You are losing your mind. Anyway, a small note of even mindedness, I detest negative voting record based tactics in general, it doesn’t depend who is using them (left or right).
First, the thread was started before the issue had become public. You noticed that right? So, I don’t know about you, but my crystal ball didn’t give me advance notice of what was going to happen.
As to whether or not there is anything important, that isn’t changed by the fact you think someones nickname is stupid sounding. What kind of moronic logic are you trying to pull?
Obviously, whether or not the issue is a big deal is a matter of opinion. If you believe that the administration decided to break the law and endanger national security and you believe they did this to silence a critic, it is huge.[/quote]
So you’re still going with endangering national security, huh? Eh… weak. She wasn’t involved in any covert stuff, dude… not for a long time. If she was working a case, and somebody official confirmed her identity, then maybe I would see a problem there for some people, and a covert op being blown. That would be annoying.
I’m SURE that Karl Rove was saying “ya know, there’s this guy somewhere that is a critic… and seeing as how there are NO OTHER CRITICS OF US ON THIS ENTIRE PLANET… I am going to take one for the team, and break national security, risk jail time, and possibly fuck my whole life up by telling somebody that this all-important one critic guy has a wife who was a former covert CIA operative. Yeah, that’s a good idea.”
And you think I’ve lost MY mind? Come on, vroom, there’s no way to even make that funny. I would love to see somebody indicted for lying under oath… that’s a bad thing. Like when my favorite president Clinton did it, I was a little ashamed of him. He didn’t go to jail or anything though, did he? he didn’t even get fired… not from lack of trying on the repugnant’s er… republican’s part, though.
You better care, bitch. And I got all kinds of silly antics besides Scooter. Next week, they’re bringing a guy named
“Melvin Queef” to testify… no shit, check it out:
[quote]Finally, Rove would also just be a flunky as well. Oh hey, Cheney is just a flunky too – it’s not like he is president or anything.
As it is, your comments just look like yet another stupid way to try to dismiss this issue as unimportant. I wonder why you would try to suggest the issue is not important? Gosh, I don’t know, are indictments issues against top members of the administration significant? Gee, that’s a tough one.[/quote]
I AM dismissing this issue right now, because it’s silly – like the care bears site I linked. If Rove was involved in smuggling arms to Nicaraguan rebels, then that would be something. If we could actually find a way to link Cheney, Halliburton, and oil prices to my ex-girlfriend’s mysterious new cold sores… then that would be extra-ducky. As it is now, I’m getting sleepy again.
Tubestea… nah. Not yet. If Rove gets indicted, I will laugh… and then you’re off the hook. Consider yourself on comedy/relevance probation.
You are losing your mind. Anyway, a small note of even mindedness, I detest negative voting record based tactics in general, it doesn’t depend who is using them (left or right).
First, the thread was started before the issue had become public. You noticed that right? So, I don’t know about you, but my crystal ball didn’t give me advance notice of what was going to happen.
As to whether or not there is anything important, that isn’t changed by the fact you think someones nickname is stupid sounding. What kind of moronic logic are you trying to pull?
Obviously, whether or not the issue is a big deal is a matter of opinion. If you believe that the administration decided to break the law and endanger national security and you believe they did this to silence a critic, it is huge.
So you’re still going with endangering national security, huh? Eh… weak. She wasn’t involved in any covert stuff, dude… not for a long time. If she was working a case, and somebody official confirmed her identity, then maybe I would see a problem there for some people, and a covert op being blown. That would be annoying.
I’m SURE that Karl Rove was saying “ya know, there’s this guy somewhere that is a critic… and seeing as how there are NO OTHER CRITICS OF US ON THIS ENTIRE PLANET… I am going to take one for the team, and break national security, risk jail time, and possibly fuck my whole life up by telling somebody that this all-important one critic guy has a wife who was a former covert CIA operative. Yeah, that’s a good idea.”
And you think I’ve lost MY mind? Come on, vroom, there’s no way to even make that funny. I would love to see somebody indicted for lying under oath… that’s a bad thing. Like when my favorite president Clinton did it, I was a little ashamed of him. He didn’t go to jail or anything though, did he? he didn’t even get fired… not from lack of trying on the repugnant’s er… republican’s part, though.
