Oh It's Rich - Just Not What I'd Call Happy
I'm going to momentarily indulge in fantasy that my opinions might cross the radar screen (in this case, what say, twelve degrees of separation?) and actually be given thoughtful attention by the big boys of mainstream corporate media, NYT, WP, LAT, WSJ, that bunch. Nahh.
There's some gradually increasing clamor in the last couple days related to the Plame affair. These stories originate with Fitzgerald, so out of the gate we're talking about a source far more trustworthy than anyone who ever called The Worst President Ever a friend, never mind signed on for the Ship of Fools. Libby reportedly has stated on record that he was authorized by Bush to selectively leak (and, in fact misrepresent) classified information to select already suborned media, in hopes of what Worst subsequently termed as I recall "catapulting the propaganda."
It's pretty terrific to have something so vividly confirm what thinking folks in this country knew from the start. How many different ways and how many times does Worst have to break the law and commit crimes before we get to the Tip?
That's one of the obvious questions.
Another would be: what would it take for the military-industrial-complex (corporate) media (see above) to get over the profound aversion they seem to have acquired to actually being accountable? They put incredible bile and persistence into harrassing the Clintons over the pettiest nonsense that even my limited understanding of psychology would suggest that they have (or should have) a mega-guilt-complex. The NYT performance in particular in this episode was so disgusting that it's a wonder their shamelessness allows them to continue publishing. It seems certain (and the evidence is abundant) that they are sore-afraid of taking the chance of appearing again with their underdrawers soiled anywhere nearly that badly. Pitiful is the word that comes to mind. Conscientiousness insists that WaPo and WSJ at least be named here. You all failed us.
But here they are, pretending to be disseminating "the news." Editor and Publisher, a terrific source you doubtless have bookmarked, has this synopsis:
Leading newspapers in articles for Friday papers portrayed the revelation that President Bush may have authorized Lewis "Scooter" to feed sensitive intelligence information to reporters as another major blow to the White House.
Michael Fletcher in The Washington Post, for example, wrote that this "introduces a new dimension to the long-running CIA leak investigation, while posing troubling new political problems for the administration.
"Until now, the investigation had been about aides to Bush and their alleged efforts to attack the credibility of a vocal administration critic, including by possibly leaking classified information. Bush cast himself as a disinterested observer, eager to resolve the case and hold those responsible accountable."
The New York Times in a news story observed that the latest information "provides an indication that Mr. Bush, who has long criticized leaks of secret information as a threat to national security, may have played a direct role in authorizing disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq."
On its editorial page, meanwhile, The Times declared that, at the least, "revealing selected bits of intelligence, including information that officials may well have known to be false, seems like a serious abuse of power. It's not even clear that Mr. Bush can legally declassify intelligence at whim. "
[clip]
Here's the part I can't quite get my arms around (in the sense of a warm media-hug). What non-comatose beings, particularly those in authority at the MIC media, gave any credence at all to Worst's claims that he wanted to get to the bottom of the Plame leaks? His lying and prevaricating are his most signature characteristics. The words coming out of his mouth smelled foul at the time! Why are you MIC media folks further destroying your reputations by pretending this is a revelation?
It's somewhat of a consolation to know that an actual elected official is actively pursuing these same issues. Congressman John Conyers of Michigan has been doing terrific work in the same vein that leads to the founding folks being familiar today. He deserves your attention and strong support. His blog should also be on your list:
According to documents submitted in his defense, Scooter Libby alleges that President Bush provided the authorization to leak Valerie Plame's identity and destroy her career as an intelligence agent. So why is everyone reporting this story by explaining that the President declassified the National Intelligence Estimate? This is true, but the real story here is not the President leaking, or declassifying, the NIE. If what Libby alleges is true, the story is about the President telling the world that he would fire anyone who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame when he knew it was himself. In fact, the President said:
Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
Q My final point would be -- or question would be, has Vice President Cheney assured you --
THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the --
Q -- subsequent to his conversations with them, that nobody --
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't talked to the Vice President about this matter, and I suggest -- recently -- and I suggest you talk to the U.S. Attorney about that.
