The reason why the false story lives on, though, is that our side keeps bringing up stuff that is neither here nor there, and is at least arguably false. We spend our time arguing that she was not covert, for example, which is not true. She's not covert now, but she was classified as covert when she was based in foreign embassies years ago. Why argue about such things when you can simply throw the knockout punch:
Rove never told anyone she was covert.
There is no real argument about that. Even Cooper does not claim that he did.
"We" don't argue she was not covert. It is relevant to the law at issue as to when that aspect of her employment ended.
As to Rove's role, he's but one in a cast of characters despite the current renewed focus on him. Of course he had nothing to do with outing a covert agent. That was obvious back in the beginning of this nonsense.