SilverNRed Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Now that Rich Armitage is the guy who made Valerie Plame's job in the CIA public, the Washington Post has decided that it's not an important story. Ummmm...OOPS? Her husband is to blame. 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. It must have really hurt them to write that. And someone should really check in on Jack Cafferty and Keith Olberman to make sure they're all right after their conspiracy theories fell apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Now that Rich Armitage is the guy who made Valerie Plame's job in the CIA public, the Washington Post has decided that it's not an important story. Ummmm...OOPS? Her husband is to blame. It must have really hurt them to write that. And someone should really check in on Jack Cafferty and Keith Olberman to make sure they're all right after their conspiracy theories fell apart. 758546[/snapback] Its so unimportant they ran a story on it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 Its so unimportant they ran a story on it! 758676[/snapback] For three years! Good job, reporters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 For three years! Good job, reporters! 758678[/snapback] 3 years of BushBad! followed by an epiphany. They found out BushNotBad, so nobody cares about the story anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Now that Rich Armitage is the guy who made Valerie Plame's job in the CIA public, the Washington Post has decided that it's not an important story. Ummmm...OOPS? Her husband is to blame. It must have really hurt them to write that. And someone should really check in on Jack Cafferty and Keith Olberman to make sure they're all right after their conspiracy theories fell apart. 758546[/snapback] Hopefully the revelation that the "outer" wasn't a "neo-Con" will diminish, if not outright halt, the calls for him to go to jail. Considering the "outing" never seemed to meet the criteria for outing that the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act contained (that according to authors of the Act), it would be good to see that call for action dropped. Of course, it would be interesting/entertaining to hear Pasta Joe call for Armitage's jail sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Its so unimportant they ran a story on it! 758676[/snapback] Isn't that big of them? They smear Rove and Cheney for a few years, then say, "Oops, tee-hee, silly us". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Isn't that big of them? They smear Rove and Cheney for a few years, then say, "Oops, tee-hee, silly us". 758881[/snapback] I'd love to see the diabolical duo sue those pinko fargs at the WP over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Its so unimportant they ran a story on it! 758676[/snapback] Thread hijack: Did you ever end up going to the Petty concert? What did you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Thread hijack: Did you ever end up going to the Petty concert? What did you think? 758922[/snapback] He's playing on the 17th here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 And someone should really check in on Jack Cafferty and Keith Olberman to make sure they're all right after their conspiracy theories fell apart. I'll pass. Might want to check on a few of the folks who post here, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 So let me get this straight. The Washington Post is a bunch of left wingers and morons who are almost always wrong because they always print stuff that is total garbage (read: they don't agree with you). And then they suddenly get it and it really hurts them to admit they were wrong when they finally print something totally correct (read: they agree with you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 David Brooks had an interesting column on this subject (NYT a day or two ago). He basically said that when it looked like Rove was the leak, Dems and the media got themselves in a lather, smelling blood. Now that the finger is pointing to Armitage (a critic of the Iraq war), all of a sudden the most vocal people are suddenly silent. His point is that there are two types of people in Washington: Insiders and outsiders. His opinion is that Rove is an outsider and Armitage is an insider. When an insider makes these types of mistakes, it is swept under the carpet. If an outsider were to make the same mistake, they will get strung up. It is no longer an issue, since the evidence points to Armitage instead of Rove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peerless Calendar Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 So let me get this straight. The Washington Post is a bunch of left wingers and morons who are almost always wrong because they always print stuff that is total garbage (read: they don't agree with you). And then they suddenly get it and it really hurts them to admit they were wrong when they finally print something totally correct (read: they agree with you). 760566[/snapback] It's just rare that there's a full blown admission of error like that from a major publication. I guess we'll have to wait for the Gray Lady to fess up. (And somewhere in the Hamptons, Judith Miller is smiling) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 David Brooks had an interesting column on this subject (NYT a day or two ago). He basically said that when it looked like Rove was the leak, Dems and the media got themselves in a lather, smelling blood. Now that the finger is pointing to Armitage (a critic of the Iraq war), all of a sudden the most vocal people are suddenly silent. His point is that there are two types of people in Washington: Insiders and outsiders. His opinion is that Rove is an outsider and Armitage is an insider. When an insider makes these types of mistakes, it is swept under the carpet. If an outsider were to make the same mistake, they will get strung up. It is no longer an issue, since the evidence points to Armitage instead of Rove. 760658[/snapback] Moral of the story: Never perjure youself in inconsequential investigations. Just ask Martha and Scooter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 David Brooks had an interesting column on this subject (NYT a day or two ago). He basically said that when it looked like Rove was the leak, Dems and the media got themselves in a lather, smelling blood. Now that the finger is pointing to Armitage (a critic of the Iraq war), all of a sudden the most vocal people are suddenly silent. His point is that there are two types of people in Washington: Insiders and outsiders. His opinion is that Rove is an outsider and Armitage is an insider. When an insider makes these types of mistakes, it is swept under the carpet. If an outsider were to make the same mistake, they will get strung up. It is no longer an issue, since the evidence points to Armitage instead of Rove. 760658[/snapback] NYTimes Bad! O wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 NYTimes Bad! O wait. 760804[/snapback] It took a while, but glad you're finally seeing the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 David Brooks had an interesting column on this subject (NYT a day or two ago). He basically said that when it looked like Rove was the leak, Dems and the media got themselves in a lather, smelling blood. Now that the finger is pointing to Armitage (a critic of the Iraq war), all of a sudden the most vocal people are suddenly silent. His point is that there are two types of people in Washington: Insiders and outsiders. His opinion is that Rove is an outsider and Armitage is an insider. When an insider makes these types of mistakes, it is swept under the carpet. If an outsider were to make the same mistake, they will get strung up. It is no longer an issue, since the evidence points to Armitage instead of Rove. 760658[/snapback] Rove's an outsider? When the Times thought Rove was the leak, he was an "insider". What a stupid !@#$ing paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Rove's an outsider? When the Times thought Rove was the leak, he was an "insider". What a stupid !@#$ing paper. 761252[/snapback] Not really. Its the editorial page. Larry Brooks and the other syndicated columnists only write articles about politics on those pages, adn have nothing to do in the actual production of the newspaper itself. It often times does point to contradictory opinions because of it, which I personally think is a good thing the more different takes on a story that you get exposed to, but to each their own I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 NYTimes Bad! O wait. 760804[/snapback] I am sorry that you are incapable of telling the difference between an opinion piece and shaping the news to conform to your agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I am sorry that you are incapable of telling the difference between an opinion piece and shaping the news to conform to your agenda. 761451[/snapback] Nah, that wasn't my point (and their agenda is to make money, they'll shape the news however it takes to do that). My point was that not everything that comes from the NYT is bad, unlike some people here (not you) think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts