Was there something in Rove's motive that made it less serious? Let's take a closer look. Here's what Franklin says about his motive:

Franklin said he passed the information because he was "frustrated"

with the direction of U.S. policy and

thought he could influence it by having

them relay the data through "back

channels" to officials on the National

Security Council

While Rove never said what his motive was, it appears that his motive was to retaliate against a political opponent, hardly a nobler cause.

Was there something about the nature of the specific charges that made them more serious? Here's what Franklin plead guilty to:

Franklin, 58, a specialist on Iran,

pleaded guilty to two conspiracy

counts and a third charge of possessing

classified documents.

True, Rove didn't pass written documents to reporters, but that hardly seems like the crucial distinction.

It's also important to note that Franklin has turned state's witness, so something positive will come out of this: at least a slightly better understanding of Israel's espionage activities in the US. To the best of my knowledge nothing good has come out of Rove's leak of a covert agent.

As far as why the two cases are treated differently, might it be that the real distinction is that Rove has friends in higher places than Franklin?