The CIA was under the control of a Klintoon appointee at the time. Perhaps they wanted ot undermine the White House.
2) Why the amplified hysteria these days about "Bush lying" regarding invading Iraq on manipulated intel? Isn't the "Bush lied"-to-get-us-into-Iraq charge about as old as the Shock & Awe campaign?
Yes, it is. To answer this question, you must understand how liberals define "lying." It means "disagreeing with liberals." Whatever they say is ipso facto true and whatever we say is ipso facto a lie. They believe in the old Communist adage, "Truth is whatever serves the party."
Could it be crucially important to amplify that charge now because the pending Libby trial might cover a lot about WMD pre-war intel, revealing something other than "Bush Lied" and therefore it's got to be re-ingrained in the consciousness of us all now, beforehand, to blunt any other discoveries?
The list of stuff our troops have found, which liberals have worked hard to suppress, shows that every reason given for our involvement was indeed true, which undermines everything they say (except for the principle above.) So now they ahve to work even harder to spread their disinformation.
3) Why is it that Major News Organizations feel compelled to hold some leaders accountable daily for their statements and positions (read: Republicans), while others have no such scrutiny applied to them (read: Democrats on previous statements about Iraq, Saddam & WMD's)?
Becasue they're liberal, partisan, activist Democrats -- at least until the Socialist Party achieves major-party status. Any conservative found in a newsroom will be hounded out of there.