In either case, I don’t give a damn whether you personally think this thread is worth your time or not. If you have an opinion to promote, via logic instead of silly antics due to Libby’s nickname, then lay it out for us.
You better care, bitch. And I got all kinds of silly antics besides Scooter. Next week, they’re bringing a guy named
“Melvin Queef” to testify… no shit, check it out:
Finally, Rove would also just be a flunky as well. Oh hey, Cheney is just a flunky too – it’s not like he is president or anything.
As it is, your comments just look like yet another stupid way to try to dismiss this issue as unimportant. I wonder why you would try to suggest the issue is not important? Gosh, I don’t know, are indictments issues against top members of the administration significant? Gee, that’s a tough one.
I AM dismissing this issue right now, because it’s silly – like the care bears site I linked. If Rove was involved in smuggling arms to Nicaraguan rebels, then that would be something. If we could actually find a way to link Cheney, Halliburton, and oil prices to my ex-girlfriend’s mysterious new cold sores… then that would be extra-ducky. As it is now, I’m getting sleepy again.
Tubestea… nah. Not yet. If Rove gets indicted, I will laugh… and then you’re off the hook. Consider yourself on comedy/relevance probation. :D[/quote]
You are wrong.
Brewster Jennings & Associates which was in no way linked to the person Brewster Jennings.
Valerie had to stay covert as long as she could be linked to Brewster Jennings which would mean for life of Brewster Jennings & Associates or until the organization was outed.
Either you are calling Fitzgerald a liar or you are lying yourself…which is it?
I love the spin on this thing. You have to be some type of liberal hater to think anything untoward could have been done at all.
Never mind lying under oath. Nope, he wasn’t lying for a reason, it just happened mysteriously. Yes, I know, we need a trial and a conviction before it even exists.
Sigh.
Wait, didn’t Clinton lie? This is all unimportant because Clinton lied about things which were much more important, and he was the president, not some flunky working for some no-name vice president that doesn’t matter anyway.
See, this isn’t important at all, because Bush wasn’t getting blowjobs, therefore, it doesn’t matter what did or didn’t happen, and I refuse to believe it anyway because liberals want it to be true.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I think you are being just a just a tad lazy vroom.
Ya think?
I love the spin on this thing. You have to be some type of liberal hater to think anything untoward could have been done at all.
Never mind lying under oath. Nope, he wasn’t lying for a reason, it just happened mysteriously. Yes, I know, we need a trial and a conviction before it even exists.
Sigh.
Wait, didn’t Clinton lie? This is all unimportant because Clinton lied about things which were much more important, and he was the president, not some flunky working for some no-name vice president that doesn’t matter anyway.
See, this isn’t important at all, because Bush wasn’t getting blowjobs, therefore, it doesn’t matter what did or didn’t happen, and I refuse to believe it anyway because liberals want it to be true.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is silly. Even if a grand conspiracy took place to out Plame, it did nothing to damage national security. She is completely irrelevant to national security.
Zap, dude, she was a clandestine CIA operative working on gathering information about nuclear proliferation. When she got outed, a bunch of other stuff (sources and co-workers) to do with that effort went out from under cover with her. Not so irrelevant!
Where do you get your facts from anyhow? The comics page?[/quote]
You just don’t get it do you?
Her whole cover was a joke. Wife of an ambassador is not a good cover story.
There is no crime for outing Plame because no one can tell if she was really undercover. The CIA has proven itself to be a sad joke on the American people.
The only crime is the lying to investigators.
Her “outing” did not damage national security one bit.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If Clinton had done his job better, perhaps we could have avoided this war.
At the risk of starting shit, if the FIRST Bush had done HIS job (Desert Storm) and captured Saddam in the first place, we could have avoided this war. He also might have gotten re-elected to a second term.[/quote]
I agree. It would have meant telling the Democratic leadership and some of our allies to go to hell, but it might have been the right move.
He certainly made mistakes immediately post war. I believe he should have supported the Shiite rebellion at the very least.
Much more egregious were the ways in which Wilson misrepresented his findings. In his famous New York Times Op-Ed article (July 6, 2003), Wilson gave the impression that his eight-day jaunt proved that Iraq was not trying to acquire uranium in Africa. Therefore, when administration officials nevertheless cited concerns about Hussein’s nuclear ambitions, Wilson claimed that they had “twisted” evidence “to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” The Senate Intelligence Committee was not kind to this claim either.
