WP Editorial tries to cover its own ass again, LYING about Joe Wilson

[Sparkly]

Today's editorial, "End of an Affair," is a continuation of the WaPo editorial board's flat-out lies about the CIA leak 'affair.'

Since Armitage (supposedly) is now identified as the initial culprit in the CIA leak case, the Washington Post has LEAPT through hoops of illogic again and reiterated its old lies: that Wilson did NOT say what he said, that BushCo did NOT try to discredit him, that he was NOT an obvious choice for the mission to Niger, and that his wife fanagled this wonderful trip for him.

In other words, they are STILL trying to discredit him, and sweep under the rug BushCo's suppression of information that didn't suit their "case" for invading Iraq.

Today's editorial, "End of an Affair," includes these gems:

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.

(snip)
Nevertheless, 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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html

Once again, the Post proves its own lack of credibility, as it did in the April editorial on this subject, "A Good Leak." This flatly contradicts the FACTS stated in a news article in the same paper on the same day, as I outlined here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sparkly/3

Here's a good discussion of today's latest WP embarrassment, from Consortium News:

The Post’s editorial, however, is at best an argumentative smear and most likely a willful lie. Along with other government investigators, Wilson did debunk the reports of Iraq acquiring yellowcake in Niger and those findings did circulate to senior levels, explaining why CIA Director George Tenet struck the yellowcake claims from other Bush speeches.

(snip)

Hiatt also is absolving the White House, Novak and implicitly himself (since he published Novak’s column revealing Plame’s identity) from responsibility for protecting the identity of an undercover CIA officer and her spy network. Plame’s operation was then focused on Iran’s WMD programs including its alleged nuclear ambitions.

Contrary to the Post’s assertion that Wilson “ought to have expected” that the White House and Novak would zero in on Wilson’s wife, a reasonable expectation in a normal world would have been just the opposite.

(snip)

Only in this upside-down world would a major newspaper be so irresponsible and so dishonest as to lay off the blame for exposing a CIA officer on her husband because he dared criticize lies told by the President of the United States, deceptions that have led the nation into a military debacle.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/090106.html

It's obvious the Post has an axe to grind, or an ass to cover -- perhaps several asses, including Hiatt's, Novak's, and Bob Woodward's. This is a breath-taking effort to avoid accountability for the White House and Pentagon, as well as for this once-respected newspaper itself. For a paper like this to publish lies on its editorial page, in direct conflict with facts published on its news pages, is nothing short of disgraceful.

It's not the "End of an Affair," it's the end of the Washington Post editorial board's credibility as a truthful voice when its own ass(es) are on the line. Shameful.

[rodeodance]

1. Novak called out Armitage now--just before Nov elections. Now the

WH spin machine is full blast.

[janx]

3. Let's get to the heart of the matter--why did Scooter lie?

The recent Armitage admission means virtually nothing. The GOP wants this thing to be over NOW. But it's silly wishful thinking to pen an editorial of this kind, since Libby's trial (which will no doubt bring more information forward) doesn't even begin until next year.

[Supersedeas]

7. the Whorington Post - part of the Rovian Machine (NEVER FORGET)

[marmar]

2. I had some measure of respect for the Post until all of this...

Now it's showing, at least the editorial department is anyway, what a PRAVDA-style bullshit rag it is. How sad.

[ProSense]

4. Th WSJ did a similar piece!

It's not only wishful thinking, but also a conscious effort to force the perception of finality:

Fess Up, Mr. Armitage

Time to put the Plame conspiracy to its final rest.

Snip...

Strangely, Mr. Armitage never seems to have told Mr. Fitzgerald that he'd talked to Mr. Woodward. And Mr. Fitzgerald never seems to have asked to see Mr. Armitage's appointment calendar, which would have showed his meeting with Mr. Novak. It's all enough to make us wonder if Mr. Fitzgerald didn't buy into the liberal "conspiracy" theory of this case from the start and target the White House while giving Mr. Armitage a pass.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008872

Strangely? Segue to BS!


Armitage is a diversion:

Missing the Point on CIA Leak Case

By Brent Budowsky
August 31, 2006

Editor's Note: The U.S. news media -- and conservative pundits -- are seeing vindication for the White House in the disclosure that former State Department official Richard Armitage may have been the first official to blurt out Valerie Plame's CIA identity to a reporter. After all, they say, Armitage was not an Iraq War hawk and apparently was not part of any cabal to willfully leak Plame's identity to the news media as a way to undercut her war-critic husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

But this overriding fact remains: other administration officials were intentionally passing on word about Plame's undercover CIA role. The likes of White House aides Lewis Libby and Karl Rove were peddling Plame's identity to some half dozen journalists under the guidance of Vice President Dick Cheney, who was livid when Wilson challenged the White House case for war with Iraq. There's also the question of why political adviser Rove was given access to the sensitive information about Plame; he had no legitimate "need to know."

In this guest essay, political analyst Brent Budowsky argues that the Armitage angle in the Plame case is just the latest diversion from the treachery and corrupt partisanship that implicates some of the top officials in George W. Bush's White House:

With the latest "news" on this case, several points should be clearly understood at the outset. First, Dick Armitage's role was widely and publicly discussed as early as March, and second, Dick Armitage clearly screwed up but was NOT the primary source of the leak. While he does share moral culpability, the driving force behind the leak came from the neocon and partisan wings of the White House.

It is their spin, and nothing more, to try to defend themselves by shifting blame to the anti-Iraq war Armitage, and to the anti-Iraq war State Department, who they believe "needs an American desk." If Armitage never existed the leaks would have happened exactly the same way. If the White House-neocon axis never existed the leaks would never have happened. Whatever the shortcomings of Armitage and State, the real culpability for the identity disclosures reside elsewhere and progressives should be very careful to avoid unknowingly pushing the neocon line.

