what a joke. how on earth do you get that rove went after anyone, let alone for political gain? when someone goes after someone else, the person doing the attack is the one to initiate contact. cooper called rove, not the other way around! thats the first point.

second point is- we know all he said was, ‘dont take this stuff too seriously, wilson wasnt sent on a big official mission from the cia, he was sent over by the request of his wife (wilson doesnt have the credentials for this mission.)

if rove wanted to attack someone and go after them, hed actually have to GO AFTER THEM. he didnt. he merely relayed info to cooper who initiated the conversation on wmd.

we know wilson is a liar, and he and his wife were the ones who wanted to go after someone politically./ 1. wilson was a kerry supporter and contributor. 2. wilson was a kerry advisor and joined the campaign. when the senate committee discovered wilson lied about his niger report and it actually bolstered the british intel claim of uranium (a claim MI6 still stands by, and the lord butler report affirmed that the intel was accurate). when kerrys campaign got word of wilsons lies, they fired him and deleted all mentions to wilson on their website.

plame had an axe to grind in that she complained to her husband- there is “this crazy report” about hussein trying to get a nuke, and why on earth would he want to do that…so, she urged them to send her husband to debunk the claim and the british intel that started the claim.

youre being totally dishonest when you say rove clearly went after someone. if rove wanted to go after someone and attack them, he would have called cooper and everyone else. thats what it means to go after someone. he DID NOT go after anyone, he was the one who was contacted.

rove simply corrected what cooper was going to report- that wilsons report debunked the niger claim, which isnt true…the cia analysts said that his report bolstered the claim, and as i said- MI6 still stands by the intelligence even AFTER the lord butler inquiry into the matter.

i think you also need to look up the word treason. explaining to a reporter teh facts of a case when hes about to report it wrong is hardly treason. even if rove did what you claim he did (went and attacked someone politically and outed her to do so), even THAT isn’t treason (since it has nothing to do with aiding an enemy, nor does it have anything to do with any other stipulation of treason!) no doubt you’re well aware of this, but you’ll refuse to acknowledge even these facts.

it’s actually very sad to see anyone being so partisan that they have to become completely dishonest when it comes to any debate.

then again, i see many mentions of the dailykos (run by the man who said that the murdered contractors in fallujah deserved what they got), so no shock that i see this dishonest tripe posted here.

Posted by Joshua Taj Bozeman on 13 July 2005 @ 10pm

You’re from Indiana. You don’t count.

Sorry.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 13 July 2005 @ 10pm

“it’s actually very sad to see anyone being so partisan that they have to become completely dishonest when it comes to any debate.”

Pretty much says it all. It IS sad.

This person has certainly consumed the kool-aid. All of his paragraphs are Repub. spin. And all are false.

Amazing that people can be so indoctrinated.

An act of treason is what it is. There is no debate on degrees of treason.

Posted by phyllis on 14 July 2005 @ 9am

Joshua,

Joe Wilson never lied about anything. He never once claimed that Dick Cheney had named him personally to go to Niger. This was a complete fabrication on the part of the GOP, desperate for a smokescreen. Time has in fact proven conclusively that Wilson was right. You aren’t seriously suggesting that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon are you? Because the Pentagon and the WH would love to hear whatever evidence that you are apparantly privy to.

Furthermore, Wilson was a staunch Republican right up until the Bush administration deliberately jeapordized his wife’s life and national security. That was when he started to back Kerry. Wilson had zero political involvement before this.

But the truth is that Joe Wilson is irrelevant to this entire issue. Ditto for the question of who called who (and bear in mind that Cooper was only one of a number of reporters who Rove & another Sr. Administration official leaked this to - how many of these leaks can you really play whack-a-mole with?). The law does not make any distinction regarding who initiates a conversation. Nor does the statute say that a specific name must be given at the time. Disclosing the identity of an undercover agent - which the DOJ has determined that Plame actually was - is a federal crime when committed by a person with authorized access to classified information.

