Gosh And Golly But The Washington Post Really Loves Chris Matthews...

White House Briefing  News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration

Or...How Washington Post pundit Dan Frookum praises clueless Chris Matthews in order to paint a bad picture for the White House, using in this case the ridiculous Plame kerfuffle.

"Matthews posed a slew of ferocious questions: "Did the fierce battle of leaks between elements of the Central Intelligence Agency who opposed going to war in Iraq and the hawks in the vice president's office escalate to actual law breaking? Did the vice president in an effort to defend himself from an onslaught of charges by Joseph Wilson urge his staff to silence the former ambassador? Did Cheney, through anger or loss of temper, create a climate for political hardball and worse? Did he stoke his staff in the late spring and early summer of 2003 to such a level of ferocity that some of its members crossed the line into illegality?"

Indeed. A "slew" of "ferocious questions that have long since been beaten to death by everyone, and is getting so stale it's hardly even water-cooler banter unless you can frame the Q and A's far better than that old lefty Matthews can.

And to whom did the fearless Matthews pose these ferocious questions? Well, nobody really, he just throws it out there to see what sticks, or asks some clueless "correspondent" their opinion on the matter. But let's continue with what loony leftwinger Frookum feels is pertinent:

"Here's a good question he put to correspondent Norah O'Donnell."

"MATTHEWS: Do we know whether the president would take charge if there are indictments, and remove people from office quickly and summarily to gain, to recontrol of the situation at the White House rather than let them leave at their leisure or takes leaves of absences or that sort of thing? Do we have any indication that Andy Card and the president will bring in new people and he will assert his leadership in the White House and clean the air?

"O'DONNELL: I think it's a huge question. . ."

THAT was a good question? That hasn't been asked a thousand times? And how ABOUT her answer, huh?

It isn't a given that the special prosecutor will hand down an indictment towards ANYONE, but it is clear that he wants his t's crossed and his i's dotted to the nines when moonbats retaliate.

And oh how they will retaliate should someone not burn for knowing the name and occupation of a woman whose credentials were being bantered about during every last cocktail party in D.C. for months before any of this made the news.