Oh, these guys are good! Washington politicians engage in partisan posturing, and the WaPo is on it!
Or almost - they have noticed the partisanship, but haven't quite caught on to the "posturing" aspect. In editorializing on the Berger affair, they ritualistically denounce Mr. Berger's "reprehensible" behavior, and then commence bashing the Republicans:
Still, it's hard not to be repulsed by the reaction to the affair by President Bush's campaign spokesmen and Republicans in Congress. They have suggested, without foundation, that Mr. Berger took the papers to benefit Mr. Kerry, who says that he knew nothing of the matter; House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has spoken, with gross hyperbole, of a "national security crisis."
Shocking! Almost as shocking as this letter one year ago from Sen. Charles Schumer demanding on investigation into the Plame leak:
"This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I’ve seen in all my years of government," Schumer said. "Leaking the name of a CIA agent is tantamount to putting a gun to that agent’s head. It compromises her safety and the safety of her loved ones, not to mention those in her network and other operatives she may have dealt with. On top of that, the officials who have done it may have also seriously jeopardized the national security of this nation."
Of course, this calm, measured response came before we had any official confirmation whatsoever of Ms. Plame's status. Eventually, Mr. Kristof reported that the alarmists were being a bit excessive.
The Post picks up the Kerry campaign spin in their conclusion:
It's worth noting that news of the months-old investigation of Mr. Berger just happened to leak on the week before the Democratic convention, and two days before the release of the Sept. 11 commission's report -- which covers serious lapses by President Bush as well as President Bill Clinton. Officials at the Bush White House had been briefed on the Berger probe. Could that be a coincidence?
Yes, it could be a coincidence - alternative theories include a Democratic motivated "we control the timing and blame the Republicans" leak, or an idea that the 9/11 Report would raise questions about Berger anyway (it does!) so the commission leaked the Berger news to avoid distraction. InstaPundit readers know all these theories - what do the Post editors read?
The WaPo also runs a news story devoted to this "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" theme. Apparently, Ms. Rice and some other NSC officials may have known; since some of these officials report to the White House Counsel's office, and others, surely including Ms. Rice, may have been involved in work for the 9/11 Commission, this seems as reasonable to me today as it did yesterday, when Beth Nolan, White House counsel under Clinton, was quoted in the Times as saying "there may be a legitimate explanation here".
MORE: FYI for Wilson buffs - I stumbled across a useful lefty-friendly collection of links to newstories.
Comments