What I meant

From yesterday:

On a personal note, I'm going to tapdance all over the heads of the DU types, even the fine upstanding gentlemen at the Place that shall remain nameless, the commentariot who so blindly insisted that Valerie Plame was 'outed' as punishment for Joe Wilson's brave speaking of truth to power.

Meh!

You all look like idiots for getting way-out in front of the facts and, frankly, you deserve it. You wanted desperately for this to be true to the point of trying to make it true through sheer force of will.

At least one of the players in this whole little drama seems to agree:

What was most notable in Mr. Luskin’s brief statement was this line: “We believe that the Special Counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct.”

Mr. Luskin does not gnash his teeth at Mr. Fitzgerald.

“It’s not winning the lottery,” he said of the Rove case. “It’s just avoiding something that would be a truly horrendous injustice for your client …. You feel lucky to be part of a process that works fairly and intelligently.”

Actually, it’s the media—not the prosecutor’s office—that he’s angry at, and especially the bloggers. Mr. Luskin was eager to portray the suffering of his client as a function of media attention and speculation, rather than real danger of a conviction.

Mr. Rove, Mr. Luskin said, had fallen victim to partisans and—more importantly—the bloggers who became their enablers.

“It seems to me that there are lots of constituencies who have treated this as the story too good not to be true,” he said. “And people have all had their own reasons—whether they’re political, whether they have to do with opportunities to put themselves forward personally, whether or not they are motivated by efforts to show up the mainstream media.”

Tom Maguire called it a victory lap.

The Washington Times says--essentially--what I was thinking, actually calling out the offending (offensive?) parties:

Unfortunately, at times, some in the media sounded more like cheerleaders for Mr. Wilson, who said in 2003 that "it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." In October, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert referred to Mr. Rove as "the administration's resident sleazemeister, who is up to his ears in this mess but has managed so far to escape indictment"; in November he declared that Mr. Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were "clowns" who had been "playing games with the identity of a CIA agent."

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC turned his TV show, "Countdown," into a veritable repository of misinformation: A Lexis-Nexis search shows that the subject of Karl Rove's demise was discussed 26 times on Mr. Olbermann's program. In an Oct. 28 appearance, Jim Vandehei of The Washington Post quoted "people close to Rove" who "are telling us that there's still a distinct possibility that he could be indicted, and that they probably will know soon." On the same broadcast, NBC News Correspondent Norah O'Donnell said that Mr. Rove "has come within a whisker of being indicted." But even though Mr. Rove had escaped indictment, Mrs. O'Donnell said it was still bad news, because he was still working at the White House: "In a way, it might have been even cleaner and more helpful to the president if Rove had gotten nipped with some minor level of indictment, so that you could just get rid of both of these people [Messrs. Rove and Libby] today." On the May 8 "Countdown" broadcast, MSNBC correspondent David Schuster said flatly, "I am convinced that Karl Rove will in fact be indicted."

In the end, however, Mr. Rove was not indicted. And Mr. Wilson was exposed in the bipartisan report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee two years ago, in which the panel demonstrated that Mr. Wilson misrepresented numerous aspects of his account of the trip he took to Niger in 2002. The fantasy Rove indictment should be a cautionary tale for the mainstream media. But we suspect that there will be no sober reassessment at the senior level of the mainstream media of the unprofessional performance of journalists and producers. Rather, we suspect, their instructions will be, "Reload, and fire again."

"...will in fact be indicted." No, fool...he will not. Will you have the nerve to tell us that you were driven over the edge by your dislike for the Administration and all it's members?

I doubt it and that's too bad. It would save alot of heartache in my estimation. As one of Tom's commenters, JJ, put it: The main event/day-of-reckoning for various media outlets is the Libby trial...

A scolding from Luskin or The Washington Times shouldn't rate a blimp [sic] on the radar compared to the severe storm that various sources of news/"truth" are due on PlameGate.

Lastly, Ralph Peters goes all out, calling out the media for it's recent behavior vis-a-vis the President.