The panel’s report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger’s prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information. According to the panel, intelligence analysts “did not think” that his findings “clarified the story on the reported Iraq-Niger uranium deal.” In other words, Wilson had hardly exposed as fraudulent the “16 words” included in the 2003 State of the Union address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” In fact, the British government, in its own post-invasion review of intelligence, found that this claim was “well founded.”
This is not an isolated example. Pretty much all of the claims that the administration doctored evidence about Iraq have been euthanized, not only by the Senate committee but also by the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission. The latest proof that intelligence was not “politicized” comes from an unlikely source ? Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, who has been denouncing the hawkish “cabal” supposedly leading us toward “disaster.” Yet, in between bouts of trashing the administration, Wilkerson said on Oct. 19 that “the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming” that Hussein was building illicit weapons. This view was endorsed by “the French, the Germans, the Brits.” The French, of all people, even offered “proof positive” that Hussein was buying aluminum tubes “for centrifuges.” Wilkerson also recalled seeing satellite photos “that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was ? giving us disinformation.”
So much for the lies that led to war. What we’re left with is the lies that led to the antiwar movement. Good thing for Wilson and his pals that deceiving the press and the public isn’t a crime.
Yes, let’s blame Wilson! It is all Wilson’s fault!
If it wasn’t for Wilson then Scooter and Rove wouldn’t have had to skirt breaking the law in order to discredit him.
Why oh why is it so freaking hard to split the two issues apart?
What Wilson did, or did not do, is not the issue in question. The issue in question is the behavior of key members of the Bush administration in response.
Wilson is a person.
The administration is the set of government power and authority for the nation.
Somehow, some of us think that the government has certain rules to be followed, for the protection of society, and that this is important.
If you want to whine about Wilson, then do so, but it is simply immaterial, though it might somehow make you feel better or perhaps even justified if you feel a blinding need to rationalize the behavior of the Bush administration.
That urge to defend the Bush administration, by attacking Wilson, shows how much you represent followers, with the need to idolize your president, instead of hold him and his administration accountable, as the ordinary people they are, to their actions.
I know. No, you won’t see it, admit it, or let go of the Wilson side of the issue. For surely, there could be no fault within the Bush administration, so the fact there is some issue being dsicussed means you have to locate something else to hold up instead… even if it is those that are unhappy with governments behavior in this matter.
But, but, but, but Clinton… but Wilson… but Fitzgerald… but the indictment… but not Cheney or Bush… but nothing.
When, are you going to hold the government to the standards that you claim republicans have with respect to right and wrong. Right and wrong are not supposed to shift around because you support your party and its viewpoints.
The way it plays out, republicans aren’t for right and wrong and principles, they are for whatever they want, and principles be damned.
Strange how what people say is important is actually one of the first things they will stomp over for their own self-interests.
Yeah, I know, start throwing rocks at me now… I must need some discrediting or something.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Her whole cover was a joke. Wife of an ambassador is not a good cover story. [/quote]
Wrong. It’s quite a reasonable cover story, actually. She would not be expected to have anything more serious to do than ladies’ auxiliary stuff.
It was such a good cover that none of her friends or neighbors knew what she was up to. Fitz sent the FBI to check it out for sure. So you may not think it was a good cover story, but apparently it was working just peachy. Until Novak wrote his column.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bush 41 plays a big part in it too. This does not absolve Clinton for his weak reactions to terrorism.[/quote]
And of course, neither issue absolves W for screwing the pooch by botching the thing totally. You can’t ‘spin’ the US into a war and then expect the electorate is going to stay committed for the time required to make the mission a success. Nor can you expect enduring support from allies.
It should be pointed out too that Bush 43 started his career much mushier on terrorism than Clinton was by the end of his term. Bush’s team considered the terrorism thing less urgent than did their predecessors.
And to carefully separate Iraq from terrorism, Clinton had done everything militarily possible short of invading Iraq to bring Saddam into line.
[quote]vroom wrote:
The way it plays out, republicans aren’t for right and wrong and principles, they are for whatever they want, and principles be damned.[/quote]
Or as Rove and company so gleefully put it: “Whatever it takes.”
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes, let’s blame Wilson! It is all Wilson’s fault!
