If Waas is right, it seems plausible that the whole sordid saga unfolded this way:
White House officials, including Bush himself, withheld critical information it had about doubts over supposed evidence of Saddam's nuke ambitions in order to better make the case for war. Then they subsequently discovered that hard evidence existed of that duplicity. Then, anxious that this evidence might surface before the 2004 reelection, they engaged in a relentless campaign to cover up what really happened during the Iraq run-up and to prevent an aggressive congressional investigation until after the election. They relied on Pat Roberts to run a pseudo-investigation; they withheld the daily briefs; they leaned on Hill allies not to talk to the press. And they obscured their role in the outing of Plame to prevent an outcry that would have certainly forced Congress and the press to probe far more aggressively than they did. And they succeeded: If Congress and the press had been more aggressive -- and this may be the real significance of Waas's story -- it's perfectly possible that John Kerry would now be president.
The article Sargent refers to is by Murray Waas, who has just done some phenomenal investigative reporting over the last couple of years. Sure, people who have suspected such things all along may by now be jaded to these reports, but the fact is that none of our suspicions means a damn thing unless you have evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you just become similar to the wingnuts who actually convinced themselves that the Clinton White House was involved in a murder and a subsequent cover up. Now is not the time to sigh and move on, but rather to educate ourselves and our friends with the facts as currently reported. There is a victory of sorts in sight in November and perhaps one in 2008 as well, but in order to achieve it we need to be informed and motivated for the long haul.