Reply #29: It is odd.

[H2O Man]

I "google" the different reports on the snippet, and found the NYTimes article. But I don't find it on their site.

The NYTimes allowed for some of the absolute worst "reporting" on the WMD baloney, thanks to Judith Miller & Co. People should be suspicious of anything they write, because of that.

The paper had some of the better reporting of the Libby indictment and trial of any of the corporate media sources. Certainly, they had weaknesses, in part due to the conflict of interest involving Judith Miller connection to Libby. But, while not as good as David Shuster's reporting on MSNBC, it was better than most.

I do not think that the snippet tells anything new. Certainly, the fact that McClellan was saying things that were proven false is known. The Libby trial documented without question that Rove, Libby, Cheney, and Bush were involved in the public response to the scandal, which involved distortions and outright lies. Also, as McClellan mention's Card, I'd note that in November '05, the NYT had an article on him and his association to the scandal.

Is it possible that Scott could provide some new information on the scandal? Yes. And for that reason, the NYT should definitely be focused on it. I think that it is unlikely that Scott knows anything that Mr. Fitzgerald hasn't heard, probably from him. But it is newsworthy, because it appears to indicate abuses of the power of office that congress can hold them accountable for.