Round up of the morning Rove coverage

He is such toast. Seriously, the coverage is bad. Real bad. I'm going to post the leads of the stories, to give you a sense of how bad.

NYT (via SF Chronicle):

Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover CIA officer would be fired, and assuring that Karl Rove and other senior aides to President Bush had nothing to do with the disclosure, the White House refused on Monday to answer any questions about new evidence of Rove's role in the matter.

Detroit Free Press:

The White House refused Monday to repeat earlier assertions that any administration official who leaked classified information would be fired. The refusal comes days after Karl Rove, one of President George W. Bush's top aides, was revealed as the source of a news leak that exposed a CIA undercover officer in 2003.

Houston Chronicle:

The White House scrambled Monday to reconcile President Bush's vow to fire anyone who leaked information about an undercover CIA operative with revelations that top political aide Karl Rove spoke to a reporter about the agent.

AP:

The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female
CIA officer.

SF Chronicle editorial:

THE OFFICIAL silence from the White House on Monday was quite disturbing.

Not so good first paragraphs, but other articles/columns of note today:

- Robert Scheer (I haven't even read this yet and I know it's gonna be good, love this man).

- LA Times.

- Washington Post, lead story.

- NY Newsday.