If it wasn’t for Wilson then Scooter and Rove wouldn’t have had to skirt breaking the law in order to discredit him.
Why oh why is it so freaking hard to split the two issues apart?
What Wilson did, or did not do, is not the issue in question. The issue in question is the behavior of key members of the Bush administration in response.
Wilson is a person.
The administration is the set of government power and authority for the nation.
Somehow, some of us think that the government has certain rules to be followed, for the protection of society, and that this is important.
If you want to whine about Wilson, then do so, but it is simply immaterial, though it might somehow make you feel better or perhaps even justified if you feel a blinding need to rationalize the behavior of the Bush administration.
That urge to defend the Bush administration, by attacking Wilson, shows how much you represent followers, with the need to idolize your president, instead of hold him and his administration accountable, as the ordinary people they are, to their actions.
I know. No, you won’t see it, admit it, or let go of the Wilson side of the issue. For surely, there could be no fault within the Bush administration, so the fact there is some issue being dsicussed means you have to locate something else to hold up instead… even if it is those that are unhappy with governments behavior in this matter.
But, but, but, but Clinton… but Wilson… but Fitzgerald… but the indictment… but not Cheney or Bush… but nothing.
When, are you going to hold the government to the standards that you claim republicans have with respect to right and wrong. Right and wrong are not supposed to shift around because you support your party and its viewpoints.
The way it plays out, republicans aren’t for right and wrong and principles, they are for whatever they want, and principles be damned.
Strange how what people say is important is actually one of the first things they will stomp over for their own self-interests.
Yeah, I know, start throwing rocks at me now… I must need some discrediting or something.[/quote]
Well said Vroom, well said!
I still haven’t seen the “compassionate conservatism” that W. promised to bring to the White House. Well, I guess he’s got compassion for Haliburton and Enron and big oil and brain dead women and microscopic embryo goo…
[quote]vroom wrote:
When, are you going to hold the government to the standards that you claim republicans have with respect to right and wrong. Right and wrong are not supposed to shift around because you support your party and its viewpoints.
The way it plays out, republicans aren’t for right and wrong and principles, they are for whatever they want, and principles be damned.
Strange how what people say is important is actually one of the first things they will stomp over for their own self-interests.
[/quote]
These statements summarizes the psychotic state that our government and nation are currently in. The truth doesn’t matter anymore, so long as the GOP is in control. “Whatever it takes” has become the mantra of the day and the people who have bought into it are the ones who end up paying for it in the end. They are just too blind by unhealthy and obsessive loyalty and devotion to see it. “Thank you big brother, may I have another!”
[quote]chadman wrote:
vroom wrote:
Yes, let’s blame Wilson! It is all Wilson’s fault!
If it wasn’t for Wilson then Scooter and Rove wouldn’t have had to skirt breaking the law in order to discredit him.
Why oh why is it so freaking hard to split the two issues apart?
What Wilson did, or did not do, is not the issue in question. The issue in question is the behavior of key members of the Bush administration in response.
Wilson is a person.
The administration is the set of government power and authority for the nation.
Somehow, some of us think that the government has certain rules to be followed, for the protection of society, and that this is important.
If you want to whine about Wilson, then do so, but it is simply immaterial, though it might somehow make you feel better or perhaps even justified if you feel a blinding need to rationalize the behavior of the Bush administration.
That urge to defend the Bush administration, by attacking Wilson, shows how much you represent followers, with the need to idolize your president, instead of hold him and his administration accountable, as the ordinary people they are, to their actions.
I know. No, you won’t see it, admit it, or let go of the Wilson side of the issue. For surely, there could be no fault within the Bush administration, so the fact there is some issue being dsicussed means you have to locate something else to hold up instead… even if it is those that are unhappy with governments behavior in this matter.
But, but, but, but Clinton… but Wilson… but Fitzgerald… but the indictment… but not Cheney or Bush… but nothing.
When, are you going to hold the government to the standards that you claim republicans have with respect to right and wrong. Right and wrong are not supposed to shift around because you support your party and its viewpoints.
The way it plays out, republicans aren’t for right and wrong and principles, they are for whatever they want, and principles be damned.
Strange how what people say is important is actually one of the first things they will stomp over for their own self-interests.
