Corrector in Chief?

Poor Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas.

They have to deal with that nasty little correction that Patrick Fitzgerald was forced to make about that "key judgment."

Of course, "The Leaker in Chief?" was written before the overzealous Fitzgerald had to "clarify" with the court what he incorrectly designated as a "key judgment."

I assume Fitzgerald made an honest mistake. He couldn’t possibly be so stupid as to write something that could so easily be refuted.

Perhaps his carelessness was rooted in his wish to be at least a footnote in American history, for his role in bringing down a President and Vice President. If that was indeed his mindset, then it's quite ironic that it is leading to his downfall.

Fitzgerald's credibility has become questionable, as the case against Bush and Cheney continues to disintegrate.

Perhaps Isikoff and Thomas may have a similar fantasy of destroying the Administration, also known as "Woodward & Bernstein Envy."

Like Fitzgerald, they are equally misleading about the "key judgments" and the supposed sinister motives of the Bush Administration.

Fitzgerald was forced to make a correction.

Isikoff and Thomas need to do the same.

(Excerpt)

It is not clear how much Libby might have been freelancing and how much he was working under orders. According to the filing by the prosecutor, Libby told the grand jury that he had been authorized by Cheney to disclose the "key judgments" of the NIE. Libby further testified that Cheney told him he had "consulted" with Bush. A lawyer familiar with the investigation, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, told NEWSWEEK that the "president declassified the information and authorized and directed the vice president to get it out." But Bush "didn't get into how it would be done. He was not involved in selecting Scooter Libby or Judy Miller." Bush made the decision to put out the NIE material in late June, when the press was beginning to raise questions about the WMD but before Wilson published his op-ed piece. (Bush once harrumphed that he would fire whoever had outed Plame. No one is accusing Bush of leaking Plame's name, but he started the ball rolling that ended up with her exposure.)

RIGHT.

IT WAS BUSH’S FAULT.

GASP!

Bush got the ball rolling that led to the leak of a CIA employee whose status was NOT COVERT.

NOT COVERT.

Judging from Miller's account of her breakfast with Libby, the vice president's man went well beyond the "key judgments" of the NIE. The reference that Saddam was prospecting in Africa for uranium was inserted in the NIE's back pages, along with a dissent from intelligence analysts at the State Department who were "highly dubious" about the report. A former U.S. intelligence official who declined to speak for the record due to the sensitivity of the matter told news-week that the NIE staff, writing under strict time pressures, adopted a "kitchen sink" approach, throwing in all sorts of reports that had not been fully vetted.

"A former U.S. intelligence official who declined to speak for the record due to the sensitivity of the matter" – What would an Isikoff story be WITHOUT a shadowy informant or unnamed source?

It might actually be newsworthy, as opposed to an agenda-driven propaganda piece.