A good response to a cowardly, bizarre, poorly written editorial

[CatWoman]

Hiatt wrote an editorial for the Washington Post today: "A Good Leak".

The editorial ran with no byline.

The author tracked down the culprit, and is responding thusly:

Update: Folks are gathering over at the post.blog to make their feelings on the subject known.

For years now the GOP machine has succeeded in strong-arming the Washington Post into legitimizing their propaganda, dribbling out sensational disinformation during Whitewater to the hacktackular Sue Schmidt to put on the front page without skepticism or question. Over time they have provided easy, sleazy copy and traded "access" to the point that it has fueled an empire of mediocrity where only the people willing to limbo low enough and shape the news to Karl Rove’s satisfaction are rewarded with the scoops that trigger seniority. Both editors and reporters alike know their only ability to ascend the hierarchy comes from emulating supreme access pimp and BushCo. dupe Bob Woodward in a slavish devotion to stenography and the propagation of disinformation.

The new Washington Post editorial, an enormous turd that editorial page editor Fred Hiatt no doubt wrote, is such an unmittigated piece of BushCo. propaganda, such a giant bag of bullshit it deserves to be taken apart, piece by piece and beaten into the ground. Armando has a rundown of Hiatt’s bloodthirsty warmongering for which the paper will one day soon be held to account. But today’s editorial on the BushCo. leak shows just how the Post is earning its reputation for being just a few shades less reliable than PRAVDA:

A Good Leak
President Bush declassified some of the intelligence he used to decide on war in Iraq. Is that a scandal?

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.

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/09/does-fred-hiatt-even-read-the-washington-post/

[Gabi Hayes]

1. and she's HOT!

I love her

you, too, CW

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2006/04/news_search_launch.html

great stuff at the Post....this could make the hoop de doo about their feckless "ombudsperson" look like pee in a pool

[CatWoman]

2. !

:hi:

[Gabi Hayes]

5. !!11Seriesly11!!

this is funny...two posts by the same person, who realized her mistake, then corrected in almost immediately!



The stunning intellectual dishonesty of "A Good Leak" boggles the mind. In the mind of the writer it would appear that Wilson's only task in Niger was to find out if Iraq had tried to buy uranium as the administration claimed. I guess he was just supposed to come back without asking if Iraq had succeeded.

But I guess Joe Wilson thought that, if American lives were going to be at stake, he should ask the appropriate follow-up question. Did Iraq succeed?

So he asked his contacts and he reported back that not only had Iraq tried to buy uranium (confirming the president's claim), but that they had failed to do so (in which opinion he was supported by reports from both General Carleton Fulford and Ambassadore Owens-Kirkpatrick). Thus undermining the president's case for war. Which is exactly what Joe Wilson said that his trip had done.

My guess is that Woodward wrote this piece of crap editorial.

Or this is a college prank where one of your interns (probably from Liberty University) bet another that he could sneak an editorial screed from the National Review or the Washington Times onto your editorial page. In fact this looks remarkably similar to a recent troll posting at a left-wing website.

Or this is the revenge of Ben Domenech. And it worked because, man, do you look like fools today. And that is going to become ever more apparent as this president moves toward his date with impeachment.

And I am not even going to comment on what kind of a lunatic (can you spell morally tone deaf?) would equate selective leaking of politically advantageous albeit debunked intelligence to the bureaucratic process of declassification in the interests of the public's right to know.

Perhaps your editorial writer should spend today reading your news pages.


...........


Time for me to make a correction (watch how easy this is Jim Brady).

The Post reported on 7-10-04 that Wilson had reported back from Niger that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium. There was a later correction (seen in the original article at the link below) which I did not see at the time of publication, in which the article is amended to say that Wilson's report referenced an attempt by IRAN not Iraq.

SOOOOOO -- if the administration (and the Post editorial writers) are going to try to assert yet again that Wilson's trip supported the administration's case for war because he confirmed that Iraq tried to buy uranium, they are going to need to do it in defiance of the facts and their own reporting of the facts.

