...when did he know he knew it, and who's going to help him now?

Via TGW, The New York Times has a story asking-finally-just how much Bush knew about "Plamegate." But this is my favorite part right here:

Behind the scenes, Cheney is feeding Bush's instinct never to give ground when under attack, White House advisers say, despite rising concern among Republicans that the president doesn't realize the depth of his political trouble.

Friends say he has decided that he will never catch a break from the Democrats or the media--on the CIA case or anything else--so he will govern from the right, as he did on most issues in his first term.

Personally, I feel warmed knowing that Cheney is encouraging such a bunker mentality, because history has shown that it's exactly what presidents need to get themselves out of political trouble.

But if I were ever in a position to speak to Bush "man-to-man," I think I would remind him of something. With sadness--I swear--in my voice, I would remind him that once he did catch a break from the Democrats and the media. And from me.

It was, of course, after 9/11. When we wanted so much, maybe too much, to believe that we had a president who would retaliate against those who had attacked us. When even people as liberal as I am did not believe a president, even one as conservative as he is, could be as unethical as he has shown himself.

But then, that was our mistake. We thought, Republican or Democrat, that we had a president.

And instead, we got him.

I know he's used to second and third chances thanks to the family name and foolish voters--but he's out of them now. And that's what he doesn't get, and that's why Rove can't help him anymore.

And that's why the White House may soon be without Rove, if Time magazine knows anything about what time it is...

He's weary. his wife and only child, who is approaching college, miss him. He has monstrous legal bills. His unique bond with the President is under stress. His most important work is done.

Karl Rove's colleagues don't know exactly when it will happen, but they are already laying out the reasons they will give for the departure of the man President George W. Bush dubbed the architect.

Come to think of it, I guess when the building can't stand up on its own, that is a good time to fire the archetect.

Despite Rove's flashes of ebullience in recent days and the insistence of friends that he is out of legal jeopardy, several of the most important lawyers who deal with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said they saw more clues last week that Fitzgerald is continuing to look into the possibility of charging Rove with lying to investigators or the grand jury or both. If that happens, Rove almost certainly would resign immediately, as did I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, when Libby was indicted two weeks ago.

Of course, Bush could score a few points if he fired Rove before the next round of charges...that is, if he actually wanted to "promote ethics"...but again, why am I helping him?

And one last thing. Does anyone else think that this supposed "refresher course" on ethics the White House staff is having is really just practicing being able to say it without laughing?