Yeah, I know, start throwing rocks at me now… I must need some discrediting or something.
Well said Vroom, well said!
I still haven’t seen the “compassionate conservatism” that W. promised to bring to the White House. Well, I guess he’s got compassion for Haliburton and Enron and big oil and brain dead women and microscopic embryo goo…[/quote]
Bush is expanding the federal government faster than Nixon and Nixon would be considered a pinko by todays GOP standards.
Democrats have a hard time hating Nixon because he was such a social liberal and put in place many wasteful federal programs.
On Nov 1, James Taranto of the WSJ ( Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal ) unearthed a CNBC transcript which suggested that, according to Andrea Mitchell anyway, Ms. Plame’s employment at the CIA was not a total mystery to interested reporters. From "The Capitol Report, Oct 3, 2003, just following the news of the criminal referral which moved this story onto the front pages:
[i]Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it. [/i]
Seems pretty clear, yes?
Apparently not. Ms. Mitchell was asked about this very exchange on “Imus in the Morning”. NewsMax has some a partial transcript ( http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/10/91245.shtml ), and we are deeply grateful (go to their site and click on an ad, won’t ya please?):
[i]IMUS: Apparently on October 3, 2003, you said it was "widely known" that Joe Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.
MITCHELL: Well, that was out of context.
IMUS: Oh, it was?
MITCHELL: It was out of context.
IMUS: Isn't that always the case?
MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."
And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you. The fact is what I was trying to express was that it was widely known that there was an envoy that I was tasking my producers and my researchers and myself to find out who was this secret envoy.
I did not know. We only knew because of an article in the Washington Post by Walter Pincus, and it was followed by Nicholas Kristof, that someone had known in that period.
IMUS: So you didn't say it was "widely known" that his wife worked at the CIA?
MITCHELL: I - I - I said it was widely known that an envoy had gone - let me try to find the quote. But the fact is what I was trying to say in the rest of that sentence - I said we did not know who the envoy was until the Novak column.
IMUS: Did you mention that Wilson or his wife worked at the CIA?
MITCHELL: Yes.
IMUS: Did you mention . . .
MITCHELL: It was in a long interview on CNBC.
IMUS: No, I understand that. But at any point, in any context, did you say that it was either widely known, not known, or whether it was speculated that his wife worked at the CIA.
MITCHELL: I said that it was widely known that - here's the exact quote - I said that it was widely known that Wilson was an envoy and that his wife worked at the CIA. But I was talking about . . .
IMUS: OK, so you did say that. It took me a minute to get that out of you.
MITCHELL: No, I was talking about after the Novak column. And that was not clear. I may have misspoken in October 2003 in that interview.
IMUS: When was the Novak column?
MITHCELL: The Novak column was on the 14th, July 12th or 14th of '03.
IMUS: So this was well after that?
MITCHELL: Well after that. That's why the confusion. I was trying to express what I knew before the Novak column and there was some confusion in that one interview.
IMUS: Who'd you find it out from? Russert?
MITCHELL: I found it out from Novak.
IMUS: Maybe Russert's lying?
MITCHELL: You know Tim Russert doesn't lie.
IMUS: Which would break little Wyatt Imus's heart, by the way.
MITCHELL: Well, which has not happened. But this is (unintelligible). We've got a whole new world of journalism out there where there are people writing blogs where they grab one thing and ignore everything else that I've written and said about this. And it supports their political view. And . . .
IMUS: Bingo.
MITCHELL: Bingo.[/i]
Well. I would hate to think that either Mr. Taranto or myself took her comment out of context, for political reasons or any other, so I have provided a fair use transcript of her interview below the fold ( JustOneMinute: Andrea Mitchell - More Media Backpedaling follow link and scroll down to end, right where comments would normally begin) (and I continue to plug “Lexis a la Carte” for the low budget sleuth - registration is free, the searches are free, and the chance to hammer these people with their own words is priceless. And at $3 a download, it is the equivalent of two cups of coffee, but so much more fun.)
And to further help out Ms. Mitchell, let’s add a bit of context right here, with a partial excerpt:
[i]MURRAY: Andrea, a couple of quick questions. One, you said something earlier that I wasn’t sure about. Bob Novak reported that two administration officials told him this. Are we any closer to having any idea who those two people are?