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

[Octafish]

3. Great letter. A few points WaHoPo missed and will always miss...

1. Leak or no leak, Bush lied the nation into an illegal war.
2. Bush leaked a CIA NOC's name and destroyed her counterproliferation network, reducing the national security.
3. Using NSA to spy on Americans (swing elections?) is illegal, no matter what Gonzalez the Project P.U.L.L. fixer says.

There is more, stuff that you know CatWoman. Would get our Country back if the media whores did.

[Burried News]

8. What the Board missed is important. But WHY are they doing it?

Just as with Bush-Cheney and the release of the NIE - WHY did they do it; is a devastating question to ask. The 'why' provides the meaning of the act and critical context. It evidences the abuse of power and their interest in their personal safety.

In the WaPo Editorial if we know WHY the Board took a position (that undercuts their own writers) then you know the meaning of what they do. And you can anticipate what they will do next if and when the outing of Plame is also directly attributed to Bush-Cheney.
Their rediculous editorial is a diversion. They are clouding the case by making it look like a mess. They are at this juncture trying to undercut Fitzgerald. And they will do more of the same when he goes beyond the NIE leak.

[depakid]

11. "...And they will do more of the same..."

Count on it.

[Octafish]

17. Remember Bob the BFEE Turd Woodward's place in all this...

...Steno Bob was busy blowing out the Plamegate fuse on Larry King.

Woodward & Washington's 'Tipping Point'

By Robert Parry
November 19, 2005

EXCERPT...

Woodward’s Advice

Yet, on the eve of Libby’s indictment, Woodward was offering advice to Fitzgerald via CNN, that it would be best if the prosecutor left well enough alone.

“I don’t see an underlying crime here and the absence of the underlying crime may cause somebody who is a really thoughtful prosecutor to say, you know, maybe this is not one to go to the court with,” Woodward said.

Three decades after Woodward helped expose Richard Nixon’s corruption, the former Watergate hero sounded like a flack tossing out Republican spin points.

Though Woodward’s hostility to Fitzgerald’s investigation raised some eyebrows at the time, Woodward’s behavior looks far more self-interested now after his admission that he indeed did have “blockbuster” information about the Plame case.

SNIP...

That meant a third official was involved, which, in turn, suggests a broader conspiracy to leak Plame's identity.

Woodward justified his misleading behavior as necessary “to protect my sources.” After apologizing to Downie, though not to the broader public, Woodward said, “I hunkered down. I’m in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn’t want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/111805.html

Woodward's almost as big a traitor as Bush.

[Burried News]

4. We need to keep our eye on the ball and support Fitz.

WaPo knows their editorial is shit but the real story is that the Neocons are creating as many diversions as they can to minimize what Bush Cheney have done. Then when the administration slips the noose they will have the Political Capital to resubmit their agenda and elbow in front of the Paleocons (old line Republicans).

They got alot riding on this horse and they ain't finished with him yet. Another reason to Impeach him - he is an easy mark for arm twisting.

[niceypoo]

6. If it was so "Good"......

Why did they lie, deny and cover it up for two years until it came out in a special procecutorial investigation?

[Gabi Hayes]

7. worthlessness scale: Post vs. WSJ

From good to....HORRIBLY, unspeakably rotten

1) WSJ News section
2) W Post News Section
3) W Post Editorial Page
4) WSJ Editorial Page

Question is....is the WSJ Editorial page so much worse than that of the Post that it overcomes how much worse the Post reportage is than the WSJ's, making the Post a worse overall media outlet?

inquiring minds want to know

[Gabi Hayes]

9. 'hard' to top this

I'm shure you'll dismiss all these comments as the "left wing attack dogs",but these are your readers that you are disregarding.these are people that care,people that vote,those that see your B/S for what it is.

One request,start printing the paper on softer stock,I may run low on T/P.

[mandyky]

10. This good leak/bad leak argument

reminds me of how schools deal with strangers good touch/bad touch.

After all the crap the wingers gave Clinton about parsing the meaning of IS, Bush does it constantly.

[Gman]

12. An awesome piece by piece dismantling of Hiatt's crock of shit

Stuff like Hiatt's editorial is so completely transparent now it is very easily dismantled.

[radio4progressives]

13. This is a hell of a smack down that Jane does on this WaPoop turd piece.

I couldn't help myself, I love the way Jane does the smack down, point by point on fvcking target...