All of this spin that you are attempting is absurd. This isn’t like other situations where spinning and lying could get you off the hook. It’s not a matter of pulling the wool over a handful of swing voters’ eyes for a few weeks. This time it’s going to a court of law. The DOJ and any federal judge will not be amused by any of these assinine excuses. There is no legal basis for any of the GOP talking points.

Nothing of what you’ve written has any basis in fact. You lack not only proper capitalization but also any semblance of logic. If you will stop and look very carefully at this situation and what you have written you will find that there is nothing in this that touches on basic, traditional conservative values or classical Republican issues. You’ve been fooled by the GOP leadership into defending a bunch of crap in which you have nothing but ego invested. Why are you going along with this? What aspect of conservative philosophy are you defending? None. You’ve been lied to and manipulated by a bunch of greedy crackpots who hijacked your party. There’s no reason why honest, traditional conservatives should defend Karl Rove or otherwise tie themselves to what is clearly a sinking ship with no great conservative cause on board.

Posted by ATA on 14 July 2005 @ 9am

good post Waldo, really like you site…

Posted by Will on 14 July 2005 @ 9am

Joshua,

Read Machiavelli’s The Prince. Rove is Machiavelli reincarnated. Quickest way to neutralize Rove is to beat him at his own game. Learn The Prince and use it against HIM.

Waldo,

Well said…well, except for the Indiana remark. I spent 4 very cold winters there! Not a bad place to be “from.” :)

Jill

Posted by Jill on 14 July 2005 @ 10am

Ridiculous though it may sound, I’m really not looking to debate the legal or even practical merits. Whether or not Karl Rove has committed a crime doesn’t particularly matter to me. It’s not illegal to tell an old lady to go fuck herself, but it still makes you an asshole. The very specific criteria for whether or not Rove’s actions rise to the level of being illegal make it a purely academic question — none of us have the information required to determine whether or not he broke the law. (As if “Wilson’s wife” referred to, what, Dennis the Menace’s next door neighbor?)

But he did out a covert agent for partisan revenge. And that makes him an asshole. It’s indefensible, and I’d rather not see my Virginia Republican brethren attempt to defend it, because I think — hope — they know better.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 14 July 2005 @ 10am

Waldo: The guys on the left have been trying to spin this up, but you’ll notice even the MSM is being bery cautiious on this one. Why? Because you’ve got to wait for the other shoe to drop. Did Rove think he was doing something that would “out” Valerie Plame as a covert operative. I’m not so sure. Based on what Cooper says Rove told him, I don’t think one can make a case that Rove was “out to get” Wilson. Wilson had attacked Bush on this issue, and it sounds like Rove was trying to provide perspective to Cooper- something any good operative on either side of the aisle would do.

I haven’t made up my mind on this one. If Rove was malicious about it, I’m with you. He should go. But I’m not convinced of that yet. Those of us who aren’t hacks for one side or the other like to wait until we get all the facts first. Rove is definitely in trouble here, but I wouldn’t sound the death knell yet. Remember, Plame and Wilson aren’t exactly saints themselves either. Whether Wilson reached the right conclusion on WMD or not, most of the intelligence community in the Western World seems to think he was wrong. Does that make him wrong? No, but it sure makes him suspicious.

Posted by Not Mark Rozell on 14 July 2005 @ 11am

Frankly, I don’t care if Wilson bludgeoned his mother to death with her cat. As George H.W. Bush said, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.”

No excuses.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 14 July 2005 @ 11am

Just imagine if something like this had happened in the Clinton Administration? The Republicans would have impeached him by now and would presently be preparing for the tarring, feathering, drawing and quartering. But when Karl Rove commits an act bordering on treason, what do we hear from Republicans? Excuses and more excuses. Pitiful. But SO typical.

Don’t back down, Waldo.

