Media 'should apologize to Rove'

I can't wait to read the Tsunami of specious BS form the "Liberals" here.

It's nice that David Broder has admitted what a lot of people have known for a long time, that there was no story here and this was a political witch hunt. For years people have tacitly used the "outing" of Valerie Plame as evidence that Rove was some sort of evil mastermind willing to do anything to keep his political machine churning forward. Now we know the facts and the only thing there's any evidence of is an overzealous press corps.

When I tried the above link to the Broder column, it didn't work. So here's another link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4168101.html

Broder specifically called on journalist and Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, and Newsweek Magazine, to apologize.

It's also worth noting that all the suspicions that Frank James lists above are just that, suspicions. There's not an ounce or shred of proof that Rove had anything to do with the rumors about McCain in the So. Carolina primary and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have said they would have wrote their book and run their campaign to get the facts about John Kerry out if he'd ben running for dog catcher. That Rove had a connection to either has never been proven by even the most liberal standards of attribution.

p.s. Frank, there's a typo in a proper name in graph 2. Robert Novak, not Novack.

David Broder is correct, but Frank James makes a big joke of it and still tries to lambast Rove with alleged stories from his past.

For nearly three years JOURNALISTS knew Richard Armitage was the source, yet they kept quiet, all the while letting the drive-by, left-wing media LIE about Karl Rove.

And in last week's Washington Post editorial they finally acknowledge that Joe Wilson LIED on his report saying Hussein was not after enriched uranoium in Niger. In fact, Hussein WAS working to get the uranium. The media has known that Wilson lied and the 9/11 Commission said as much too. But the media covered up that bit of news too.

Where has the Tribune coverage been on Joe Wilson's intentional lies? Where has the Tribune been on clearing Karl Rove of the alleged leak? Where is the media coverage on the relationship between Sen. Chuck Schumer and Joe Wilson in orchestrating this complete charade?

The media should apologize..right after he apologizes to sen. McCain for starting a whisper campaign in S.Carolina primary saying he had an illegitimate black child, stealing Alan Dixon's letterhead, and his questionable stock dealings while he was privy to information in Whitehouse
meetings.

Since his mentor was Donald Segretti (watergate jailbird).....If you lay down with dogs..you wakeup with flees!!!

Not so fast - how did Rove et al. suddenly come out smelling like roses? It would be hard to accuse Steve Chapman of being a conspiracy theorist, but even he still thinks something stinks in Denmark (or Washington, as the case may be). From his column today:

"All the evidence indicates there were two separate courses of action that exposed Plame's identity--one attributable to Armitage and one to people in the White House. That Armitage was guilty of carelessness does not mean Libby is innocent of malice.

Armitage spoke with Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before the column appeared. But according to the indictment, Libby told New York Times reporter Judith Miller about Plame two weeks earlier. He apparently also discussed Plame with Matt Cooper of Time before the Novak column saw print.

Why would Libby, then Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, bring up Plame's employment with journalists? Maybe because someone thought it was a good way to retaliate against her husband. Fitzgerald has released a copy of Wilson's article that Cheney cut out and decorated with angry questions, including, "Did his wife send him on a junket?""

"Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts"

Like the ones about some secret CIA prisons!

The Kenyan Government, through its Mission to the US, has condemned Senator Barack Obama’s remarks on Monday on rampant corruption.

In a letter to the Illinois Senator, the Kenyan Ambassador (designate) to the US, Mr Peter Oginga Ogego, termed Obama’s remarks as having been in bad taste and injurious to Kenya-US bilateral relations.

The statement said in part: "I hereby wish to communicate to you the displeasure and disappointment of the Government of Kenya, (Kenyan) Embassy in Washington DC, and majority of Kenyans, with regards to your recent utterances while in Kenya.

"Your unprovoked and uncalled for statements were in bad taste, particularly given that your visit was well arranged in advance, with full briefings given to your office in Washington DC by the Kenya Embassy."

Ogego said that, rather than nurture and strengthen the existing cordial and mutually beneficial relations between USA and Kenya, Mr Obama’s "wild" accusations that corruption and tribalism have reached a crisis point in Kenya, could only poison and injure relations between the two countries.

