Over three years of the press hyperventilating about nothing. And, I might add, pretty obviously nothing. But it served its goal, which was to drive Bush down in the polls, so I don't think the hyperventilators regret it much.At least I get the satisfaction of saying I told you so.
"Hyperventilating about nothing" is how Putz describes the exposure of a covert CIA agent, working on the proliferation of Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Even if this news that Armitage was Novak's source somehow "exonerates the Bushies" as Hitchens put it, this would certainly not be "nothing" by any stretch of the imagination.
1) If Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent working on weapons of mass destruction, as you've incorrectly claimed, why did the CIA initiate the investigation after the Novak story was published, and why did Armitage call her identity a "state secret" yesterday? "I consider myself someone who's valued the ability to keep state secrets," he said. "This was bad."
2) Why was Karl Rove discussing Valerie Plame with Matt Cooper?
3) Why was Scooter Libby discussing Valerie Plame with Judy Wilson?
4) Why did the President admit to telling the Vice President to go after Wilson after Wilson's op-ed appeared in the New York Times, before Rove and Libby talked to Cooper and Miller?
5) Why did Scooter Libby lie and obscruct the investigation?
6) Do you have any material proof whatsoever that a single reporter who wrote about the Plame story covered the story with the intent to "drive down Bush in the polls" or are you just making that up, the way you did with the Katrina coverage?
7) Is the article in the New York Times that you cite, which incorrectly exonerates the administration, therefore intended to drive Bush up in the polls?
We won't hold our breath for answers.
For an excellent roundup with links on how badly the press is screwing up this story, see this post at Huffington Post.
No comments:
Post a Comment