MITCHELL: No. And you know, there’s a lot of rumor. There’s been denials from the White House. Joe Wilson, he now inappropriately suggested that Karl Rove may have been the person. What he really should have been saying is that he believes Karl Rove was circulating the story after Novak put it out. So we don’t know who that person was. There have been suggestions regarding the vice president’s office. These have been denied. But it’s really…
MURRAY: Right.
MITCHELL: …inappropriate, I think, for any of us to suggest that someone might have been involved, because we’re talking about a possible crime, and we have no evidence of that.
MURRAY And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA?
MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn’t aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.[/i]
Emphasis added - in the first question she clearly distinguished between leaks occurring before and after the Novak column. Yet one question later, she completely misunderstood the point and answered as if Ms. Plame’s employment at the CIA was widely known after the Novak column?
So her current story is what, exactly? Let’s paraphrase the answer she would like us to believe she had in mind:
…the fact that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger, after Novak’s column came out.
Oh, stop it. Why the qualifier? I will hazard that after Novak’s column, her employment at the CIA was widely known, period.
Well, she and Lewis Libby can compare notes as to how their recovered memory therapy is going. If they can remember to get together.
Now, it is true that Ms. Mitchell has, on other occasions, denied knowing of any connection between Ms. Plame and the CIA. So why would she, uhh, misremember? Fortunately, she provided the motive for her faulty memory in her chat with Imus:
[i]MITCHELL: Don't you hate it when that happens? The fact is that I did not know - did not know before - did not know before the Novak column. And it was very clear because I had interviewed Joe Wilson several times, including on "Meet the Press."
And in none of those interviews did any of this come up, on or off camera - I have to tell you.[/i]
[i]RUSSERT: Well, ironically, when I was asked about this [the Wilson and wife story], I said, if I had known this, I would have told Andrea Mitchell. I would have told Pete Williams.
MITCHELL: In fact, Tim, you would have called me and said, `You hosted "Meet the Press" and questioned Joe Wilson and covered the agency and you didn't know that the wife--what's going on with you?'
RUSSERT: And I did call Neal Shapiro, the head of NBC News, and say, `You know, we have this high-level viewer complaint about what's on cable,' and that--you know, that was the extent of my sharing information with Neal Shapiro.
GREGORY: Wait...
RUSSERT: If I had known something with--then I would have said to Neal--and Neal would have said, `Get to the cameras.' Or you know what? Actually it is so sensitive...
MITCHELL: We would have decided not to...
RUSSERT: ...I would have even talked--we would have talked it through and said...
MITCHELL: Right.
RUSSERT: ...`Hey, what about this?' or `Should we check her status?' It's easy to say that in hindsight, but I...
MITCHELL: In fact, we should tell...[/i]
Uh huh. That is just what the NBC journalists should have done. It might have diminished the impact of the story - "CIA Spouse says, ‘CIA right, White House wrong’ " - but it’s what they should have done. Or, if Ms. Plame’s status at the CIA could not have been disclosed, it might have meant that Andrea would have to pass on the interview.
Fortunately, Ms. Mitchell now realizes that she didn’t know about any such Wilson and wife connection, so the journalistic issues never could have arisen. That’s the ticket.
Oh, she is going to be one fine witness for the defense. At a minimum, she buttresses the notion that memories are failing all over Washington. Hey - perhaps she will inspire Libby to adopt a “Something in the water” defense.
MORE: Yes, while disclosing the possible motivations for the Wilson story, NBC might have wanted to offer the caveat that Wilson had become an advisor to the Kerry campaign in May 2003 ( In probe of CIA leak, two sides see politics - The Boston Globe ). Well, that tidbit escaped their sleuthing, too:
[i]Kerry's advisers acknowledged yesterday that Wilson, who has also donated $2,000 to Kerry this year, told them about his allegations against the White House involving his wife before going public with them this summer. But Rand Beers, Kerry's top adviser on foreign affairs, said the campaign has not played a role in coordinating Wilson's charges.[/i]
[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston, you expect us to get excited about a bunch of political blogs? Get serious.[/quote]
It’s funny how your view of various ‘media’ outlets and their authenticity are directly correlated to their position wrt your own.
As a matter of point:
I’m talking about your use of bloggers and op ed pieces from blatantly left radical publications that you have used to substantiate your posts.