Ogego accused the Senator of deliberately twisting the truth about the Government’s fight against corruption to gain publicity.

"You deliberately, without real cause or reason, other than what appears (to be) to seek cheap publicity and inconsequential populism, chose to publicly attack the democratically elected Government of Kenya, in total disregard for the requisite protocol and acceptable methods to address the issues you raised, what with programmed appointments to meet Cabinet Ministers and even the Head of State, since your visit was official," Ogego said.

The Ambassador’s statement comes in the wake of divided opinions in the US concerning the Senator’s speech, made at the University of Nairobi on Monday. Obama identified corruption and ethnicity-based politics and patronage as among challenges that Kenya must overcome.

While most Kenyans hailed the speech and termed it as honest opinion and groundbreaking in the fight against corruption, some diplomatic experts have said that the Senator’s speech is likely to strain the relations between the Kenya and the US.

In his letter, copies of which were sent to the US State Department and the local and international press, Ogego said that, while Kenya genuinely appreciated the support it has received from the US Government through its different departments and groups in restoring institutions of public governance and the rule of law, the Government hoped that this support and engagements would be conducted in a more civil manner.

Ogego told the Senator that the Kenya Government considered his proclamation that the Government has lost war on corruption as a smack of bigotry.

He said: "Rather than appreciate and even encourage the gallant and heroic efforts that our Government and Kenyans have put in dismantling the deeply embedded networks and chains of corruption, you carelessly, in a manner akin to political activism, chose to trash and sneer at us".

Ogego added that the Senator’s remarks demonstrated a naive understanding of the challenges involved in skilfully managing a political transition with weak and nascent institutions of public governance, while maintaining a delicate balance, especially in an ethnically diverse country. He said most of the cases of corruption being dealt with originated during the former administration.

Nope its not over until after the Libby case is over. Charges a Rove still can come. By the way Rove brings it on himself with his dirty dealings. No one here can say his tricks are not in the gray area . Swiftboat Veterans For Truth comes to mind. He set that group up and now they have been proven to be liars and political nut cases.

KKKarl Rove WAS part of the "stay the course" boys team that outed Valerie Plame.
Apperently he just wasn't the first one.

Should we apolgize to him??

NO WAY!!
He's a slimeball,with a long history of ruining peoples lives,and careers,and he's indirectly responsible for every single death in Iraq,because he is the one that gave us President DumDum,and sold his phoney WMD intelligence to the American people to get support for the Iraq invasion.

Karl Rove admitted to the grand jury that he leaked Plame's name to Matthew Cooper of Newsweek and then Libby confirmed it. Libby also leaked the name to Judith Miller. Apparently Davis Broder is getting senile or has become richer under GOP rule.

Dienne, you might want to consider this information while you praise Steve Chapman's column:
1. Steve Chapman fails to note that Joe Wilson's Niger report was factually incorrect and that Wilson intentionally lied in his Niger Report. In an editorial in last week's Washinngton Post, the paper comes clean by saying that Wilson in fact lied, purposely lied, in saying Hussein had no interest in enriched uranium from Niger. In fact, Hussein did have his people in Niger trying to get uranium to make nuclear bombs. In addition the 9/11 Commission Report also said that Wilson' report was wrong and took him to taks for it.
2. Mr. Chapman fails to note that Wilson, his wife and Sen. Chuck Schumer worked in conjunction with each other to spread these lies about Niger as well as Rove's involvement in Plame's name becoming public.
3. That to this day, Joe Wilson continues to talk as if his report had merit and is truthful and honest. The facts say otherwise. Why doesn't Chapman bring that up too.
4. That while Chapman still holds to the belief that the Bush White House set out to discredit Joe Wilson, Wilson was doing that to the Bush White House through his lying Niger Report and consistent attacks on Karl Rove.
5. That the Wilsons are suing Rove for "outing" Valerie Plame. How can that lawsuit continue now that the facts say it wasn't Karl Rove?

ASk yourself those questions and give them objective consideration.

