I Can’t Imagine Why the President Wouldn’t Want Karl Rove to Testify

In my column at Townhall today I explain just a few of the reasons the President would not want Karl Rove or Harriet Miers to testify under oath, even if there was no wrongdoing and absolutely nothing to hide.

Democrats are calling for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and other administration officials to answer questions under oath, and perhaps more importantly under Klieg lights, before a congressional committee. Why, if there is nothing to hide and there was no wrongdoing, would the President not want Rove and others to testify?

All one has to do to understand why the administration would not want to send Rove or Miers before a congressional committee is to understand the political motivation of Democrats to extend coverage of the non-scandal, to look at the result of Scooter Libby’s under-oath comments, and to watch the recent testimony of Victoria Toensing in the Plame matter.

Democrats in Congress have not only failed to enact some of their “100 days” promises, but are now polling in the same range the Republican majority they replaced was polling last year. Their big agenda item, as Dean Barnett identified it is “Get Bush!!! And if you can’t get Bush, be damn sure to get Rove!” It is not a big mystery why the White House would not want to have Karl Rove and others dragged before a bunch of preening congressmen and women playing to the television cameras, even if there is nothing to hide.

The Media's Subprime Soliloquy
"It's Just Not Fair"