My LTTE...please comment

[manic expression]

The very likely possibility that Karl Rove, Bush’s foremost political mentor and advisor, had leaked the identity of an undercover CIA operative because of her husband’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq is very serious, one that the country should be exploring in depth. This leak was clearly done to intimidate any person in the government who would merely question the administration’s reasons (now thoroughly discredited) or aim to invade Iraq. The operative’s husband, Joe Wilson, the former ambassador (appointed by President HW Bush) to Gabon and Sao Tome, was sent to Niger to investigate the claim that Saddam Hussein sought the means to develop weapons of mass destruction from the region. When Wilson found that there was every indication to the fact that Hussein did NOT do any of this (and absolutely no evidence of the contrary), Wilson then wrote an op-ed article in New York Times, in which he reported what he had found (or not found). Soon afterwards, Robert Novak wrote an op-ed which exposed Valerie Plame (Wilson’s wife) to be a CIA operative. Novak claimed that two senior White House officials gave him the information. This is surely retribution against Wilson for showing the truth to the White House’s false claims on Iraq. Not only is this an act against simply opposing the Bush Administration’s aims, not only is this a very low act against an individual who tried to report the truth to the American people, this is an act of treason. The officials who did this need to be found and held accountable for, in effect, endangering the life of an American operative for political motives. The White House has time and again stated that Karl Rove was not involved, and that those involved would be “taken care of”. However, now that Karl Rove has been linked to this scandal, no move has been made to hold him accountable in any way, and this proves that the Bush Administration lied to the American people to protect an official, as well as their own guilt. The White House continues to stonewall the American people on this issue, which is virtually an obstruction of justice.

(It's still in progress, any suggestions would be great, thanks!)

[back2basics909]

1. I would...

Change the part that says she was ousted because her husband was against the war in Iraq. He was just doing his job he was disagreeing with the intelligence. We should not paint him as a "war critic" as they will.

The DU activists are me hero’s! After the war you will all get a parade :)

[manic expression]

2. Thanks for the suggestion!

:hi:

[lebkuchen]

3. A great breakdown in simple terms for those who haven't been keeping up

You won't lose a reader on this one.

You might consider closing it with something about the Code Red importance of national security in the wake of 9-11, the Bali bombings, the Madrid bombings and the London bombings, and the necessity of having people on the WH staff who do not jeopardize that security or break the law by outing deep cover CIA agents (as an act of political revenge).

[manic expression]

5. Thanks a lot

I'll add that in.

[T Roosevelt]

4. I would change this sentence

since nobody cares about Gabon and Sao Tome (apologies to Gabonese and Sao Tomites?)

The operative’s husband, Joe Wilson, a former ambassador (appointed by President HW Bush) who served in both Niger and Iraq, was sent...

[manic expression]

6. Good point

I forgot he served in Iraq. Thanks.

[Ready2Snap]

7. Is this an LTTE or an op-ed piece

If this is a LTTE it's way too long(359 word count.) Most papers want
short, punchy letters that distill an observation or opinion. They have writers to
detail a story the way you have(albeit with a more unbiased perspective.)
But you do show a good grasp of the story and details.

It also helps if you reference an article or op-ed that appeared in the paper in the last few days.
Also break up your thoughts. Nothing turns readers off faster than coming upon a page completely covered in text.
So unless you just like to rant, make it appealling;
make me want to read it.

I wrote this to the LA Times earlier today. Feel free to cherry-pick anything that catches your eye.

Re: "Democrats Take Aim at Rove in Leak Case," July 12

The cover-up of the Plame outing, that has been incubating for the last two years,
may very well be a repeat of the one 30 years ago.
This administration's predilection for secrecy and demonstrated need to stifle anything that varies
from official pronouncements will be its ruin.

"Those who don't learn from history . . ." must be the truest, and saddest adage ever uttered.
I am heartsick at the prospect of another Nixon fiasco, steeped in the same hubris
and secretiveness that fostered the last. And the shame that will be visited on us once again as a nation.

Short and to the point - 5 sentences, 101 words, and every one does work.
Looking forward to your next draft; let me know if I can help.

[BeHereNow]

8. Your points are EXCELLENT! Give them power by

putting them into CONCISE bullet point format!
Leave out all personal commentary-
Just the fact, just the facts.
Remember, the average American can only digest
small increments of information.

Other than that suggestion
-:yourock:
BHN