However you view the odds that Karl Rove was the one who outed Valerie Plame, it's hard to think Rove isn't at least "fair game" for some questions about the notion.
Hard, that is, unless you're Karl Rove.
Rove sat down for a lunch Tuesday with editors and reporters from the Washington Post. And if the story in today's paper is any indication, the president's chief political advisor had much to say about the Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process. He talked about Bush's response to criticism of Alberto Gonzales, he opined on the kinds of questions that Democratic senators shouldn't be allowed to ask of a judicial nominee, and he offered up his own insights into the Federalist Papers.
We went searching through the Post for the rest of the story -- the part where Rove expounds at length on his involvement, or lack thereof, in the Plame case. We didn't find it. Instead, in the 13th paragraph of a story on page A03, we found this: "At a lunch meeting yesterday with Washington Post reporters and editors, Rove declined to answer questions about the Plame case."