After his engineering of the Swiftboat Liars for Untruth, and his masterminding of the 'Keep them skeered' campaign in 2004, they only apology that KKKarl Rove deserves should go something like this.."Sorry that you'll have to spend the next few years in prison, KKKarl, but you EARNED IT!"

Libs lose again. Get used to it.

As if on cue Bill R. has chimed in with the unsubstantiated lies about Rove starting the anti-McCain whispher campaign in So. Carolina. Bill, what's your source? How about a direct connection? And we need more than just rumor and innuendo.

Dale, Patrick Fitzgerald told Rove's lawyer that Rove would not be charged with any crime in the leak investigation, so no charges against him will come out in the coming months. If you don't believe me you can google the name, Fitzgerald even confirmed the statement.

Dienne, nice and complete history of the "scandal" but where's the beef? None of your questions directly implicate Rove or anyone in the administration. Just because her name was out there before Novak talked to Armitage and wrote about it doesn't mean that there was this second track of disclosure that leads to Cheney. The name could have been out amongst Washington journalists for months before Novak wrote about it. The fact is, neither Cooper nor Miller wrote ANYTHING about Plame being a CIA operative and made her identity public. If sharing gossip was a crime then all of Washington would be locked up. With a non-existent public disclosure from Miller and Cooper your argument crumbles like brittle glass. It's really that simple. No second track. No laws broken, just the back channel chitchat and scorpion tongues that our political arena is clogged with.

Everything in Joe Wilson's report has been proven to be a fabrication. He knew the game he was playing, and as that bastion of conservatism the New York Times said in its editorial on the matter, he is ultimately responsible for Plame's CIA identity getting out.

Dale, it's completely wrong to say that Karl Rove was responsible for founding the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. The fact is, the group's founder (whose name escapes me right now) debated Kerry about Vietnam in the '60s. He's opposed every campaign Kerry has ever been in because of his strong feelings about how Kerry conducted himself after returning from Vietnam. He has said that he and his group would oppose any campaign Kerry entered from now until the end of his political career.

Please do not misconstrue my remarks as an indictment of Kerry's or anyone's service in the military. I have nothing but the highest respect for our men and women in uniform, but this is and always has been a philosophical and political fight between two veterans. A fight that had nothing to do with Karl Rove.

Good point, John D, Frank does take a rather snide view of even the exculpatory evidence. It's interesting to note that if this story were an assignment at the Medill School of Journalism James would have gotten an automatic F for misspelling Novak's name.

David Broder is right there was no crime. Richard Armitage the deputy Secretary of State to Colin Powell leaked the information to Robert Novak. Pat Fitzgerald did know this on day one of this investigation that Armitage had done this. He told Armitage to keep quiet and placated Joe Wison the political hack who said his wife was targeted by the Whitehouse. Fitzgerald as Brit Hume said should have ended the investigation then since he knew who leaked. Libby is a victim of the prosecutor's overzealousness. Karl Rove had nothing to do with this case except Wilson kept saying he should be perpwalked out of the Whitehouse. Novak checked Joe Wilson's entry in Marquis Who's Who in America and got Valerie Plames name thus in fact Wilson leaked his wife's name. Sen Charles Schumer the Dem Senate hack joined with hack Wilson and started this whole desire for the investigation when no crime was committed why didn't Fitzgeral interview Wilson, Plame and Schumer? The leftist blogs have made a scandal that never existed as Broder says. This has been Schumer's plan to win the Senate back why isn't the press asking about Schumer's role. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Catherine, once again, that means nothing. Sharing not for publication gossip with reporters is a time-honored tradition in Washington. A leak without a disclosure is no leak at all. You're all really grasping at straws, here. Once again, find me one article where Cooper or Miller printed Plame's name and said she was a CIA operative. You can't because one doesn't exist. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

The only article that revealed Plame's name and said she was a CIA operative was Robert Novak's column and the source for that article was Richard Armitage. Case closed.

John D. I know it bothers you that you can't prove any of your accusations with facts but your baseless accusations aren't helping your argument any.

Bill, please point out what baseless accusations I made or have you gotten me confused with someone else? Or, is someone posting a comment here, but using Bill's name. Hmmm, i smell a loony left wing rat here!!