Posted by Lowell Feld on 15 July 2005 @ 6am

http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2005/07/break-from-vacation-for-little.html

Posted by Hans Mast on 15 July 2005 @ 10am

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011041.php

Posted by Hans Mast on 15 July 2005 @ 11am

Both extremes on this have shown that they would rather slash at capillaries than pay attention to the jugular. There’s more to come, and I doubt that it’s all about Rove. The real issue here (one that may have to be dealt with by historians, rather than journalists)is the quality of the process by which the decision to go to war was made. It seems very much to have been a front-loaded decision, for which explanations were developed afterword. All the petty hissing over the Wilson report speaks to a kind of political campaign mindset about what should have been a highly analytical policy formulation process. If one of the post hoc rationales begins to fall apart, let’s slime the guy who is undermining it. These are decisions of war and peace, life and death, the dignity and power of the world’s greatest democracy being made (or at least hihgly influenced at an Allen/Marcus level of human activity. Not a pretty sight.

Posted by NoVA Scout on 16 July 2005 @ 8am

Waldo, you can’t still believe this. Are you going to retract this post? Read the two links above as well as this: http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004957.php

Posted by Hans Mast on 18 July 2005 @ 4pm

Seriously, Hans, do yourself a favor and read a newspaper. I don’t mean that to be insulting — I mean don’t rely on blogs. Sit down and read yourself the Post, the Times, the Globe, the AP, Reuters, C-SPAN, Bloomberg, the Christian Science Monitor, USA Today… Read one, or read them all. I find it a little embarrassing to see national Republican blogs attempting to present the latest news as if it’s positive news, but a casual glance at a newspaper reveals that they’re existing in some kind of an alternate universe. (The link you provided turns Rove’s confirmation to Novak of Valerie Plame’s identity into Novak telling him. It completely turns their linked story — Novak asked Rove to confirm the story, Rove did so — on its head.)

The one thing for which I’m glad is that no Virginia blogger (that I’ve noticed) is proclaiming that Rove has been cleared, that up is down, and that black is white. Cooler heads have prevailed because we’re better than that. Which is good, because in a few months, when we’re all looking back at this, nobody’s going to look like a fool for defending the White House in this shameful incident.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 18 July 2005 @ 5pm

I am not intimately acquainted with the situation and I haven’t done any research on the subject, thus will not make any blanket statements. I do tend to trust the Captain’s judgement. I also heartily agree with this post (no offense to yourself, generalizations are being made). I guess there’s not much to do until the grand jury testimony, etc, comes out.

I never viewed you as an objective or non-partisan observer (if such a person can be said to exist) but my trust of your judgement on politics has descended a bit after you said that Kaine won the debate. In all fairness to you, you viewed the debate through the interpetation of Raising Kaine and Kaine’s official blog. I mean, when the liberal WaPo gives a Republican a “slight edge” in a debate performance, that pretty much means a bang up job by Mr. GOP.

Oh, btw, I get the WaPo home delivery and scour it every day. I know it advances the liberal agenda to try to prop up the reputation of the MSM, but I view them as Rather discredited.

Posted by Hans Mast on 18 July 2005 @ 5pm

See, I don’t buy for a minute the “media is conservative” “media is liberal” BS. Study after study after study, for years, has concluded that the media is, on the whole, very balanced. That extends, too, to individual publications like the Post and the Times, and I’m yet to see anything to discredit it. Many of my fellow liberals like to accuse publications of covering up the truth, spinning, etc. (particularly during the build-up to war), but the fact is that nearly all of them are, by design, wholly fair and open, and there’s little evidence to indicate otherwise.

The Washington Post is historically a very conservative publication. It’s only since Bush came into power and the Post has been criticizing him that Republicans have decided that the Post is biased. What “biased” means in this context, of course, is “we don’t agree with them.”

I don’t use the initials “MSM,” because it represents a derisive, inaccurate view of the media held by many bloggers who have never worked in a newsroom, never known a journalist, and have no idea of what goes into the job. As the White House is now discovering, it’s folly to belittle, underestimate, or attempt to betray the media. When reporting the facts is described as “bias,” that’s a strong sign that you’re on the wrong side of the facts.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 18 July 2005 @ 5pm

From an UCLA study:

Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal.  For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2]  Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections.   More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3]  This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s.[4]

Posted by Hans Mast on 18 July 2005 @ 6pm

It’s kind of like the phenomenon of liberal professors in colleges — that’s just the sort of person who is willing to take a low-paying job that requires an expensive education. No conspiracy required.

