Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Daniel Schorr drank the Kool-Aid re Plame/Armitage

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
carolinayellowdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 08:42 AM
Original message
Daniel Schorr drank the Kool-Aid re Plame/Armitage
Hey,

First the WP, then the NYT, now NPR. Just now Daniel Schorr joined the chorus on Weekend Edition. All touting the transparent lie that the revelation of Armitage's role somehow erases everything that has already come out about Libby, Rove, and Cheney. Move along, nothing to see here.

He's had an honorable career and is ninety years old, so I won't let this destroy my respect for him. But it is reaching the point where, on the subject of Plame, my view of the news media is THEY'RE ALL DAMN LIARS.

CYD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Schorr is correct. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'm not going to let you get away with that.
Explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. I second that. Making a short, declarative statement is RW tactic.
Giving a reality based, thoughtful response is how we lefty liberals do it.

Please elaborate. MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. Chickenshit bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clark08 Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
17. If they knew it was Armitage from the begining
why did they procede? I had hopes that this would be something big.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. "I had hopes that this would be something big."
You don't think suppressing information that went against their "case" for war, and then targeting a truth-teller and outing a CIA agent in the process, is something big?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. That Armitage is the originl leaker
and did so accidentally most likely is false framing. I don't see Libby walking yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Yes, your anguish is evident.
:eyes: MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, he is buying into the story...
Yet the fact remains that Cheney and Bush ordered their flunkeys to go on the attack and then lied about their involvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. You cannot prove that. No one can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Sigh, I hope another poster provides this misguided soul with the
Edited on Sat Sep-02-06 09:18 AM by BleedingHeartPatriot
evidence on Fitz's website.


However, something tells me we're dealing with one who enjoys a few sips of a fine cherry red now and again. MKJ

Edited to add link, even knowing it's probably fruitless. You should take a look through the evidence, then we'll talk.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/legal_proceedings.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Libby's own testimony says it came from Cheney
As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.

Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year -- in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there -- as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. There is no public evidence to suggest Libby made any such disclosure with Cheney's knowledge. But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html
(This is one of the factual articles the WP's 'creative' editorials contradict.)

See also:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608290009
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609010001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609020003
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
23. I know you are, but what am I?
More juvenile GOP antics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
4. We're Supposed To Believe That armitage "Innocently" Gossiped A Bit,
and that's fucking it???? It is really stunning how such a lame statement (It's NO excuse) is supposed to erase everything like magic. Cripes, they're getting lazy as hell - can't even come up with a CREATIVE lie any more - hell, even KKKarl is creative with his bloodthirsty bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Time to throw Armitage to the wolves. It's scapegoat time. n/t
MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Nobody willingly goes to jail
for obstruction of justice and perjury based on an accidental leak. They would show that it was accidental. That these "journalists" push the garbage they do is alarming feature of life in America now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
10. It's not Either / Or
this was a coordinated GROUP effort
of Bush Cheney Rove Libby Armitage and many more.

By definition... a conspiracy.

And It's amazing what these crooks will do to
wiggle off the hook.. don't believe a word of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Conspiracy, that's the word. n/t
MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carolinayellowdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Even if Armitage was an unwitting instrument
it was still a conspiracy, instigated by Cheney and carried out mainly by Libby, with Bush's encouragement and Rove's assistance.

How does Armitage's ignorance of how he was being used(and I'm willing to accept his claim, at least for the sake of argument) let any of the rest of them off the hook?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Armitage's ignorance and the State Dept. memo
Armitage learned of Plame's identity from a State Dept. memo ordered by Libby to protect Cheney.

Was that the same infamous memo that had her identity marked as "secret?" If it's a different one, was her identity marked "secret" on this one, as well? If NOT, why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
15. Why should we believe Armitage wasn't part of the plan?
The WaPo excuses his involvement by describing him as a reluctant supporter of the war yet he signed the 1998 letter urging Clinton to engage in military action against Iraq:

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

So Armitage signed this letter, along with other PNACers like Fukayama, Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld, and folks don't think he would be involved in a scheme to discredit Wilson? I'm sorry, but even though Armitage is a heck of a nice guy who is friendly to reporters and respectful when testifying in Congress he is still a longtime member of the crowd that got us into Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
20. Daniel Schorr is an asshole. He drank the Kool-Aid a long time ago.
I listened to him throughout the invasion of Iraq--thinking that I might get some better information from public radio than I was getting from the New York Times and the rest of the war profiteering corporate news monopoly press.

He lied with the best of them. Damned lies. Outright lies. Lies we all knew to be lies.

I have no respect for him. None.