Sorry John D., my mistake, I meant John E. of slimeball fame. I get the Medill F. He's got a lot of baseless accusations in his post.

Bill...my reason for the whisper campaign is an article written by a reporter named Wayne Slater.
It is also mentioned here on this thread as a suspicion. I choose to believe Slater's article just as you believe that there were WMD's, Iraq's
the center of the "war on terror", and "stay the course" is a real plan.

I also noticed Juanito started the thread saying he can't wait to see the "liberals" post about this one. What no challange to convince an apple that he's an orange?

Apology accepted, Bill. Geez, these lamebrainers think JD and I are the same. Please don't let them start thinking that the BSer-in-chief John E and I are the same too!!!!

Sorry Bill your wrong proff has been showen that John ONeil and his so called Veterans For Truth had thier ads funded by Rove through a Texas TV Station. By the Way a line has been drawn in the sand this time. Veterans For Truth are about to be destoyed. I debated John O Niel here he ran of the set when I showed him reports from the Jail in Nam that showed our guys being held for a 32 for rape and muder. His claims about Kerry some were true but don't talk about things that happened on the ground without facts to back you up.Some of us voted for Bush others voted for Kerry but do not lie

Yeah, I'll try to keep them from confusing you with John E, the BSer. So many Johns! What's that say about this blog?

Bill R., I've read Wayne Slater's article and I've found it lacking in the attribution department, too. It's certainly something I wouldn't go to print with. But I see your point about the war on terror. Allow me to explain:

I guess the distinction, to me, is I don't use those issues as a cudgel to try and convince others that my arguments are right and my thinking is better than theirs.

I've never once tried to convince other posters that they should think like I do on the war on terror, I just lay out my reasons for supporting it. But, here, we've had a theory, used repeatedly as proof that Karl Rove was engaged in dirty politics, that's been totally disproved. I've seen posters on this blog using the Plame "evidence" to suggest Rove was in the KKK, Rove was responsible for the death of a CIA agent, and Rove was out to get Joe Wilson. And now we know it's all not untrue. Yet still the Rove bashing goes on. If hating Karl Rove was alcohol the democrat campaign machine would need a new liver. Doesn't it bother anyone that the entire premise of their main campaign villain is based on a lie and a falsehood?

As a person in the media that hits home with me, because, and I know he's a public figure and he's fair game, that strikes me as slander. Yes, we're allowed to do it, but does that make it right? Should we use the flimsiest excuse to move forward with damning accusations? And don't we have a responsibility to say it just as loud when exculpatory evidence exonerates a person in the public sphere?

Rove doesn't lose any sleep over it and honestly he probably gets off on the fact that dems and Frank James think he's that damn good.

Anyway, I've seen "Bush's Brain" and I can tell you the book was much better. More facts and less wild accusations.

Strictly on a sidenote, I don't think I've once argued on this blog that weapons of mass destruction were the the ONLY reason to invade Iraq. I'm one of those people that thought if removing Saddam was right in 1991 and bombing him was right in 1998, then why isn't it right to remove him in 2003? But that's not the real issue, here.

I do enjoy discussing these issues with you, Bill R., and I apologize if I came on a little strong in the earlier postings. It's an issue that's kind of close to my heart.

Dale, I'm not lying, John O'Neill would have opposed Kerry no matter what. He's said it in several interviews. If Rove funded their ads, that's called campaigning. It's what campaign managers do. Welcome to the era of the 527 group. You know the DNC gives money to Moveon.org, too, don't you?

My point was and is that John O'Neill would've gone ahead with his accusations with our without Rove's help. I guess you can blame McCain-Feingold for that little campaign loophole.

Tell me when one of these debates between you and O'Neill are, I really would like to go to see the back and forth. I'd love to come.

I tend to agree with Chapman on a lot of things except Iraq, so I decided to read his column to see if he had anything that effectively negated Broder.

All I can see from his column and from some of the more reasonable leftist posts here is the suggestion that Rove may have discussed the matter of Wilson's trip with 2 reporters before Novak's article came out. However, I am pretty certain that is not an offense - only knowingly revealing Plame as a covert agent would be.

