In what has to be considered huge news, Great Satan Karl Rove is not being indicted.

Stephen Green says,

It's really too bad this news didn't come out on Friday. The reactions from the wackos at the Kos Konvention would have been priceless.

Intrigued by this, I decided to poke around and see just what the left is saying.

"Not a Happy Way to Start the Morning," says Atrios.

(I can't say the news did much for me one way or the other.)

FireDogLake's Christy Hardin Smith:

You do not charge someone with a criminal indictment merely because they are scum. You have to have the evidence to back up any charges — not just that may indicate that something may have happened, but you must have evidence that criminal conduct occurred and that you can prove it. You charge the evidence you have, you try the case you can make, and you don’t go down a road that will ultimately be a waste of the public’s money and time once you have ascertained that the case is simply not there. It doesn’t mean that you don’t think the SOB that you can’t charge isn’t a weasel or guilty as hell, it just means that you can’t prove it. (And, fwiw, those times are the worst of your career, because you truly hate to let someone go when you know in your gut they’ve done something wrong.)

. . .it also doesn't mean that Rove is innocent of any involvement in outing an undercover CIA agent whose job it was to protect us from rogue states seeking unsecured nuclear material and bombs.

Given the incredible secrecy that shrouds the White House -- secrecy largely brought on by Rove and his good friend Dick Cheney -- it was unlikely that Fitzgerald would be able to get to the bottom of the Plame case. Indictments for the crime that risked all our lives were never likely.

This letter most likely means that they were unable to catch Rove in an obvious lie as they did Scooter Libby.

Oddly enough, I'm not seeing much cheering among Republicans.

Drudge offers documentation of a generally apathetic response on the left, but not from Howard Dean:

'If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America'...

While I agree with Stephen Green that the reaction (because of group dynamics) would have been much more ferocious at YearlyKos had the news come out on Friday, I'm not surprised by the subdued reaction today. I think that, despite the hatred of Karl Rove, the fact that this whole thing was so stretched out made it die with a whimper instead of a bang. So it's anticlimactic.

It might also indicate that the left has learned from experience that Karl Rove is like a tar baby -- a subject best avoided.

UPDATE: As I post this, I see that meanwhile, conservatives are claiming that Bush plans to dissolve the United States:

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

MORE: Glenn Reynolds predicts that Bush will not be reelected. I agree.

AFTERTHOUGHT: It's worth remembering that for years the far left claimed that Bush's goal was to destroy American democracy.

Does the Human Events piece mean conservatives are coming around to a similar view?

MORE: Daily Kos' Cyberotter has more on the North American Union:

One comprised of the US, Canada and Mexico called the North American Union. This new country would require a new Constitution and a new Bill of Rights. The framework for this new country is already beginning to take shape. The genesis of this idea can be found in the document entitled, "Building a North American Community." Authored by a group called Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) with input from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

So what is the plan? Erase the borders. A meeting took place in March of this year where the leaders of the three countries discussed a plan called Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security."

Might there even be bilateral support for the continuation of the United States?

Or is such an idea too fantastic to be true?

Stay tuned.

MORE: Tammy Bruce (whose opinion I respect) thinks this is not paranoia:

This is not a paranoid theoretical musing. Jerome has the facts and the links. In a day when the president's actions regarding illegal aliens seem wholly inexplicable, this expose helps to make sense of it all. In other words, the president is a Globalist and means to erase North American borders. Of course, it also means we have to stop him.

Was I wrong when I speculated that the left and the right would be unable to agree on specific articles of impeachment?

AND MORE: I added to the title of this post, as these events are beginning to get beyond my grasp.

MORE: James Joyner expressed skepticism last month.

MORE: Done With Mirrors:

Either someone is jumping the shark here, or there is something very cynical afoot.

FINAL THOUGHT: I'd like to think this "North American Union" deal is paranoia.

(Of course, what I'd like plus two dollars might get me a cup of coffee....)

Any thoughts anyone?

UPDATE (06/15/06): Wikipedia entry on the "North American Union" here.