What’s important is not the people working the job but, rather, how they do at it. To be non-partisan, that doesn’t mean that one need be without views or beliefs, only that one be willing to recognize those biases and correct for them. I’m a white guy, but I’m comfortable talking about race and sex, because I can recognize and correct the stereotypes and prejudices that I’ve internalized.

It may be the case — and I don’t know this — that 75% of Wall Street Journal reporters are Republicans. But their reporting is top-notch — some of the best in the industry. I think that their editorial page is delusional (”lucky ducks”), but their editorial staff is wholly different from their news staff, so it’s never occurred to me to prejudge their journalism based on either the political biases of their reporters or their editorial board.

Again, nearly every major study ever done on the biases of major newspapers has demonstrated that, on balance, they’re almost all simply in the business of reporting the facts.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 18 July 2005 @ 6pm

RS: usage of term MSM

The WaPo had a frontpage headline that contained “Mainstream Media.”

Posted by Hans Mast on 18 July 2005 @ 6pm

I don’t mind “mainstream media” nearly as much as “MSM.” Obviously, there’s nothing inherently bad about the term “MSM” (or “mainstream media”) — they’re just words. But, like the words “Rocktober” or “anywho,” you can tell a lot about somebody who tosses around the term. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 18 July 2005 @ 6pm

“It’s kind of like the phenomenon of liberal professors in colleges — that’s just the sort of person who is willing to take a low-paying job that requires an expensive education. No conspiracy required.”

First of all, bloggers such as Charles Johnson of LGF, Bill of INDC, Ed of Captain’s Quarters, the trio at Powerline and citizen journalists the world over have shown that “an expensive education” is hardly a requirement for being a quality journalist. Furthermore, I think if you took a look at Dan Rather, Andersen Cooper, or Peter Jennings’ salaries, you would see that it is not the dead-end “low-paying job” you make it out to be.

No conspiracy required for media bias. It’s just natural. On some, especially moral issues, social consvervatives and liberals have radically different world views. As a Christian, I couldn’t write the kind of things that NYT, WaPo, LAT, etc writes regarding gays & lesbians. I couldn’t write the stuff they right about abortion. I couldn’t write the stuff they write about affirmative action. (And don’t even think about trying to play the racism card: I volunteer at a Kids’ Klub that strives to help inner-city kids of all ethnicities (mostly Black and Hispanic). I am great buddies with some Black dudes in DC that I love to play basketball with. I have a Japanese and three Hispanic uncles. I have Vietnamese, Ethiopian, Dutch, Israeli, Palestinian, Chinese, and Hispanic friends. I long for the day when everyone has the ethnicity of Tiger Woods and profiteers no longer exploit an unfortunate past to create inequity and racial tension.)

My worldview of an absolute moral truth (the Bible) conflicts with the total moral relativism of the mainstream media and the liberals. I couldn’t fairly represent a liberal’s perspective on matters because it just doesn’t make sense to me and it goes against my very core. I can’t imagine it would be any different for the 90%+ Liberals in the press corp.

I believe tolerance means that you don’t chop someone’s head off or coerce them if they don’t agree with you. Liberals think that tolerance means saying that everyone’s truth has equal validity and that someone is right if they believe that, however off the reservation that belief may be.

Liberals tolerate just about everything… except intolerance. It’s a paradox.

Anyway, long comment that serves to illustrate the total difference of world views that, in my mind, would make it impossible for a conservative to report the liberal side in a “balanced way” (whatever that is) or a liberal to report the conservative side in a “balanced way.”

Posted by Hans Mast on 18 July 2005 @ 6pm

And don’t try to say that I can’t imagine liberals in the press being able to report objectively because I am so close-minded myself. Liberals are just as dogmatic and absolutist about their worldview.

Posted by Hans Mast on 18 July 2005 @ 6pm

“an expensive education” is hardly a requirement for being a quality journalist.

Cherry-picking examples isn’t helpful, Hans. If you were to walk down to the offices of the Daily Progress, you’d find that you wouldn’t get far without a degree or two. And even if you did, you’d be faced with a $17,000/year salary.