I have done a couple of quick searches and the only information I can find on these conversations is on MSNBC and it says "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative."

I will admit that this is not necessarily a definitive refutation of Chapman and the others but I think it puts a burden of proof on them to tell us exactly what Rove (or for that matter Libbey) said that qualifies as an illegal leak of information. I am willing to listen but I sure could not find it myself and I have to suppose that if Fitzgerald didn't find enough to make a charge, neither can anyone on this blog.

BTW - kudos to Frank James for writing this lead-in. I have to disagree with some of my conservative brethren - outlining some of the background of the Rove reputation was not only valid background info (I for one did not know about the alleged self-bugging), it was amusing and, in my mind, defends Rove. Afterall, so many of these claims are so patently ridiculous (like the current exorcism story) that it shows how pathetic Rove's critics have become.

In that vein, I have to ask something of Dale Peters (despite my misgivings) - your last post regarding John O'Neil both intriques me and sort of makes me worry about you. Can you give us a little clearer explanation or some documentation?

i didn't hear the fat lady sing and these haven't either. on diane rehm today they had words for broder.10:00Michael Isikoff & David Corn: "Hubris" http://www.wamu.org/audio/dr/06/09/r1060907-11184.ram...http://www.wamu.org/audio/dr/06/09/r1060907-11184.asx

Here's a new twist "Bill":

How about CCCarl Rove???

It's great that we live in a free country,where even a slimeball,rightwing,bloodthirsty,thug like Rove,has someone like you that will defend him.

Save your breath "Bill",CCCarl will need a good defense attorney in the coming few years.

Maybe you can defend him pro-bono.

Bill I was not calling you a liar I calling O Neil a liar. We will face off in Jons town PA Step 3oth/ I do not support Murtha but he attack Murtha record as a Marine. Murtha unlike Kerry is a Vietnam Hero

Joe Conason addressed Broder's silly argument in his New York Observer column yesterday:

"But whatever Mr. Armitage did, or says he did, in no way alters what Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby did in the days that followed, nor does it change their intentions. It’s a simple concept -- two people or more can commit a similar act for entirely different reasons -- but evidently it has flummoxed the great minds of contemporary journalism." [http://tinyurl.com/f8dz5]

Rove and Libby both told journalist, i.e. Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, about Ms Plame’s identity. Rove and Libby did not confirm information that Cooper and Miller had learned from Armitage.

Rove and Libby told them.

I think the only point that the lyin,cheatin,closed minded,anarchist, dippy liberals should get is from a bayonet.

You can't apologize to someone who has spread as much lies as Rove has. You never know when he's telling the truth, so you can always assume that he's not. Additionally, Armitage's addmission aside, Rove and Libby were, in fact, helping to disseminate classified information as well. So whether Armitage leaked the information first, Rove and Libby were still conspiring to discredit Joe Wilson- as was Robert Novak (which was the slant on his story).

Novak will never apologize to Wilson for trying to discredit his trip to Niger. So why would anyone apologize to Rove?

This is only Broder's latest attempt to claim the chair of honest broker. He's on his last legs and wants to go out believing he makes a difference.

Media should apologize to Rove.

No they shouldn't. Nobody should. Rove has helped create one of the most divisive periods of our national history through his clever, cutting rhetoric, by "demonizing" ordinary Americans who hold opposing viewpoints. He could have used his wit and brains to help bring opposing sides together, but he didn't. He used negativity. It is perfectly logical and appropriate for people to wonder what he's up to next, because chances are, it is something, and it is surely negative.

rgh...back at ya brother!

So-called Rush, Wilson's trip and report on Niger already has been discredited, not by Novak, but by the facts and the 9/11 Commission. Again, last week, the Washington Post (not a conservative outlet, mind you) finally admitted that Wilson's report was full of DELIBERATE LIES and MISINFORMATION.

And the Austin Mayor, Plame's name already had been published in Novak's column, so Rove and Libby confirming information to the NY Times and Time magazine reporters was after the fact. And, remember, NO CRIME was committed in mentioning her name. It's funny and hysterical how the ultra-loony left CONTINUALLY ignores the facts. I guess by ignoring facts is the only way the ulra-loony left can survive.