Snip...

This business about leaking identities is not only about partisan and political vendettas. It is about how and when we go to war, how and when we should not go to war, and why it is so fundamentally important that intelligence should be based on facts and truth, and not twisted and distorted for the ideology of going to war, or the partisanship of exploiting war.

What went wrong in Iraq, is that the democratic process of making the decision to wage war was corrupted and warped from the beginning.

Snip...

In my view, whatever the legalities, there is a special place in hell on this issue for Bob Novak, who named the name, and for the Washington Post Editorial Page, which then published the name, and for Bob Woodward, who attacked the prosecutor without disclosing to his readers or the nation his private interest in the case. Though I will give Woodward credit for this: he never published the Plame story, and neither did Judy Miller, by the way.

more...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/083006b.html

[Sparkly]

5. FUNNY how the WP and WSJ are so frequently on the "same page"...

I also love the "Fess Up" title, since Armitage looks so much like "Uncle Fester." ("Uncle Fess-ter.")

[ProSense]

6. LOL! n/t

[StrictlyRockers]

9. ROTFL! A "dead" ringer?

Oh! I am so sorry for that one!

SR

[spooky3]

8. When I opened to this WaPo ed today, I couldn't read past the first

paragraph.

It is sickening, the depths to which these editors have sunk.

I am glad to see that you and others are calling them on it.

[chat_noir]

10. [e-mail]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/mediacenter/html/about_contact.html

No related entries at http://blog.washingtonpost.com/

[chat_noir]

11. dupe

[McCamy Taylor]

12. Letter sent. One of the most pitiful, moronic editorials ever.

The author of this is guilty of crimes against logic.

The reasoning: "we now know that there is someone else (Armitage) who was talking about Plame's WMD work, maybe even chronologicaly before anyone else, therefore Scooter Libby could not have engaged in a cover up to keep the US public from knowing about the plot cooked up by Cheney, Rove and Libby before the 2004 election"

Makes no sense. Not with the new math. Not with the old math. Not even with Republican math.

The WaPo is either run by morons or they think that their readers are morons or they are supplying talking points for people who think that their friends and associates are morons. Any one of these scenerios qualifies the WaPo to be used as cat box liner.

The WSJ would be embarassed to run something as stupid as this.

[Joe Bacon]

13. Pravda on the Potomac strikes again

I cannot comprehend the mindset of these asskissing liars!

[clark08]

14. Why would the Post

print such garbage?

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Good question. Did they think their journalistic rep would put them

above reproach? The Plame Affair took down a VP and two WH aids not to mention costing Vivek Novak her career, tainting Bob Novak and Bob Woodward's careers. Anyone who gets associated with the Plame Affair in the wrong way ends up getting tainted with the filth.

I can only assume that some one with a lot of clout issued orders, and the editors of the WaPo said "Yes Sir! How high, Sir?"

[Sparkly]

16. As I wrote in the OP...

To cover their own asses; and to continue to push the rightwing "move along" meme, avoiding accountability on all sides for selling a war based on cherry-picked information.

[Festivito]

17. Does Armitage involvement prove the allegation "is untrue" ?

... that the MOTIVE was to "punish" Wilson. The article does not prove this motive was wrong, nor that there is no other motive -- such as destroying Brewster Jennings in order to allow WMD's to be planted in Iraq.

We do know Libby is a liar, that others "might" also "not be blameless", and that Plame was outed at great loss to world security.

BTW: Funny how an investigation is "costly and prolonged" when it does not involve sex and Dems. Hmmm. Imagine.

[ProSense]

18. Comey takes over for Ashcroft, appoints Fitzgerald; Libby squeals Bush

Ashcroft recuses himself from CIA leak probe

Wednesday, December 31, 2003 Posted: 0749 GMT ( 3:49 PM HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself Tuesday from a Justice Department investigation into who may have revealed the name of a CIA operative to the media and a special prosecutor was named to head up the probe.

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Comey said Ashcroft reached the decision to recuse himself on his own after long consideration.

"The issue surrounding the attorney general's recusal is not one of actual conflict of interest that arises normally when someone has a financial interest or something. The issue that he was concerned about was one of appearance. And I can't go beyond that," Comey said at a news conference.

"The attorney general, in an abundance of caution, believed that his recusal was appropriate based on the totality of the circumstances and the facts and evidence developed at this stage of the investigation," he said. "I agree with that judgment."

Ashcroft's recusal means that Comey, second in command at the Justice Department, automatically becomes the acting attorney general for this case and has the authority to determine how the case is investigated and, if warranted, prosecuted.

Comey said he has appointed Patrick Fitzgerald -- currently the Chicago-based U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois -- as the special prosecutor to take over the investigation.

more...

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/30/ashcroft.cia.leaks

NEWSVIEW: Leak-Hating President, As Leaker

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush insists a president "better mean what he says." Those words could return to haunt him.

After long denouncing leaks of all kinds, Bush is confronted with a statement — unchallenged by his aides — that he authorized a leak of classified material to undermine an Iraq war critic.

Snip...

Bush often has denounced leaks and pledged to punish the leakers. He has expressed pride in a disciplined White House where leaks are infrequent.

"It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war," he told a news conference last Dec. 19, speaking of the leaking of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program.

Snip...

In September 2003, Bush said he was distressed by the CIA leak case. "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action," he said.

more...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1818771

Fitzgerald's appointment by the Bush DOJ was to get ahead of the calls to investigate. During this entire period Bush's statements were about finding and bringing the leaker to justice.

[ProSense]

19. DNC: The CIA Leak Timeline

The CIA Leak Timeline