Well, not only had he spoken to the VP about this, according to Libby, but he expressly directed Cheney to use this sensitive information against Plame.
Very clearly, the story here is did the President tell the truth to the American people about the leak and who is going to get fired?
There's some gradually increasing clamor in the last couple days related to the Plame affair. These stories originate with Fitzgerald, so out of the gate we're talking about a source far more trustworthy than anyone who ever called The Worst President Ever a friend, never mind signed on for the Ship of Fools. Libby reportedly has stated on record that he was authorized by Bush to selectively leak (and, in fact misrepresent) classified information to select already suborned media, in hopes of what Worst subsequently termed as I recall "catapulting the propaganda."
It's pretty terrific to have something so vividly confirm what thinking folks in this country knew from the start. How many different ways and how many times does Worst have to break the law and commit crimes before we get to the Tip?
That's one of the obvious questions.
Another would be: what would it take for the military-industrial-complex (corporate) media (see above) to get over the profound aversion they seem to have acquired to actually being accountable? They put incredible bile and persistence into harrassing the Clintons over the pettiest nonsense that even my limited understanding of psychology would suggest that they have (or should have) a mega-guilt-complex. The NYT performance in particular in this episode was so disgusting that it's a wonder their shamelessness allows them to continue publishing. It seems certain (and the evidence is abundant) that they are sore-afraid of taking the chance of appearing again with their underdrawers soiled anywhere nearly that badly. Pitiful is the word that comes to mind. Conscientiousness insists that WaPo and WSJ at least be named here. You all failed us.
But here they are, pretending to be disseminating "the news." Editor and Publisher, a terrific source you doubtless have bookmarked, has this synopsis:
Leading newspapers in articles for Friday papers portrayed the revelation that President Bush may have authorized Lewis "Scooter" to feed sensitive intelligence information to reporters as another major blow to the White House.
Michael Fletcher in The Washington Post, for example, wrote that this "introduces a new dimension to the long-running CIA leak investigation, while posing troubling new political problems for the administration.
"Until now, the investigation had been about aides to Bush and their alleged efforts to attack the credibility of a vocal administration critic, including by possibly leaking classified information. Bush cast himself as a disinterested observer, eager to resolve the case and hold those responsible accountable."
The New York Times in a news story observed that the latest information "provides an indication that Mr. Bush, who has long criticized leaks of secret information as a threat to national security, may have played a direct role in authorizing disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq."
On its editorial page, meanwhile, The Times declared that, at the least, "revealing selected bits of intelligence, including information that officials may well have known to be false, seems like a serious abuse of power. It's not even clear that Mr. Bush can legally declassify intelligence at whim. "
[clip]
Here's the part I can't quite get my arms around (in the sense of a warm media-hug). What non-comatose beings, particularly those in authority at the MIC media, gave any credence at all to Worst's claims that he wanted to get to the bottom of the Plame leaks? His lying and prevaricating are his most signature characteristics. The words coming out of his mouth smelled foul at the time! Why are you MIC media folks further destroying your reputations by pretending this is a revelation?
It's somewhat of a consolation to know that an actual elected official is actively pursuing these same issues. Congressman John Conyers of Michigan has been doing terrific work in the same vein that leads to the founding folks being familiar today. He deserves your attention and strong support. His blog should also be on your list:
According to documents submitted in his defense, Scooter Libby alleges that President Bush provided the authorization to leak Valerie Plame's identity and destroy her career as an intelligence agent. So why is everyone reporting this story by explaining that the President declassified the National Intelligence Estimate? This is true, but the real story here is not the President leaking, or declassifying, the NIE. If what Libby alleges is true, the story is about the President telling the world that he would fire anyone who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame when he knew it was himself. In fact, the President said:
Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
Q My final point would be -- or question would be, has Vice President Cheney assured you --
THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the --
Q -- subsequent to his conversations with them, that nobody --
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't talked to the Vice President about this matter, and I suggest -- recently -- and I suggest you talk to the U.S. Attorney about that.
Well, not only had he spoken to the VP about this, according to Libby, but he expressly directed Cheney to use this sensitive information against Plame.
Very clearly, the story here is did the President tell the truth to the American people about the leak and who is going to get fired?
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home