptions.
1.)Rove was the architect of the Bush campaign and the crafter of his public image.
2.) Some very dirty politics were used.
3.) By virtue of association, it would seem logical that Rove is either 1.) involved in these goings on or 2.) blindly orchestrating a brilliant campaign of (mis)information.

Since he is clearly an intelligent man and has leadership qualities, I am assuming that he is "in the know" on some of these dirty goings-on.