Rules of the (Dana) Priest-hood

From today's Power Line piece on Howie Kurtz' dissection of Plame-gate and Plame-gate Redux, aka, the Democratic leaks from inside the CIA (presumably) via Post reporter and relentlessly anti-Bush Democrat apologist Dana Priest exposing clandestine prisoner interrogations by the US in East European countries:

It is deeply disappointing to find Kurtz repeating the liberal line that "senior officials were trying to discredit White House critic Joe Wilson by focusing on the role of his wife in his inquiry into whether Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear material." Mr. Kurtz, please try this on for size: "Senior officials were trying to explain how an unqualified, recently dismissed Foreign Service officer was sent on a sensitive intelligence mission and left free to publicize and misrepresent it in the New York Times."

On the plus side, Kurtz quotes John's comment supporting an investigation of Priest's anonymous sources for the article: "It would be a great thing if the steady stream of illegal anti-administration leaks out of the CIA and the State Department could be shut down, and some of the Democrat leakers imprisoned. It's time to put the Plame farce to a good use.

Read the whole thing here. For the Kurtz tap-dancing that gave rise to these comments, access it here. (Wa/Po generally requires registration to access, although no fees like the cheapskates at the NYT.)

We can simplify it here further. For journalists and politicos alike, any charges against Republicans by Democrats are therefore true. Any chargest against Democrats by Republicans are therefore false. This is why our friends on the left no longer have to think.

Ironically, for old-line Catholics, this reflexive Democratic methodology, which substitutes blind faith for rational thought, is reminiscent of the old Baltimore Catechism which had all the answers necessary for one to keep and practice the Catholic faith. In the 1950s and early 1960s, a student had merely to memorize this little book, and no further questions or inquiries would be required, needed, or indeed wanted. Dana Priest's regular, one-sided editorial savaging of the Bushies and the War on Terror — all accomplished in Wa/Po "news" stories, not on the op-ed pages — provides ample proof that this is true. A Pulitzer Prize is probably the next thing on tap for yet another writer content to ply her trade as a propagandist disguised as a reporter.