|
sentence of the whole article on Rove's pickle. RawStory is quoting from the NYT, word for word. And either you or RawStory has left out a sentence, without indicating such. The NYT story reads as follows (note the sentence you have left out**).
"Lawyers in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald would spend the coming days reviewing the transcript of Mr. Rove's three hours of testimony on Wednesday and weigh it against his previous statements to the grand jury as well as the testimony of others, including a sworn statement that Mr. Rove's lawyer gave to the prosecutor earlier this year. **The lawyers were granted anonymity so they could speak about the internal legal deliberations in Mr. Rove's case.**
"A lawyer with knowledge of the case...etc."
---------------
Why is this sentence the best--or, at least, the most interesting? Because it reveals the high and mighty attitude of the liars and warmongers at the NYT, and their clever little deceitful ways. For instance, their using the passive tense: "The lawyers **were granted** anonymity." Libby's defense lawyers have been leaking like a sieve, trying to manipulate public opinion. They even leaked a document, last week, that Fitzgerald hadn't filed yet! And the judge has threatened a gag order. So-o-o-o-o-o, the NYT now takes it upon its lofty self to "grant anonymity" to Rove's lawyers, to talk about the case. But they don't say so upfront--that they are actively interfering with the case--no, they put it in the passive tense: the lawyers "were granted" anonymity by somebody or other, unnamed.
This "anonymity" that the NYT is "granting" also has resonance with the matter of their lying, deceitful, warmongering, Rumsfeld-cozy reporter Judith Miller, whose blather about WMDs they splashed all over their front page for months, prior to the Iraq invasion; who had clandestine meetings with Scooter Libby, at which he passed her classified disinformation about Iraq WMDs, to add to the crap she was shoveling our way from Ahmed Chalabi (also on the Pentagon's payroll), and during which they discussed Valerie Plame, prior to the Bush junta outing of Plame and outing of the entire covert, CIA WMD counter-proliferation network which she headed, putting all of its covert agents and contacts at risk of getting killed.
Fitzgerald put Judith Miller in jail for protecting Libby, as if Dick Cheney's chief aide committing a major crime--the endangerment of the lives of our own agents, a felony, if not treason--was entitled to be called a whistleblower and to be protected as a source. A "whistleblower" on WHAT?
All this was done--the lies, the deceit, the skulduggery, the treason--under cover of the NYT by their "star" reporter.
Now they do this puff piece for Rove, in which this pickled dollop of uncontested propaganda appears:
"Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Mr. Rove, said Mr. Rove would be cleared. 'We're confident at the end of this that Mr. Fitzgerald is going to find that Karl has been totally truthful and not only has done nothing wrong but has done everything right,' Mr. Corallo said."
All so passively said in neato, phony, high class, "objective," journalistic style.
Never leave out New York Times' passive tense sentences. You never know what they're hiding in them.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
