The latest addition to the NYT op-ed stable is John Tierney and he's got a piece out that's got to have Karl "the MSM-slayer" Rove feeling his oats:
Karl Rove's version of events now looks less like a smear and more like the truth: Mr. Wilson's investigation, far from being requested and then suppressed by a White House afraid of its contents, was a low-level report of not much interest to anyone outside the Wilson household.
So what exactly is this scandal about? Why are the villagers still screaming to burn the witch? Well, there's always the chance that the prosecutor will turn up evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice during the investigation, which would just prove once again that the easiest way to uncover corruption in Washington is to create it yourself by investigating nonexistent crimes.
For now, though, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a reporter who did not write a story about it.
It would be logical to name it the Not-a-gate scandal, but I prefer a bilingual variation. It may someday make a good trivia question:
What do you call a scandal that's not scandalous?
Nadagate.
4 comments:
I love this guy. Bravo to the New York Times for some real diversity of thought.
I agree. They'd have to line up Ann Coulter to have somebody as far right as Paul Krugman is to the left, but Tierney is a nice addition.
Kristof is willing to throw us a bone every once in a while, but Krugman and Dowd are not exactly dispassionate like Broder and Will.
Nadagate is pretty good, but I also like a suggestion made on NRO Corner: Tempest in a Teapot Dome.
I have a hunch it's going to come back with accusations about Cheney's office.
Post a Comment