Leaks, Lies, and Credibility

The Washington Post provides further proof that it is an oasis of liberal propaganda.

In the wishful thinking article, "Trial Could Pit Libby's Interests Against Bush's," the Post writes:

Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, is expected to plead not guilty to charges that he lied and obstructed justice in the CIA leak probe when he is arraigned Thursday, setting the stage for a possible courtroom fight in which Libby's interests could collide with those of the Bush White House, according to several Republican officials.

Basically, the piece is the same old, same old from the Post, speculation and editorializing delivered as news.

This paragraph is of particular interest to me since it highlights a claim that has been seized upon by the Left and endlessly regurgitated.

McClellan, who famously told reporters and the public in 2003 that Libby and Rove had assured him they had no roles in the leak, also defended his own credibility. McClellan said he wishes he could say more, but that he is confident he has been honest and forthcoming. People close to the investigation said Libby and Rove misled the White House spokesman.

Don't you love sources like "people close to the investigation"?

First, it appears that Libby and Rove, in fact, had no role IN THE LEAK, as McClellan "famously" told reporters.

Fitzgerald did not indict Libby on leaking the name of a covert CIA agent. At this point, there have been no charges brought against anyone for blowing the cover of Valerie Plame.

Why?

BECAUSE SHE WAS NO LONGER A COVERT AGENT.

Is that so hard to understand?

This is not a Clintonesque "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" parsing of words.

This is at the heart of the matter. There was no leak. By definition, there couldn't be.

Fitzgerald went after Libby for statements he made during the course of the investigation into this non-existent situation.

Second, the Post insinuates that Scott McClellan has been muzzled by the White House. The suggestion is that he was misled in the Plame case and victimized by Rove and Libby, but can't comment. We are supposed to believe that's what's going on, based on those mysterious "people close to the investigation."

The only reason that McClellan has been forced into defending his credibility is because hacks like David Gregory and Terry Moran have insisted that McClellan lied from "that podium."

How has McClellan's credibility been damaged? I don't see it.

From what we know, Libby and Rove were NOT involved in LEAKING Plame's name.

The Post and other liberal outlets really need to acknowledge that fact. Their failure to do so damages their credibility.

I take that back. They aren't credible, so by definition, they have no credibility to damage.