And Stephen Spruiell asks why the NY Times asks questions when they already know the answers, but refuses to tell the public.
However, I'm also baffled about some other things: How can anyone consider the Times' coverage of this issue credible anymore? The Times is hiding information that the public increasingly needs to know. Who was Miller's source? With whom did she speak, and what did they talk about? Why is the Times covering up her role in this case, while hammering away at Rove?
The Times should answer these questions — either by publishing a story or cooperating with Fitzgerald and thereby putting the answers on the record — or it should recuse itself from covering this case. I’m sorry, but I can’t read the Times’ coverage of this case without wanting to shout:
“But you KNOW the identities of the other sources! How dare you pretend like this could all be cleared up if only Karl Rove would hold a press conference? You have vital information about this case, but you’re refusing to report it. Tell us what you know!”
Then there’s this from the Washington Post:
Federal prosecutors investigating the leak of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity have asked several witnesses in the case whether they read a State Department memorandum mentioning her that circulated inside the Bush administration in the days before she was publicly named …. Rove said of the memo that he "had never seen it, had never heard about it and had never heard anybody else talk about it,"
And here’s a complete timeline of the whole fiasco from Stephen St. Onge
Here is something I have noticed: Wilson is artful in his lies:
The MSM proved it can't read, by failing to notice Wilson's artful sliding from 'Iraq didn't buy Niger uranium' to 'Iraq didn't attempt to buy Niger uranium.'
UPDATE: There is so much commentary on this, it's almost overwhelming.
HERE, HERE,HERE, HERE, HERE.