Holy Crap!!!! The WP Is Distributing the KOOL AID BIGTIME!!!!

[Beetwasher]

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.

Rather than follow the usual declassification procedures and then invite reporters to a briefing -- as the White House eventually did -- Vice President Cheney initially chose to be secretive, ordering his chief of staff at the time, I. Lewis Libby, to leak the information to a favorite New York Times reporter. The full public disclosure followed 10 days later. There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about that; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security. Nevertheless, Mr. Cheney's tactics make Mr. Bush look foolish for having subsequently denounced a different leak in the same controversy and vowing to "get to the bottom" of it.

--snip--

The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

--snip--

As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.

--snip--

:wow: Holy crap, this is insane. Step right up, get yer Koolaid!

I don't even know where to begin. They are totally and completely pushing Chimpy's propoganda and ignoring all the salient facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

[OKNancy]

1. I'd like to know who wrote that editorial

It doesn't list an author. The whole thing sounds like it was written by Ken Melhman or some other GOP hack.

[Cocoa]

10. Bob Woodward maybe

or Ben Domenech. :-)

[Cooley Hurd]

22. ...or Steno Sue Schmidt.

:grr:

[Zorra]

15. It's such a blatant lie that even a republican is afraid to put

their name on it.

That editorial is one toxic dose of kool-aid.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. It was written at the behest of the RNC.

The WaPo is now only good for toilet paper.

[walldude]

38. The authors name is Fred Hiatt... from C&L:

Jane writes an excellent piece debunking Fred Hiatt's op-ed in the Washington Post called," A Good Leak." It actually has a mechanism in place that Fred seems to lack.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/09.html#a7857

[Earth_First]

2. Grape, please! n/t

[Roland99]

3. That whole Editorial sounds like it was written by Stephen Hayes

[0007]

39. My God! Then why didn't junior come out in front when he declassified

the documents instead of claiming he didn't know who the leaker was.

After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.

[Spazito]

4. Who knew! I had no idea that Rove was actually on the editorial

board of the WP but this is proof positive. What a load of crap this is and the Post's news article totally debunks it's own editorial, how absolutely bizarre!

[Beetwasher]

5. It Is Frighteningly Bizarre

n/t

[mdmc]

6. I read the article and I can't find anything wrong

help me understand what I am missing. They point out that the way this leak occured made Bush look "foolish".

[Beetwasher]

11. Huh?

1. Wilson didn't twist the truth. They say the NIE supported Chimpy, it didn't. Chimpy only declassified the portions that supported him and left out the dissenting conclusions.

2. They slam Fitz as having accomplished nothing in 2 years.

3. Plame WAS NOC. That's a fact, yet read this:

"Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing."

Supposed whistleblowing? "...Blowing the cover of his wife...who HE SAID was an undercover CIA op"????? This is NOT in doubt at all. The investigation was instigated by the CIA because she WAS undercover.

They completely gloss over the charges against Libby for obstruction as if they're meaningless. They ask NONE of the important questions, like WHY lie for 2 years if this was all okey dokey? The reason
Fitz can't get to WHO leaked her status is because THEY ARE ALL OBSTRUCTING.

They totally gloss over how serious blowing Plames cover was as a crime and make it seem as if this leak was no big deal and NOT dangerous to National Security and ONLY handled sloppily. WHY HAS CHIMPY BEEN LYING FOR TWO YEARS THAT HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS?!!! That's not salient to you?

Every paragraph in the Editorial has major problems with the truth. Get it now?

[mdmc]

16. i'll have to read again

:shrug:

[mdmc]

23. I am still having a hard time "getting it"

:shrug:

[Beetwasher]

24. Seriously?

You're the only one.

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2561072

If you don't get it after reading that, then that's pretty sad.

[mdmc]

25. keep in mind that I am not that smart

let me check out your link and see if it helps me. If w. committed treason, why wouldn't the dems make hay of it? If w. selectively declassified parts of a cia report for political gain, to force the USA into a war that we did not need to fight, why are the dems not basically shutting down the government?

Let me take a look at the link that you have provided for me. Peace and low stress.

[mdmc]

26. I read your link and it only confused me more.

did w. commit treason?

how should the dems react?

Your link suggests that the wp is telling two different stories at the same time. I can't tell the difference between the two stories (perhaps because I already know that w. is a traitor).

