Karl Rove, executive privilege and the Clinton defense

I have said almost nothing about the MSM/DNC attacks on Karl Rove because the blogosphere has done a pretty good job of exposing the attackers for the frauds that they are. But I noticed one item in the news today that reminds me of Bill Clinton by contrast. AP's report today contained the following quote:

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said his client answered all the questions prosecutors asked during three grand jury appearances, never invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the president's executive privilege guaranteeing confidential advice from aides.

How long did Clinton stall his perjury investigation because his lawyers were using various delaying tactics? How many months were wasted in court because Clinton was asserting "executive privilege"? Rove has done none of this. Rove has apparently cooperated fully.

Joe Sobran wrote the following about Clinton's tactics in 1998:

Whenever the police pull me over, which I'm afraid is a common occurrence, I figure it's in my interest to be nice and cooperate. The offense is invariably minor -- an expired sticker in my windshield -- and there's no point in being ornery with the man who holds the discretionary power either to stick me with a $50 fine or to let me go with a warning.

It might be different if I knew that if a cop stopped me, he was bound to find that I was carrying a bullet-riddled body in the trunk. In that case, the logic of the situation might dictate a shootout. Being cooperative wouldn't get me far if the offense was serious.

Not that I can really picture myself shooting a cop; being nice is more my style, which is why I usually get in trouble for expired stickers rather than murder in the first place. But you see what I mean.

That's why it's interesting that Bill Clinton should be conducting a hate campaign against special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. And the key fact is that it began long before the Monica Lewinsky story broke.

Clinton's normal style is conciliatory and ingratiating. Like any good politician, he knows better than to make enemies he doesn't need, and you'd expect him to be the last man to antagonize someone who was conducting a criminal investigation.

And yet he and James Carville were accusing Starr of political motives nearly as soon as Starr took over the Whitewater investigation. . . . . . But there is another obvious motive for both Clinton and McDougal: fear.

If Clinton has, so to speak, a bullet-riddled body in the trunk, and Starr is the cop, Clinton realized that being nice wouldn't get him out of this jam. Knowing what Starr was bound to discover, he quickly went into the shootout mode, hoping to discredit Starr personally before Starr could announce what was found in the trunk.

. . . . .
For the guilty who hope to escape, cooperation with the prosecution is utterly irrational. The rational course is to frustrate and, if possible, destroy the prosecutor.

emphasis added

But in the warped mind of the followers of MSM/DNC, Clinton will always be the innocent victim, while Rove will always be guilty.
[It is interesting to note also that the MSM/DNC kool-aid drinkers know exactly what crimes Clinton is innocent of, while being unable to explain what Rove is guilty of. "Clinton is absolutely innocent of perjury, selling secrets to the Chinese, selling plots in Arlington, defrauding investors in his Arkansas land scheme, bombing foreign countries to distract attention from his domestic troubles, raping Juanita Broadrick, misusing FBI files, etc. Rove is guilty of whatever that guy on TV said he did. . ." ]

Isn't it nice finally to have a White House that is not engaged in the stonewall-of-the-week?