Conservative recipe for liberal media bias

One cup 'its not that big of a story'
One teaspoon of 'discrediting' accusors
A pinch of 'it doesn't matter anyway'

Blend ingredients with prediction that 'liberal mainstream media will be all over this'. Bake at 350 degrees and watch as your perfect prediction comes true!

If liberal mainstream media bias is not evident after baking, please add two pounds of 'its not that big of a story' and 6 cups of "discrediting accusors".

I'm patiently waiting to see what the outcome of the Rove/Plame/Wilson story will be. However, the claim that this isn't that big of a story and that, as Powerline predicts, there is not 'serious' claim of violation or perjury, is wishful thinking.

The media feeding frenzy will, indeed, be massive. But absent a serious
claim of a statutory violation or perjury, it's questionable whether anyone
apart from liberal bloggers and other pre-existing Bush haters will partake in
the media's dog food. This isn't a top presidential aide accepting an expensive
gift, or engaging in lewd sexual conduct. It's a top aide providing
truthful information to journalists in response to lies told to embarrass the administration and our government. And, as John suggests, Valerie Plame isn't very convincing as a covert agent of the United States,
although she did fairly well as an agent of her husband and the president's other enemies.

You know, because nothing is more American than attacking someone's wife as revenge for an op-ed peice. Forget about 'facts' and all that...this was much more effective.

Here is the problem with the 'Plame was not really a covert agent' arguement. A crime is only possible if the agent is covert. If the CIA feels that a crime may have been committed, they refer the case to the Justice Department for investigation...WHICH THEY DID. As Josh Marshall noted, I think I'll trust the CIA's opinion of Plames status rather than the usual talking heads.

Rather than go around and start asking why many conservative commentators had plenty of opinions about who was a 'traitor' or 'treasonous' or 'un-American', I'll just wonder aloud what they will think if Rove is found guilty of exposing a CIA agent working on WMD's. Or what they think, even if found not guilty, of his dirty political tricks.

This story has absolutely nothing to do with Wilson's op-ed, his political leanings, Plame's contribution to Al Gore's campaign or politics in any way.

It is a crime to expose a covert operative. The CIA was of the opinion that she was covert. END. OF. STORY. Lets give Fitzgerald his leeway in investigating the claims and see what comes out of it for crying out loud.

Of course, you can always count on Scott McClellan for some revisionist answers:

Question: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove -- Karl Rove was not
involved in the Valerie Plame expose? -- involved?
McClellan: This is -- no, I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

After some minor bickering, a reporter actually does his job and calls "BULLSHIT"!

Question: But you did -- you did discuss it while it was an ongoing
investigation. You stood there and told the American people Karl Rove
wasn't involved.
McClellan: I've said all I'm going to say on it.
Go ahead, April.

Of course, this might be a little harder to run away from:

Question: Scott, without commenting on the investigation, you said in
September of '03, if anyone in this administration was involved in it,
they would no longer be in this administration. Does that standard still hold?
Mr. McClellan: Again, I appreciate all these questions. They
are questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and the President directed
us to cooperate fully with that investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom
of it more than he does and --
Question: -- the standard then still
apply?
Mr. McClellan: The investigation is ongoing, Peter, and we're just not
going to -- we're not going to --

and just for kicks, this comment over at John Cole's post linked to above:

If Karl Rove did disclose information inappropriately, he did it for
America. If people doubt the Administration, the terrorists win.

I wonder if that is actually Karl Rove trolling the blogosphere defending himself.