This is the chorus of lies and deceit--NYT, WaPo, NPR--who cheered on the slaughter of some 100,000 innocent Iraqis, and the torture of many more, and the looting of our federal treasury, as well as the looting of Iraq, and the destruction of that country and its descent into civil war.

A more disgusting bunch of government lapdogs we have never seen--except inside Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. And maybe in North Korea and Uzbekistan.

And we are supposed to chow down on their latest bullshit--that Richard Armitage outed Valerie Plame and the entire CIA WMD counter-proliferation network that she was head of?*

It's utter crap. It's a coverup--and only the latest of a Byzantine maze of coverups of treason and possibly murder.*

One of their coverup strategies was to plant seeds all over town--they called at least half a dozen reporters, in this effort--to make it appear that "everybody knew." They wanted these "seeds" to come back to them, so they could say, "Oh, yeah, I heard that from so-and-so." Armitage fits right into this strategy--as the latest planter of "seeds." The fact missing from this version of the coverup--as from all of them--is the SECOND outing, of the entire Brewster-Jennings counter-proliferation network (four days after the Plame outing--in a second column by Novak). This second outing goes way, way beyond being either a mistake of gossip (Armitage) or political revenge (Rove). It was an act that put peoples' lives in immediate danger, and destroyed an entire counter-proliferation project, twenty years in the making. It was a gauntlet thrown down at the feet of the CIA. And nobody does that--nobody!--on their own initiative at Armitage's and Rove's level. That had to come from Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, or all three.


-------------------------------------

*(There were TWO outings. The outing of Valerie Plame, on July 14, 2003, by Novak. And the outing of Brewster-Jennings, the entire counter-proliferation network, on July 22, 2003--also by Novak--this latter putting all of our covert counter-proliferation agents/contacts around the world at risk of getting killed, and disabling all projects, at a time when our government was obsessed with WMDs and the national security issues around them. Now explain THAT to me. Just that part. Not just HER name--but ADDITIONALLY, the name of her entire network. And now explain this: In between those dates, on July 18, 2003--four days AFTER Plame was outed, and four days BEFORE Brewster-Jennings was outed--the British chief WMD expert, David Kelly-- who had been whistleblowing anonymously to the BBC about the exaggerated pre-war WMD intel (late May)--was found dead, under highly suspicious circumstances, and his office and computers were searched. One more thing: David Kelly was mysteriously outed to his bosses in late June, and was interrogated at a "safe house" and threatened with the Official Secrets Act. On July 7, a week before Plame was outed, Tony Blair was informed that David Kelly "could say some uncomfortable things." (Hutton Report.) Not HAD said. COULD say. A week later, Plame is outed. Four days later, Kelly is dead. Four days after that, Brewster-Jennings is outed. If this was the work of Richard Armitage--innocently gossiping to his DC buddies about Plame's identity--I'll eat my computer. There is something very big here being covered up--beyond all these outings. My best guess: A Bushite/Blairite scheme to PLANT nukes in Iraq--following up on the Niger nuke forgeries--to be "discovered" by the U.S. troops in Iraq who were so avidly "hunting" for the WMDs that everybody knew weren't there. Connective tissue: Judith Miller (major Iraq war propagandist for the NYT), who was accompanying the U.S. troops who were "hunting" for those fabled WMDs, and to whom David Kelly wrote one of his last emails, on the day he died, in which he expressed concern about "the many dark actors playing games." What could David Kelly have known, that could have gotten him killed? What were they searching for in his office and computers, after he died? The name of the someone or someones in the Brewster-Jennings network who had FOILED the planting of phony nukes in Iraq. Blair knew that Kelly knew "some uncomfortable things" on July 7. Plame outed July 14. Kelly, killed for knowing too much, July 17-18. They found out more--and on July 22 outed the entire BJ network, putting all coverts connected in any way with that network at great risk of getting killed.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. What you said about Schorr
is what I think of your commentary about him. Daniel Schorr's commentary is often wise and usually right on the money. He's someone well worth listening too, and your claim that he's swallowed the koolaid is just vicious bullshit. FU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-02-06 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. How does one explain
how poorly informed he is on the issue?

I think we have to accept the fact that, when it comes to issues that have flown under the radar for so long, e.g. electronic voting fraud, Plame, ginned up war in Iraq, that many folks who only hear the mainstream news media are ill informed and easily duped.

The reason so many Dem leaders and liberal icons are behind the curve on Bush crimes is because they still hang out in the same small social circles and don't look outside their traditional sources of news for information.

I don't know any other way to explain it. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pratzen Donating Member (6 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-03-06 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
25. "my view of the news media is THEY'RE ALL DAMN LIARS."
When one climbs the mountain that high, it could be
re-examination time. 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Mar 13th 2025, 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC