Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Is Jim Vandehei High?

After reading his article today and considering the fact that Jane Hamsher already eviscerated him over it, I was going to let Jim Vandehei slide today. It really irked me that the overarching theme of his article is that Viveca Novak is Rove's saving grace. The article title sets it up with "Time Reporter Called a Key to Rove's Defense In Leak Probe" and then he goes for the over-the-net slam by sourcing his incantation to "two people familiar with the situation."

Two people familiar with the situation? What the hell does that mean? I have 10 close friends that are "familiar with the situation" and I'd say 3 of them have a firm grasp of the situation. I mean, come on, talk about weak sauce.

So anyways, I was going to let him slide... But then I caught Vandehei's appearance today on the Abrams Report and right out of the chute he summed up the thing that irked me most about his afore-mentioned article.

Abrams directs his first question to Vandehei (paraphrased):
Abrams: "How is it that a Time reporter is going to be the key to Rove's defense?" Vandehei: "Well, that really is the big mysterious question"
How does one bring himself to write and then have published an article whose premise is so fatally hollow and "mysterious"? I understand that speculative journalism is nothing new, but why muddy the waters on such an important case? Especially after your ace and fellow reporter screwed the pooch so hard on this very issue.

Perhaps Woodward is letting Vandehei take pinches from his stash.