Josh Marshall on Steno Sue's Wilson/Plame story

[Rose Siding]

He tears it up. His attention to detail here gives some credence to the theory that this involves the hinted at Big Story Coming

I'll dispense with the literary prologue and get right to the point.

Susan Schmidt is known, happily among DC Republicans and not so happily among DC Democrats, as what you might call the "Mikey" (a la Life Cereal fame) of the DC press corps, especially when the cereal is coming from Republican staffers.

This morning she has an article on the Senate intel report and Joe Wilson, specifically focusing on the relevance of Wilson's reporting on Niger (the report says analysts did not see Wilson's findings as weakening claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger) and his wife's role in recommending him for the assignment.

We'll discuss the broader issues of Plame's role in Wilson's assignment and the underlying question of the alleged Iraq-Niger negotiations. A clearer-eyed take on Wilson and report can be found here in this story by Knight Ridder. But for now a few points on Schmidt's treatment.

In her fourth paragraph Schmidt writes that "contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."

This is one of those cases in which it's helpful to actually read the report rather than just run with what you've got from the majority committee staffer who gave you the spin........more......

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_04.php#003143

Here's the WP link

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

[Dudley_DUright]

1. Josh just eviscerates Steno Sue's so called reporting

My favorite part was when he reveals that she can't get straight the difference between Iraq and Iran at the end of his post. :eyes:

[Rose Siding]

3. We'll probably see a correction

on page D-17

[LizW]

4. Oh my god that's beautiful

He totally destroys her credibility point by point, saving the very best for last.

And I love the final little dig: "...although it's the kind of error you'd think an editor might have caught."

Masterful!

:nuke:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

2. Whammo. Nice job, Josh.

[buycitgo]

5. ha; what an indescribable POS

I have video tape of my questions to her on a CSPAN broadcast of Jim BLowhannon's radio show, in which I asked her why she didn't cover Jean Lewis' meltdown before the committee questioning her, during which she obviously perjured herself, then failed to return for afternoon session

Schmidt, as well, left in the morning, and didn't return, but said she was SURE that somebody at the Post wrote about that.

well, they DIDNT, but I coulndn't prove a negative at the time.

she was clearly taken aback by the several hostile callers

will have to see if I can find, transcribe it.

I also got her on a radio show from Denver, and accused her of being a stenographer for Starr, mentioning how Gene Lyons caught her in a huge lie. all she could do was say he wrote for an ARKANSAS newspaper, so he was clearly biased

problem with that is Arkansas Gazettes is HUGELY antiClinton, and he's had trouble getting things published there, on occasion

[Tatiana]

6. This is outrageous!

Steno Sue strikes again! I emailed the ombudsman, and I'd encourage everyone to as well.

Michael Getler is the ombudsman for The Washington Post. Before taking on this position in November 2000, he served as executive editor of the International Herald Tribune from 1996 until 2000. He can be reached at [phone] or by e-mail at [e-mail], or c/o The Washington Post, 1150 15th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20071.

[Rose Siding]

7. I did too!

I suspect the simple correction (Iran/Iraq) will be made on a 'corrections' page. The others are, sadly, more complex and so, more DASTARDLY. Maybe the Ombudsman will write about them (they do that, don't they?)

[buycitgo]

10. why waste time on ombudsman

she's one of the WORST of all time

makes Janet Cooke looke like IF Stone

they WANT her to do what she's doing

[buycitgo]

8. just revisting those halcyon Scmhidt/Weiskopf/Starr days

here are a few gems

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:FolKmdmdLp8J:www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/9634/pimps.html+toobin+susan+schmidt+&hl=en

this is what I mean:
For longtime fans of Schmidt's artistic ouevre, this will bring back warm memories of the mid-1990s, when anti-Clinton crank Jean Lewis (a key source for Schmidt's Whitewater stories) was testifying before Congress. Schmidt's article for the Post the next day not only ignored the inconsistencies in her testimony uncovered during questioning, it failed to mention that she had responded to this unexpected cross-examination by fainting (or pretended to faint) and being carried out of the hearing room. The big news that had crowded out these meaningless details? Why, Lewis had mentioned the name of Gennifer Flowers at one point -- and that was the focus of Schmidt's coverage

this is from an earlier article, dealing with Schmidt's April attempt to smear/denigrate Wilson

wonder if JMM read that one
http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/weblog.php?id=P1184

anybody heard of needlenose?
good stuff there

[enough]

9. If there were any shame left in the Washington press,

you'd think the WaPo would be embarrassed.

[buycitgo]

11. not at all, especially if Len Downie is still running things

it's what they WANT to have happen

they're so far up the junta's ass, with a few, occasional and minor, exceptions, that they're hardly worth paying attention to

why bother?

[welshTerrier2]

12. Who wrote the Niger memo?

When the Plame story first broke and Wilson made the talk show rounds, I listened very carefully to him ... he did not strike me as a highly partisan individual ... i found him to be a man of great integrity and highly credible ...

and if this judgment is correct, then why would bush et al be having another go at him now? that indictments might be coming down very soon against high level bush administration officials is no great secret ... but this would not explain badmouthing Wilson ... in fact, doing so now would only draw greater attention to the WMD lies ... hardly a political winner for bush ...

so why are these anti-Wilson smears coming out now?

even if Wilson were discredited, and he won't be, this would have nothing to do with getting those who outed his wife off the hook ... outing a CIA agent is against the law ... what was done to her, and the country, was an act of treason ... damaging Wilson's credibility will not help those who outed his wife ...

so why now?

the only logical conclusion I can draw is that as the criminal evidence is exposed, it will highlight the bush administration's intentional misuse of the Niger memo ... and, don't hold me to this, but it just might include evidence that the bush administration was responsible for publishing the Niger memo ... let's keep this important question alive ... WHO WROTE THE NIGER MEMO? the answer will move us past the CIA scapegoating we're currently seeing ... bush lied and soldiers died ...