[radio4progressives]

14. Good Response? Hell it's Fvcking Excellent! and by the way...

Everybody needs to throw in their 2 cents please...

i'm working on mine... :hi:

[CatWoman]

16. Roger

:hi:

[Neil Lisst]

15. Imagine a bank president trying to explain a missing million dollars

for three years, then revealing he knew where the money was the whole time.

All these rationalizations by media like Hiatt can never explain away the failure of Bush to come clean three years ago. What? Did he forget to tell us he unclassified it when the shit hit the fan, when he realized he'd need the protection of declassifying info.

[Gabi Hayes]

18. that's exactly it.....been mentioned by Waas, Larry ODonnell

and lord knows how many others that the OBVIOUS reason for this was to keep this out of the public eye until after the election in 2004.

will they be able to forrestal the worst until after November?

from the looks of the latest efforts by the Post and the NYT, as well as the ether-oriented media, it's quite possible, unless events spin so out of control that media management will be of no further use

you KNOW you're not going to see any analysis on TV of just how the Plame/NIE selective leak relationship breaks down, cause it so obviously reveals just how badly, how transparently the regime violated all precepts of constitutional governance in their rush to, and subsequent rationalization for the invasion

[Neil Lisst]

21. it's sad our media are such whipped pups now

They've really lost their way. Where is the media outrage?

This isn't some "Dubya got caught taking wild rides on golf carts."

[Burried News]

19. We need one more recommendation please.

[CatWoman]

20. Think Progress spanked that ass, too

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 –

CLAIM: Wilson said Cheney sent him to Africa “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.”

FACT:

Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president’s office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney’s questions.

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

[Gabi Hayes]

23. several bits from that on the Post blog.....did you read the best one in

there?

2/3 down, by Jim Preston....he goes into excruciating detail; appears to either have insider knowledge, or H20 Man-like acuity

snip:

We'll skip the headline and sub-headline, and move right to the first paragraph of the editorial:
"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."

To begin with, the President did not "approve the declassification", so the Post has opted for dishonesty in the first sentence. Through Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush, Scooter Libby was "authorized" to dish out limited segments of the NIE to Judith Miller and others. I have read that this 'dishing' involved Mr. Libby sitting down with Ms. Miller and pulling a folded piece of paper from his pocket, telling her that it was a portion of the classified NIE, and then ostensibly reading some of it to her or describing its' contents before returning it to his pocket. We know that Mr. Libby's characterization of the document to Ms. Miller was far from accurate, that contradictory information was withheld, and that the entire document was not given to Ms. Miller for verification.

To call this a "clumsy release" as the Post has done, is truly the height of editorial irresponsibility. It would more appropriately be called a very artful and cleverly calculated release of carefully selected information to the journalist whose entire career was built around promoting fears of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. To trumpet, as the administration has, that the full document was publicly released a week later, is disingenuous, at best. A week later, pundits, the administration, and the media can toss off questions about the report as "old news". Also implicit in the Post's statement, and explicit in the editorial's headline is the assumption that the NIE was the basis of, or had influenced the President's decision to go to war in Iraq. Let's go back and look at the Post's Op-Ed "What I Knew Before the Invasion" by Former Senator Bob Graham on Nov. 20, 2005. Graham was the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the run-up to the Iraq war.

Here's what Graham wrote:
"At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE."

It is worthwhile to note that this activity in September of 2002 occurred eight months after Graham had learned that the war in Afghanistan was being compromised by preparations for the Iraq invasion. To my knowledge, nobody has disputed any of Graham's claims. Does the Post dispute the fact that the NIE was produced long after the decision to invade had already been made? With what justification does the Post claim that the President used the information in the NIE to decide on the war?

predicto: this will make the Howell/Abramoff imbroglio look like a tempest in a teapot dome

[CatWoman]

24. on another note:

are you watching the Mark Crispin Miller replay on CSpan 2?

[spooky3]

22. any bets on how long it will take Brady to shut down the blog

using the excuse that writers are "using obscenities", "engaging in personal attacks", etc., etc., as he did when people protested Deborah Howell's lies?

on edit: I'm referring to the WaPo blog to which one of the previous posts linked.