Harriet-Hating Right Loves Sam

"Many posters seem to think that it is indicative of an 'agenda' or 'reveals my true thinking' about the White House. That is simply not the case. I goofed. And I freely admit it. The words had barely escaped my lips when I cringed and thought 'oops - that was a stupid thing to say.'"

No argument there.

It's all a plot aimed at the media, says Josh Silver in the Huffington Post:

"Now, obedient newsrooms are following Alito's trail. The Libby indictments have been largely wiped from the agenda . . .

"Rove has refined this tactic to an art. No further proof is needed than a cursory scan of the lead stories at the websites of the New York Times, CNN, Fox News, The Washington Post, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. It's all Alito all the time, relegating the 'Plamegate' story to the backbench."

Um, we're not supposed to cover a Supreme Court nomination? This was written before noon yesterday, a tad early to decide that Plamegate was over.

"Rove is the best West Wing spin doctor ever, and the 8 AM Monday Alito nomination is but a small move in a much larger, well coordinated campaign to eliminate dissenting voices from the US Media. He is carefully ensuring the dominance of giant media conglomerates that minimize investigative journalism and whose owners are ideologically aligned with the Right."

Eliminate dissenting voices? That seems not to be working out too well.

Presstitutes also thinks we're taking a dive:

"The media will play along with the distraction game, i.e. don't expect to hear much about a major indictment in the White House."

Jack Shafer takes aim at the man who performed the outing, with the aid of Rove and some other source:

"Novak's endless citation of his lawyer's advice poses the question, What is his legal liability? He did nothing criminal in publishing Plame's identity, so he's not protecting himself by keeping silent. So, who is his silence protecting?

"Could it be that he's been using his 'attorney's advice' to hide the fact that he testified before the grand jury? Testimony there is secret--unless, of course, the person who testified shares the information with the public. Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, who were subpoenaed by the grand jury, finally gave testimony after receiving waivers from their sources. They also wrote about their testimony for their publications because the waivers put the information on the record.

"Has Novak kept mum about the case so he won't have to explain how or why he gave up his confidential sources? Or what sort of waiver he received? . . .

"Also to be resolved in Novak's forthcoming piece is his insistence in his Oct. 1, 2003, column and in television appearances that his source for the Plame information was not a 'partisan gunslinger.' As I write this, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are regarded as the most likely sources of the leak. Campaign manager Rove by anybody's measure is a partisan gunslinger. If I were feeling charitable to Novak, I would be willing to call Libby (State Department, Department of Defense, 'former Hill staffer') just a gunslinger whose only partisanship is about protecting the administration. But I'm not feeling charitable."

Chicago Tribune columnist Phil Rosenthal also declares: "Isn't it nearly time Novak came clean in print? What does he know? How has he come to know it? Was there a political or punitive agenda? Did he give up his sources? The whole shooting match."

ABC's Jake Tapper , who has joined the blogging ranks, sees a certain over interpretation of the indictment:

"Based on the cable talk show chatter, the partisans are out in force to make Fitzgerald's indictment of Scooter Libby something it ain't. To some Democrats this is ALL ABOUT THE WAR and clear evidence of a grand conspiracy and lies they took the nation to war and the Office of Special Plans . . . (and at this point they lose me, but somehow it has to do with oil and Bechtel and perhaps the Angela Lansbury character from The Manchurian Candidate). To some Republicans, it's nada, nothing, no big deal, just a minor charge, heya! Rove wasn't indicted so there's nothing to see here folks, nothing at all . . . "

The Bergen Record , after supporting Judith Miller, now says "we've been had."

Several blogs have been bird-dogging editing changes made in the WashPost's front-page indictment story, reports Columbia Journalism Review .

A call for one of the players to get off the stage, from the New Republic's Jason Zengerle :

"At the end of the day, Scooter Libby's the one who's under indictment for telling lies, not Joe Wilson. But it would be a whole lot easier to focus on Libby if Wilson would just shut up and go away. Alas, that's not going to happen. He clearly loves the attention too much. Wilson's op-ed was entitled, 'Our 27 months of hell.' A better title might have been, 'How to turn your 15 minutes into 27 months.'"

Hunter at Daily Kos doesn't like the way conservatives are spinning the Libby charges:

"I'm sick of Republican pundits expressing doughy vindication that there is, according to them, only one potential felon in the White House. That's the standard, now? 'Just one felon' is fine? And it's only for a cover-up, and not the 'actual crime,' so hell, that's just dandy? That's the damn standard, nowadays?"