More Plame for the MSM

The Washington Post, no bastion of conservatism, continues to score points against the NYTimes and their fantasy world, fessing up about the Plame-gate non-event that has unfolded over the past week. Vociferous and obnoxious in its hyping of lies and half-truths as they searched for another Watergate to bring down Bush and satisfy their Bush Derangement Syndrome cravings, the MSM has been very timid with the mea culpas you'd think would be necessary at this point to reclaim at least some credibility. But generally, that's not been the case.

On the other hand, Post columnist David Broder, an absolute and longstanding liberal with no love for this administration, jumps on his colleagues today with some telling criticism, in a column entitled "One Leak and a Flood of Silliness":

For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition.

Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.

Broder, whom I read regularly and sometimes with distaste (although he's vastly more of a gentleman than his fellow columnist, the virtual Marxist E. J. Dionne), establishes quickly that he didn't get much involved in this obvious non-brouhaha—stirred up by an obnoxious, self-serving former ambassador looking to discredit Bush, gain a slot on the Kerry campaign staff, and, Jesse Jackson-like, grab a chunk of undeserved face-time on the cable talkfests:

I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot.

Broder unfortunately lumps all the players, including Rove and Libby, into a relativistic and unfortunate observation:

No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved.

And he next serves up a brief, somewhat self-serving commercial for his own integrity:

The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection.

Yecch. Yet, I can verify that this observation is true in my reading of Broder's columns over the years, although I reject the moral relativism of his previous statement. Broder next arives at his preliminary, and excellent, initial conclusion:

But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug.

Indeed. Broder next goes onto describe trash-talking administered to the Bushies by the despicable Sidney Blumenthal, who rivals and generally exceeds James Carville in sheer partisan obnoxiousness and demagoguery. One would expect no less from the Prince of Darkness who once tried to drive Matt Drudge out of business.

Broder concludes his piece with two similar citations from other sources and offers his final conclusion:

Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil."

And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now."

These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.

And so, a reluctant but well-deserved hat-tip to Tom Broder. At these troubled times it's almost a relief to see that one can still occasionally find an honest liberal. We thought you'd like to know.
(BTW, links to Post sites often require a free log-in.)