Since I don't get it, please tell me what this situation means to the Dems. Are the dems going to do anything about this? What is the next step? Where do we go from here?

[Beetwasher]

30. Umm, This isn't About the Dems

Or about "Where do we go from here".

Did Chimpy commit treason? Possibly. The person who leaked Plame's name and CIA status DID commit treason. Was it Chimpy? Maybe.

Where do we go from here? We don't go anywhere, this isn't about politics it's about a crime and the investigation of it.

This thread is about the WP's disconnect and total whoring for the Admin and their spreading of lies and Repub talking points and propoganda, not about the Dems and making political hay about this issue.

[mdmc]

31. gotcha

whitewater was also about crime and investigation. I submit that is was also political.

Thanks you for all of your follow up. I think I now fully understand your OP - the wp is a right wing rag that is shilling for the GOP.

[Beetwasher]

32. Heh? There Was No Crime In Whitewater

None. That was ALL political. Why even mention it? It's totally irrelevant to this discussion.

This investigation was initiated by the CIA because the cover of one of their agent's was blown which is a very serious crime w/ nat'l sec. implications. The crime came first, then the investigation which was initiated by the CIA, not politicians.

Whitewater was instigated by the Repubs trying to find a crime that was never committed. They failed.

[mdmc]

33. clinton purjured himself and got censured

that was "the crime" of whitewater:eyes:. Hopefully w. will get censured as well. Impeached or jailed...:kick:

[Beetwasher]

34. Bullshit

WTF are you talking about? That happened later. There was no crime in whitewater to investigate in the first place. It was an investigation that was based on NO CRIME. Usually, a crime happens and THEN you investigate. That didn't happen in WW. It was instigated PURELY for political reasons.

Why the fuck would you even mention it in this thread? It's irrelevant anyway.

[mdmc]

36. although whitewater involved no crime

Starr's wide net ended up catching our President lying under oath, resulting in a censure.

I guess I mentioned it because I don't understand this leak.

This is what I think I know:

Bush leaked classified info (he "declassified" it and approved of leaking it to Miller).
The info that he leaked "countered" Joe Wilson claim that the USA was exaggerating Iraqs nuke threat. (it turns out that this info was wrong, Joe Wilson was right).

Is this correct? What else am I missing?

[Beetwasher]

37. Bush Approved SELECTIVE Leaking of Classified Info

Cheney gave orders to Libby to secretly leak the secretly declassified, cherry picked info. This may or may not have included Plame's name and NOC status. Leaking Plame's name was a crime. Obstructing the investigation by lying to investigators is ALSO a crime. Both crimes are very serious.

There's tons of articles out there all about this that would explain it very, very clearly, just do a quick search, I'm not your secretary nor am I here to personally educate you.

WW is irrelevant to this, I don't know why you brought it up, it makes you look like a troll. If I were you I'd drop it.

[mdmc]

40. ok

:shrug:

[dogday]

7. I would not let my bird crap on this paper nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. That had to have come, unedited, directly from the White House.

Maybe the NSA helped KKKarl hack into WaPo's computer system and stick that "editorial" in the paper just before it went to press. Either that or KKKarl has kidnapped the famly of the op-ed page editor. There's no other plausible explanation for what I just read.

[acmejack]

9. And this is a surprise for what reason?

We knew the Wapo was on the payroll didn't we?

[KoKo]

18. And, Woodward may be in deep trouble since Fitz's document release

shows that Bush "declassified" special tidbits just to give to Woodward for his book. I would think there's trouble down the road for Woodward's "special privileges" and the media is protecting it's own.

Firedoglake and Jeralyn Merrit have pointed this out in their combing through the documents. It's shocking that Woodward had access to information that even our own Democrats in Congress didn't. All so he could write a book that would pump up the Chimp.

WaPo and NYT's are hardly worth reading they are so embedded with Chimp & Co......disgusting...

[Dinger]

12. Could He Sue? (For ANy Number Of Reasons)

libel, defamation of character, etc. I don't know - I'm not a lawyer. I did hear Wilson say on MTP this morning that he was keeping his options open.

[berni_mccoy]

13. Sounds like this was written by Dick Cheney himself

[Justice Is Comin]

14. This is counter

to almost everything that's out there boiling Bush in oil.