Also notice how quickly the leftist posters have turned on their old buddy David Broder, a paragon of journalism ethics. I guess that's loyalty for you. Let's be real here, too. When it comes to investigative reporting in Washington, Joe Conason isn't worthy of carrying David Broder's notepad.

To anyone who still thinks that Wilson's report on his trip to Niger wasn't full of lies and disinformation, I suggest you get a clue, too.

Dale, unfortunately I have business in Chicago that weekend so I won't be able to make it out. I'll actually be in Pittsburgh the weekend before so it looks like I just missed it. Post dates and times of future debates on this blog, I'd love to attend. Agree with you about Murtha.

The media should appologize to all Americans:

I'm sorry we report and echo the false charges and rumors spread by political operatives like Karl Rove. I'm sorry we no longer do our own research into the veracity of claims made by politicians and their agents. I'm sorry we don't relentlessly pursue and spotlight corrupt, unethical, or unconstitutional behavior by our elected officials.

How does that sound?

So-called John D,

How can lies and misinformation be true? The fact is they can't. Discrediting Joe Wilson is easy. Denying the facts.... now there's a challenge.

Fact: Niger wasn't selling, producing or preparing to sell or produce yellow cake to Iraq.

How Joe Wilson got that right by lying and misinforming the CIA is beyond any reasonable assessment.

"Fact: Niger wasn't selling, producing or preparing to sell or produce yellow cake to Iraq."

That wasn't the claim. It was that Iraq approached Niger.

Fact: Iraq never approached Niger.

Fact: The Washington Post never claimed Joe Wilson lied or disseminated misinformation as so-called "John D" later shortened to "JD" suggested.

But that's not surprising. That's the same tactic the Bush administration has used throughout the so-called war on terror to make half-baked assertions and then back off and say, "We didn't say Iraq and Al Qaeda" were connected or "We didn't say Iraq had nuclear (or to use President Bush's word 'nucular') weapons."

Tiring as the lies may be, the truth ultimately prevails. Unfortunately, in the process tens of thousands of innocent souls are killed so that we can be "free" from terror.

The Washington Post editorial to which so-called John D. refers above was printed on Sept. 1, 2006.

Not surprisingly, the editorial does "(admit)that Wilson's report was full of DELIBERATE LIES and MISINFORMATION" as John D. writes.

In fact, the Post editorial doesn't discuss the facts of the report at all. What it does discuss is Wilson's self-importance and his charges against the Bush administration.

In the Post's opinion, Wilson's report did not in itself "(debunk) the reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger" and "his report had (not been) circulated to senior administration officials." The editorial goes on to say that Wilson's made "false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy."

The Post believes that by exposing the false claims made by the White House, Wilson opened himself and his family to the full-assault of the national government. Therefore, the Post blames Wilson's for his wife's uncovering. (Apparently the Post doesn't believe in protection for whistle-blowers, but that's another topic for another day.)

The only point I wanted to make here is that you can't believe everything bloggers like so-called John D. post.

Correction to previous post:

The Washington Post editorial to which so-called John D. refers above was printed on Sept. 1, 2006.

Not surprisingly, the editorial does NOT "(admit)that Wilson's report was full of DELIBERATE LIES and MISINFORMATION" as John D. writes.

In fact, the Post editorial doesn't discuss the facts of the report at all. What it does discuss is Wilson's self-importance and his charges against the Bush administration.

In the Post's opinion, Wilson's report did not in itself "(debunk) the reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger" and "his report had (not been) circulated to senior administration officials." The editorial goes on to say that Wilson's made "false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy."

The Post believes that by exposing the false claims made by the White House, Wilson opened himself and his family to the full-assault of the national government. Therefore, the Post blames Wilson's for his wife's uncovering. (Apparently the Post doesn't believe in protection for whistle-blowers, but that's another topic for another day.)

The only point I wanted to make here is that you can't believe everything bloggers like so-called John D. post.

