Back It Up

Howard Kurtz wonders if reporters might be enjoying the indictment of Scooter Libby just a little too much in his Media Notes column today, so credit where due. But he loses all bonus points by accepting two major sections of the flawed MSM (and, yes, liberal) narrative:

The press deserves some of the blame because, as editors at the New York Times, Washington Post and other news organizations have acknowledged, journalists were not nearly aggressive enough in questioning administration claims about Saddam Hussein during the run-up to war. And although Miller was a particularly prominent offender, she was hardly the only one.

But it wasn't just "administration claims" that argued in favor of the belief that Saddam had an active WMD program (not to mention active WMDs) before the war. Intelligence agencies around the globe believed the same thing, as did many leading Democrats, including those with access to intelligence briefings, as did even some opponents of the war, who warned of the massive casualties that would result from attacking Saddam Hussein. To cast this as an "administration claim" completely mischaracterizes what happened. This is a good example of how much damage can be inflicted on the truth by just a few words. Here's another. Kurtz continues:

Some leaks, of course, are important. In this case, reporters, led by columnist Robert Novak, were the conduits for what the indictment makes clear was an administration smear campaign against Wilson.

Evidence, please. What did the Administration, leaking or otherwise, say about Joe Wilson or his wife that was tawdry or untrue? Since when is it a smear to point out that Wilson's wife played a role in his being dispatched to Niger, or that Wilson himself was an administration critic? I don't know what else Kurtz has in mind, and neither do you, since he doesn't tell us.

Update: Online version here with some Libby and Harriet Miers commentary links.