Saturday, September 02, 2006

The difference between being ideological and blindly partisan. . .

. . . was evidenced last week when The Washington Post wrote this:
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

… it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

The Post may be left-leaning, but they are interested in getting the story right while the New York Times only seems interested in stories that hurt the administration. Once anything contrary comes to a negative Bush story it immediately hits the back pages. Ann Coulter wondered recently why the Times never unearths any “secret” Al Qaeda plans. So true.

Notice also that the Post reports that it was actually Wilson playing politics when he said that uranium shopping charge was without merit. The British have always maintained that it was true and even the Post has come around to agreeing.

So not only was Wilson the real villain, but the administration’s worry that Iraq was trying to build a WMD has merit in the main stream media. Do you think it will take hold and be the new frame for the debate? No. It will take history to understand what an important act invading Iraq was. Of course, historians may overlook that small victory if Democrats are given the opportunity to surrender before this war is complete.

1 comment:

E said...

I read an op-ed in the Times on Wednesday 8/30 discussing why Rove-as-villain had such legs and Armitage-as-leaker has no political value and has received scant attention.

I also saw a Times article today, linked by Drudge, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/washington/02leak.html?ei=5065&en=1939cd793ece790a&ex=1157774400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print, that says Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald knew from day one of the investigation that Armitage was the leaker, yet continued to investigate for 2 years, resulting in the feeble charges against Scooter Libby.

Post a Comment