Crosscut editor Chuck Talyor says he has some questions the media should ask the fired U.S. attorney. Taylor writes that after last week's "media blitz" by McKay he was left thinking:

Never have so many words been recorded that said so little that was new.

And here's what he wants to know:

• Why is it OK for them to implicitly accuse the White House of orchestrating their dismissals as political payback without citing specific evidence? "It seems that given that no one takes credit at the Justice Department, that it can only be coming from one place, and that very strongly means the White House," McKay told the Times. That's pretty vague coming from a former prosecutor. Does he know something the rest of us don't? Let's hear it.

  • And what about the 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington? It's time to pursue disclosure of the evidence McKay and the FBI reviewed, to put to rest once and for all accusations by some that electoral corruption went unpunished. McKay has said that lots of evidence was considered and he came to a decision that there wasn't enough to make a case. It sounds like a judgment call, which is his job to make. But if we are to believe that McKay's firing was punishment by the Republican party, his decision not to prosecute becomes relevant to the public: Was it the right decision? Let's see the evidence. This would probably involve a months- or years-long documents request under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Taylor also responds to some comments on his post. And let me say, I know how you feel Chuck. And you put it here better than I've been able to:

One last thought: I knew this post would lead some to believe I was conservative, simply because I was questioning McKay's behavior. I wish people would stop trying to discern a motive from every piece of journalism they encounter. I dislike ideologues at both ends of the spectrum. They cancel each other out. This isn't about the political holy war. It's about integrity in government.