Furthermore, I think if you took a look at Dan Rather, Andersen Cooper, or Peter Jennings’ salaries, you would see that it is not the dead-end “low-paying job” you make it out to be.

That’s like saying that spending all of your time playing poker isn’t a low-paying job because a few people each year win a tournament. Hans, surely you know that the overwhelming majority of reporters in this nation are making between $15,000-$30,000/year. It’s an extremely poorly-paying job. Pointing to three of the world’s most famous men and claiming that they represent tens of thousands of people is a little disingenuous.

As a Christian, I couldn’t write the kind of things that NYT, WaPo, LAT, etc writes regarding gays & lesbians.

Like what? Could you give me an example of a news article that any of these outlets have written recently that you couldn’t write?

I don’t understand what the rest of what you’ve written about liberals has anything to do with journalism. Reporters spend nearly all of their time rewriting press releases and stating the facts — who, what, when, where, why, how. No interpretation, no analysis. Just the facts. I can’t imagine what makes the facts so distasteful to you that you couldn’t recite them yourself.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 18 July 2005 @ 7pm

“a little disingenuous.”

You’re right. I wasn’t really being fair.

“I can’t imagine what makes the facts so distasteful to you that you couldn’t recite them yourself.”

Day to day stuff (park openings, county fair, etc) wouldn’t be hard, but when you came to anything that has a religious or political slant (almost anything business, moral, religious, terrorist, health, etc related is touched very strongly with political bias; consider a business opening: “This Wal-Mart opened and will provide 100 new full time jobs! Mayor Smith is pleased that this validates his business friendly tax policy that keeps this community successful and growing.” versus “A new Wal-Mart opened much to the chagrin of those concerned for the rapid urbanization of their community. It will destroy countless small businesses as it leeches business away. Mayor Smith has tried to cast this as job creation as a result of his policy, but the net job creation is negative.”), it would be very difficult to give an unbiased perspective. A good example would be the debate. Norman (One Man’s Trash) and John Behan thought Kilgore did smashing. You & Raising Kaine thought Kaine really kicked tail. John, Norman & I’s fervent belief of the philosophies and approaches espoused by Kilgore made it seem like Kilgore really did well because he finally voiced all these very “self-evident things” and Kaine did a horrible job because he advocated stuff that to us totally did not make sense. “It’s failed in the past!” I would guess it was much the same way for you and Raising Kaine, except in reverse. Your beliefs made it seem as if Kaine did a great job and because you “know stuff” that made Kilgore’s responses seem all hollow.

A reporter, in this situation could give a “he said, she said” account of the situation, but without some analysis and addition of facts (the selection thereof involves value judgements on what “facts” are important and which ones are ignored and which ones are given credence) which inevitably results in the reporters beliefs on the topic, the piece is dry and uninformative and serves no purpose.

My opinion is that bloggers with an open, stated worldview writing persuasive pieces are much more valuable to the public than an article written with very subtle biases that are hard to detect unless you do a lot of your own reasearch. The other thing with “unbiased” reporter-written copy is the artificial balance that is brought. Two things can happen when an artificial bias is brought: 1. A load of tripe that any reasonable person wouldn’t give a second thought to, is presented as a reasonable viewpoint. 2. The reporter writes unconvincingly of the opposing viewpoint and through subtle language, maybe even unbeknownst to the writer, conveys the “invalidity” of the opposing viewpoint.

Often the way one can get the best info is for two people, who have polar stances on the subject, to write a persuasive piece in favor of their viewpoint. This gives a true balance to the reader and lets the reader decide.

“Like what? Could you give me an example of a news article that any of these outlets have written recently that you couldn’t write?”

There was a WaPo profile on some Lesbians in DC. It was very sympathetic and made it out like homosexuality is something that someone can’t help and it talked in sorrowful tones about how they were “discriminated” against by not having the “right” of marriage. It’s not discriminating against them! They just don’t meet the definiton of marriage! Marriage, by definition, is between a man and woman. It’s like a person suing the VA Bar Association for not granting them a law license. “They’re discriminating against people without law degrees!!”

