-
Somebody better tell the WH press corps that they're perilously close to succumbing to the controlled message WH politicos are peddling. McClellan frantically tried to impose the old brilliant "16-word" play on the Plame story -- trying to limit coverage to the act of leaking; trying to shield the WH from discussion of the larger national security ramifications of the leak.
Someone tasked with tracking loose nuclear materials was rendered useless and her networks and contacts were exposed for the underworld to see. The whole, worst fear of humanity has been arguably facilitated by someone in the White House.
Will the Washington crew let the story advance to "political witch hunt"? Or will they advance the story to its real meaning? What has this done to our world? Are we less safe now?
Agreed. We're already getting craptacular coverage from the New York Times along these lines:
-
"The scandal over the leak is hard to define in one or two sentences. It does not seem to involve issues of constitutional gravity, like Watergate or the Iran-contra affair, or at least not directly. It does not have to do with greed. Nor does it seem to involve matters of national security."
Actually, it does involve issues of constituional gravity. It does have to do with greed. It has everything to do with matters of national security. It has everything to do with an adminsitration willing to throw national security out the window in order to play petty vindictive politics. It has everything to do with a president and his administration who, when confronted with these charges, saw fit to do absolutely nothing about it.
What an embarrassment the New York Times is. For shame.
UPDATE: If I were a real dork, I'd say "advantage blogosphere!" But, I'm not, so I'll just point out they apparently have pulled that paragraph.