This is some Republican slanted dufus using his blow hole to spew heavily debunked crap.

[Zorra]

19. kick - this is too funny to let it sink

[Sparkly]

20. You're right -- it's hard to know where to begin!!

Anything Libby didn't say happened, never happened... Fitz did NOT declare that Bush didn't authorize the Plame leak -- only that Libby hasn't said so.

Wilson did NOT say Cheney sent him to Niger, he said the CIA sent him in response to questions from the VP.

It is ALL about the phony claims about uranium; and "releasing some of the information" meant leaking a TINY part of a kitchen-sink report -- that part that was already disputed. (Hence the SOTU phrasing that the BRITS had discovered it -- they knew their ground was shaky.)

Libby is also charged with obstruction of justice, is he not? It's more than just lying about "discussions with reporters."

The White House has refused to state WHEN, let alone how, the President declassified the information Libby leaked.

And it takes a very myopic view to think Wilson's report supported the "conclusion" that Saddam sought yellowcake from Niger. (Funny too, that it's now "Iraq" who sought it, not Saddam...)

This is all stale, recycled rightwing talking points straight from Rove and the RNC -- the very same ones they've been spinning for years. It's really outrageous to see this in an editorial from what used to be a reliable NEWSpaper.

[Cocoa]

21. Think Progress exposes the lies in this editorial

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/09/post-mangles-facts/

Washington Post Praises Bush Leak, Mangles Facts

This morning, the Washington Post published an editorial — entitled “A Good Leak” — vigorously defending President Bush’s decision to authorize a leak of classified information as part of a political effort to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Apparently, it isn’t a very strong case because, in order to make their point, the editors had to mangle the facts –

<snip>

CLAIM: There is no evidence of a White House effort to punish Wilson. “Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative…After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge.”

FACT:

Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 – which evidence has been shared with defendant – it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson.

<snip>

CLAIM: Wilson’s op-ed has been discredited; his report supported White House claims. “The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.”

FACT:

Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove…he Senate panel conclusions didn’t discredit Wilson. The committee concluded that the Niger intelligence information wasn’t solid enough to be included in the State of the Union speech. It added that Wilson’s report didn’t change the minds of analysts on either side of the issue…

[Flubadubya]

27. George Will must have read this before he went on "This Weak"...

He was all piss and vinegar yesterday spewing this very premise. Yuck! I thought I would vomit when I heard all that. Here's the discussion on Will's "water-carrying" tirade:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=886605&mesg_id=886605

[Blue_Roses]

28. Justice Kennedy has addressed the careless editorial writing

Kennedy's Assault on Editorial Writers

By Charles Lane
Monday, April 3, 2006; Page A17

Although the Supreme Court tries to make its opinions as clear and convincing as possible, its decisions do occasionally come in for criticism on the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers.

For the most part, the court has absorbed its negative reviews stoically. But one justice, Anthony M. Kennedy, apparently has had enough of the slings and arrows. Lately, he has been publicly lashing out at editorialists who, he says, write as if they have not even read the court's opinions.


Last week, he addressed the American Society of International Law in Washington. In response to a question about how the organization could enhance public understanding of the role of foreign law in Supreme Court opinions -- a controversial topic of late -- Kennedy replied: "One thing you can do is suggest to editorial writers that they read the opinions before they write their editorials."

Daily news reporters, despite deadline pressure, do a reasonable job of explaining what the court did, though "not why we did it," Kennedy observed. But, he said, editorial writers, who "do not have the excuse of time pressure," frequently "misinterpret" the court's reasoning.


more...




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/02/AR2006040200841.html


Glad to see him calling them on their lies.

[mdmc]

29. what should the dems do about this?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

35. yawn .... !

[0007]

41. You tell us, 'eh?

[mdmc]

42. to be honest, I am not sure that I fully understand the situation

I do remember the 2003 sotu where w. stated that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake. I thought to myself, 'now we need to go to war with Iraq and Niger'.

Perhaps you can spell it out for me. What does this mean?

Is it possible that the special prosecutor will go after Cheney or Bush?
Is it possible that chIMPEACHMENT might occur?

I am not sure why so many DU'ers here are so hostile regarding this event. I am honestly trying to figure out what it all means. I think that it means that w. declassified info to support the war, lied about it, and now has been caught. :shrug:

peace and low stress.