Posted by Hans Mast on 18 July 2005 @ 9pm

“which inevitably results in the reporters beliefs on the topic, ” should be “which inevitably is influenced by a reporters beliefs on the topic, “

Posted by Hans Mast on 18 July 2005 @ 9pm

“the piece is dry and uninformative and serves no purpose.” should be “the piece is dry and uninformative and serves no purpose becuase words are cheap. Without facts to back them up, you can have all sorts of ridiculous philosophies.”

Posted by Hans Mast on 18 July 2005 @ 9pm

My opinion is that bloggers with an open, stated worldview writing persuasive pieces are much more valuable to the public than an article written with very subtle biases that are hard to detect unless you do a lot of your own reasearch.

I’d love to see newspapers doing the same. I have nothing wrong with publications have openly have a persuasion, so long as they call it up. I’d have no problem with Fox News if they’d just admit that they’re Republican. If a news publication has a clear and intentional bias, they should call it up. And more should try to have a clear and intentional viewpoint, because I think that, ultimately, it would better serve readers.

The other thing with “unbiased” reporter-written copy is the artificial balance that is brought.

Indeed, this can be a problem, particularly for inexperienced reporters. This is most often seen in climate change articles — even though every peer-reviewed article related to the climate published in the past decade has agreed that global warming is a man-made problem, there’s that one guy — his name escapes me right now — who’s propped up by the oil industry to insist that, in the name of science, it’s all a scam. So to make the piece “balanced,” journalists often talk to him, too, and speak as if the whole thing is still up in the air. So to speak.

This is less a function of bias than, of course, non-bias.

There was a WaPo profile on some Lesbians in DC. It was very sympathetic and made it out like homosexuality is something that someone can’t help and it talked in sorrowful tones about how they were “discriminated” against by not having the “right” of marriage.

I understand that’s your perception of it — and probably reasonably so — but could you point me to the actual article, or one to which you’ve had a similar reaction? I expect that I might read the same article and be frustrated that the reporter displayed such clear favoritism towards having marriage controlled by the state, as opposed to protecting religion and its role in marriage. Another valid reaction, but it would say more about me than the article, I expect.

Every article is a little Rorschach test. Some really are poorly-written, but the vast majority are just the facts.

Last week, I read a transcript of a debate between Ron Reagan and Christopher Hitchens, IIRC. I read it because a couple of conservative blogs that I’d read reported that Hitchens had “badly trounced” Reagan, and were quite gleeful in their tone. So I read the transcript, and was left scratching my head. Had I read the write transcript? Clearly, Reagan had schooled Hitchens, and made him look like a fool. Same transcript. Totally different reaction.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 18 July 2005 @ 11pm

“the vast majority are just the facts.”

But bias enters into that too. The way a piece is written gives more or less credence to various facts. You make a value judgement in what facts you decide to leave out. You make a value judgement on where the facts appear: on the front page paragraphs or continued on A17. Your value judgements are irretrievably tied to your worldview.

Posted by Hans Mast on 19 July 2005 @ 12pm

And yet, they’re still the facts. :)

But that sort of “bias” (I’d call it something closer to prioritizing) — is a far, far cry from “the liberal media is part of a vast conspiracy that has coordinated made-up stories — Rove hasn’t really done anything wrong.”

Whether or not there’s such a thing as an unbiased presentation of the facts — or even a “fact” — is the stuff for philosophy classes. But when we’ve gotten to metaphysics, bias has been eclipsed. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 19 July 2005 @ 12pm

“But that sort of ‘bias’ (I’d call it something closer to prioritizing) — is a far, far cry from ‘the liberal media is part of a vast conspiracy that has coordinated made-up stories — Rove hasn’t really done anything wrong.’”

Furthermore, I found an *outright lie* in the frontpage *headline* of the WaPo. It said: “Bush Raises Standard for Firing Aides in Leak Probe” What Bush said today, “If somebody committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration” was nearly identical in meaning to what he said in Sep. 2003, “[I]f there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action.” The Post was getting its headline from Reid who said that Bush had promised to fire anyone “involved” with the leak, which is simply not what Bush said. The WaPo is simply repeating verbatim the lies of the opposition leader!

