Why doesn't Karl Rove just offer up the obvious defense: that making up stories to suit the moment is, you know, his job?

[Special Counsel Patrick] Fitzgerald, according to sources close to the case, is reviewing testimony from [Satanic Fiend Karl] Rove's five appearances before the grand jury. [President G. W. "Chimpy"] Bush's top political strategist has argued that he never intentionally misled the grand jury about his role in leaking information about undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame to Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003. Rove testified that he simply forgot about the conversation when he failed to disclose it to Fitzgerald in his earlier testimony.—Washington Post, May 8

Supporters of the Bush administration like to tell us how bold and visionary it is. This makes you wonder why the people handling Karl Rove's legal mess (an interesting question, this: who handles the chief handler?) don't just tell it like it more or less is. It might take the form of saying something like:

"Mr. Rove's job is to propagandize and manipulate public opinion, to which end he will naturally say any damned thing to any damned fool at any damned time—if it will help sell his message. It is therefore not only unfair but irrelevant to attempt to categorize his statements as 'true' or 'not so much,' when they were never intended to be 'true.' Indeed, truth never comes into Mr. Rove's work, except on those rare occasions when, usually coincidentally, he can make it work for him.

"With specific regard to the legal issue of Mr. Rove's having forgotten the, er, statement he made to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine: Given the number of stories Mr. Rove's mission requires him to make up every day, is it reasonable to expect him to keep track of them all? Remember that these stories are intended, after all, for immediate consumption only."

One alarming note regarding Post reporter Jim VandeHei's article, whose thrust is that prosecutor Fitzgerald is expected to decide in the near future whether to indict Rove, presumably for perjury: The whole premise of the article is that Rove will be either (a) indicted or (b) "cleared." (Yes, "cleared" is the word he uses.) The reality, of course, is that Rove will be either indicted or not indicted.

Is it really necessary to explain yet again that, just as "indicted" doesn't mean "guilty," "not indicted" doesn't mean "innocent." Every prosecutor undoubtedly has an opinion about a subject's guilt or innocence, but the decision whether to prosecute is based on whether the prosecutor believes he or she has a reasonable shot at proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actually, I guess it really is necessary to make this point yet again, because the administration obfuscators will count on a broad swath of the American public being ignorant of it. In the event that Rove is not indicted, we can no doubt expect much spin from administration sources about how he has been "cleared" of these "baseless," "politically motivated" charges. Indeed, it appears that the spinning has already begun—and Mr. VandeHei has already been spun.