First, there's the sophomoric whooping it up at places like, oh, Damian's. Then, for those up to the intellectual challenge, there's the more nuanced stuff you'll find at places like Fire Dog Lake, written by people who actually have a clue.
Feel free to pick your camp.
P.S. You do realize, don't you, Damian, that "won't be charged" is not quite the same thing as "has been cleared," right? Just thought I'd ask.
OH, MAN. Jonah Goldberg really missed his calling as a Blogging Tory.
AFTERSNARK: By all means, check out this slightly earlier piece at FDL, which shows how the New York Times is still hopelessly confused about just about everything (emphasis added):
The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, ...
In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."
Um ... hello? That's some pretty careful wording there. Fitzgerald did not say that he wasn't going to charge Rove. He said that he doesn't anticipate charging Rove, which certainly makes it sound like Turd Boy cut himself a deal and he better not even think of backing out on it.
I don't think we've heard the end of this.