What Did Fitzgerald Know and When Did He Know It? is James Taranto’s question based on a NY Times story that “hints at the possibility of prosecutorial misconduct in the Valerie Plame” case.  He quotes:

An enduring mystery of the C.I.A. leak case has been solved in recent days, but with a new twist: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, knew the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special counsel’s chair, but kept the inquiry open for nearly two more years before indicting I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, on obstruction charges.

This national story is of keen interest here in Chicago, where Fitzgerald has been wielding a mighty swift sword of Justice Dept. anti-corruption activity.  Now, says NYT, there is “rich debate” about how he handled the Plame-leak business. 

Some say he “behaved much as did the independent counsels of the 1980’s and 1990’s who often failed to bring down their quarry on official misconduct charges but pursued highly nuanced accusations of a cover-up,” says NYT.

Armitage the Leaker would have resigned when he saw the Novak column that set things percolating, knowing he had goofed, but didn’t because it would have blown his cover.  He didn’t even tell Bush, after huddling with Colin Powell and the head State Dept. lawyer with the historic name of William H. (my guess it’s for Howard) Taft IV.

He kept Bush in the dark “because [Fitzgerald] asked him not to divulge it,” says NYT, blind-sourcing.  Taranto is not pleased:

It seems that Fitzgerald and the State Department covered up a noncrime, and the effect was to keep alive the illusion that it was a crime. We won’t speculate about the prosecutor’s motives, but the more we hear about the case, the clearer it is that the whole thing stinks.

Question one for Jim Ritter after reading his “Muslims see a growing media bias” story, interview with Ibrahim Hooper of Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): Do you not know that Ann Coulter lost her gig with National Review Online after her post-9/11 call for forced conversion of muslims?  If so, why allow Hooper to get away with his allegation that before 9/11 she “would have faced swift repudiation from her colleagues.  Now it’s accepted as legitimate commentary”?  If not, why not?

Question two: Why do you quote (selectively) only one of the allegedly “virulent” web sites, Jihad Watch, which is chock-full of news items from around the world, but not others, such as Anti-CAIR, which quotes Sen. Durbin — “[CAIR is] unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect” — and Sen. Charles Schumer — “we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism” and “intimate links with Hamas” — and the prolific, learned, pointed Daniel Pipes?  Hooper gave you Jihad Watch (and the incriminating quote?) and then you routinely got routine denial and/or explanation by its proprietor, parenthesizing it?

One is tempted to think that when Hooper said bend over, you asked how far.  Sorry, but this is pitiful reportage, sloppy and unresearched, and on page 3, entire left-hand column at that.  Your editors are part of the problem too, let it be noted.