Go check out MediaSlander.com for more examples.

Posted by Hans Mast on 19 July 2005 @ 11pm

Hans, nearly every media outlet in the nation reported that on Monday. IHT, Chicago Tribune, SF Chronicle, Globe and Mail, Chicago Sun-Times, Newsday, Globe, Washington Post, Bloomberg… I’m not cherry-picking here — I just opened the first stories that came up in Google News’ listing.

Do you know why all of the nation’s media outlets agree that Bush changed his story? Because he has. In September of 2003, McClellan said that “if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.” Not convicted, not charged — “involved.” In 2004, Bush was asked if he’d fire anybody who leaked the agent’s identity, and he said “yes.” On Monday, he said he’d fire anybody who “committed a crime.” Clearly, this standard has been tightened up. Read any one of the linked articles for citations — it’s in all of the one that I glanced at.

The alternate explanation here is that every media outlet in the nation is lying, having fabricated quotes and, while they’re at it, infiltrated the White House’s website.

I avoid getting my news from liberal mouthpieces and, when I do, I always back it up by reading a proper news source. Why? Because Daily Kos has a clear agenda, and the site’s operators promote the things that support their position and ignore the things that don’t. So does Little Green Footballs. There’s nothing wrong with that. But if you get all of your news from Daily Kos, you’ll start thinking in a Massive Media Conspiracy™. And in this case, it’d have to be a mighty massive one, indeed.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 July 2005 @ 12am

Better not report this or it might, *gasp*, make Bush look good.

Posted by Hans Mast on 22 July 2005 @ 4pm

Hans, I’m telling you, you can’t trust what you read on these blogs. Do 30 seconds of research after you read something on Powerline.

There’s coverage in Newsday, SJ Merc, AP, Boston Globe, CNN, SD U-T, Salon.com, SC State, NC N&O. Those are just the first hits that I got, in order.

Fox News, by the way, has not a peep about it.

This took me perhaps as long as 10 seconds using Google News.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 22 July 2005 @ 4pm

I over-rhetorical-ized. I overdramatized. What I meant to convey was that this is a major event and should have been on the front page. I didn’t see it in the Washington Post. It might have been buried in the back, but I didn’t see anything.

Posted by Hans Mast on 23 July 2005 @ 8am

You might be interested in the non-partisan FactCheck.org’s report on the Plame affair:

July 8, 2003 – Columnist Robert Novak calls senior White House adviser Karl Rove, according to subsequent media accounts. Novak tells Rove he had heard that Joseph Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, played a role in Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger. Rove confirms the story to Novak without mentioning Valerie Wilson’s name or covert status, saying “I heard that, too.” (”Rove Talk on C.I.A. Officer,” NY Times, July 2003). Novak will later write that he originally acquired the information from an official who is “no partisan gunslinger.” Novak says, “When I called another official for confirmation, he said: ‘Oh, you know about it.’” (Novak, “CIA Leak” Chicago Sun- Times, Oct 2003).

July 11, 2003 –Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper calls Rove, who cautions him to be careful of Wilson’s story, “‘Don’t get too far out on Wilson,’ he told me,” Cooper later writes. Rove tells Cooper that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA on “WMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and that it was she, not Cheney or the CIA’s director, who was “responsible” for sending Wilson to Africa. “Rove never used her name and…indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week,” Cooper later recalls adding, “Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status.” Cooper says Rove ends the call saying “I’ve already said too much.”

Cooper also says he talked to Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, about the story. “I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson’s wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, ‘Yeah, I’ve heard that too,’ or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame’s name or indicated that her status was covert.” (Matthew Cooper, “What I told the Grand Jury,” Time, July 2005).

You said: “Karl Rove outed a CIA operative for political gain… Rove outed a CIA agent in order to punish her for her husband angering the White House. That’s all there is to it, and that’s wrong.”

That simply isn’t true. If he would have wanted to out her for political gain or revenge, he wouldn’t have waited for reporters to call him. They called him and he merely confirmed what they already knew.

Posted by Hans Mast on 23 July 2005 @ 8am