Posted by: Bud McFarlin | Sep 9, 2006 3:20:01 AM

"Fact: Iraq never approached Niger." Rush

Rush, the Nigerian Prime Minister confirmed that an Iraqi delagation visited them in 1999 and he believed they were interested in purchasing uranium. This was based on information from Joe Wilson's report.

British Intelligence still stands behind the claim, which is where Bush stated it came from in his SOTU address.

Mr. McFarlin,

Come now. Following is the concluding paragraph of the editorial in question:

"Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously"

1) The editorial does address the facts of the report. It says that Wilson claimed his report had debunked reports of uranium shopping. The editorial then says this is false (as does the 9/11 Commission which confirms that his report actually added weight to the case in support of an attempt to secure uranium). I suppose you could argue that Wilson’s conclusion is not a part of the “facts of the report” but I think that would be stretching things a bit – sort of like having all the components of an equation correctly recorded and still arriving at the wrong answer – the conclusion is the most important fact.

2) You might have it partially right when you take issue with John E in terms of the report containing “deliberate lies and misinformation.” I do not believe that the editorial suggests that the Wilson REPORT was deliberately false (or that it was NOT deliberately false) – but it is very clear that they consider it misinformation. Furthermore, it is clear that the editorial believes Wilson did deliberately lie and misinform when he made charges that the administration conspired against him.

3) It is not whistle-blowing when your claim is false. Therefore, your claim (“Apparently the Post doesn't believe in protection for whistle-blowers”) is also false.

How on earth could you read that paragraph and come up with the conclusion that “The Washington Post never claimed Joe Wilson lied or disseminated misinformation”? Did you not see the words “his false charges” or “claiming – falsely, as it turns out”?

Rush – yes, they did. Wilson’s report confirms that an Iraqi official spoke to Niger regarding exports (he just missed the fact that the official has been one of Iraq’s point men in trying to develop nuclear weapons). Surely you are not so foolish as to think Iraq sent their top negotiator on nuclear weapons issues to arrange export of livestock and onions – virtually the only thing Niger exports other than uranium.

The ability of the political left to ignore reality is rapidly becoming their most distinguishing characteristic.

RRD

LARRY BAILEY (BOOTMURTHA.COM) OCTOBER 1ST RALLY IN JOHNSTOWN, PA.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Cliff Hancuff
September 29, 2006 Journalismisflat@aol.com



"American troops could be home now, except for critical mistakes by our current Commander in Chief," charges Cliff Hancuff, Director of The World of Journalism Is Flat, Too.

"Media and right-wing bloggers are ignoring this fact. For weeks I have been challenging political activists and journalists to act with a minimum of ethical standards," continued Hancuff.

"I became involved when the Sun-Sentinel in Florida reported that Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) said the U.S. poses the top threat to world peace. I watched in dismay as the media and bloggers worldwide reported on this misquote."

"My involvement continued when I discovered Diana Irey, John Murtha's political opponent, had attacked Murtha using a fictional quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln."

"Larry Bailey of bootmurtha.com is continuing his three year blind support of our current Commander in Chief's incompetence in war. President Bush declared war in Iraq without the 4th Infantry, our most lethal, modern, and deployable heavy division in the world," added Hancuff.

This mistake lead to the atrocity of Al Qaqaa. Iraqi insurgents stole hundreds of tons of high explosives to be used as weaponry.

"These are the explosives being used by Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda to perpetuate the war in Iraq."

"I am distressed that the same issues ignored by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 are being ignored again in 2006," said Hancuff adding, "Americans, American soldiers and their families deserve better."

"Without these critical mistakes made by our current Commander in Chief, our American troops would be home with their loved ones, with honor, right now."

On October 1, 2006 Hancuff be at the Cambria County War Memorial Arena located in Johnstown Pennsylvania for Larry Bailey's Swiftboating of John Murtha rally. It is there Hancuff will continue his wait for Mr. Bailey to recall the values of honor and integrity taught him by our US Navy.

There is a youtube.com video online at:

YouTube - Rovian Architecture Unplugged

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5jcyHokFyE


The World of Journalism Is Flat, Too

-30-