Posted on 07/23/2005 8:44:08 AM PDT by macsmind76
AS THE SEEMINGLY ENDLESS SPIDERWEB OF LIES SPUN BY former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV unravels, the media has gone out of its way to question the credibility of…Karl Rove. Despite Rove’s demonstrable non-leak of Valerie Plame’s non-secret identity, the dogs continue to gather, hungry for a second term scandal, while the Wilsons’ blatant self-promotion erodes whatever basis they had for a story in the first place. Perhaps Joe Wilson’s two biggest whoppers were his claim to have spoken out because of his deep, non-partisan commitment to “truth,” and his inconsolable remorse that his wife’s closely guarded anonymity had become “collateral damage” in the Bush administration’s war against him. What is at risk of being lost in the media hype of Karl Rove’s “leak” is that Plame and Wilson had deep-seated ideological opposition to the Niger trip they set up, Plame apparently spiked that trip in advance, and she had long ago blown her status as a “secret” CIA agent.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Not at all true.
Both Cooper and Miller as well as other witness all received waivers issued by Fitzgerald's office a full 18 months prior to Cooper coming forward.
When Cooper's attorney went to Rove's attorney Luskin, for "another waiver", Luskin was like, "You already have a waiver??"
The question is "Why did Cooper wait 18 months?"....and don't forget, Cooper and his wife Mandy are frequent dinner guests of "The Senator from New York".
ROFL
Dummy Land is the term I use for the democratic underground.
You know, that place where all your troll "This is your brain on drugs" crowd friends hang out.
Interesting.
yea I know thats what Luskin claimed..but then luskin also claimed that Cooper burned Rove. But even if you accept luskin account as true.
I would ask the question in reverse. I am source, I know that a reporter might goto jail cause he refuses to reveal me, but I dont really care if he reveals me or not. Why don't I approach him and just tell him, hey buddy if i am the source you are protecting don't sweat it, you can testify about me.
well if by democraticunderground, you are referring to DU? then the answer is no..the few times ive visited that site they seemed like idiots to me. If you mean democratic blogs in general such as dailykos, then sure some of the info i have learned has been from dailykos, but the majority of the info i have learned is from mainstream media.
"Yea but rove would deny the request, unless Millers lawyer tried to bully Rove, the way Coopers lawyer Bullied Rove
"But Bully your source into giving you a waiver, doenst really qualify as following journalistic ethics."
Wait a minute, back up. You said before that Time and Cooper requested the specific waiver due to journalistic ethics. Why would they then turn around and violate journalistic ethics by bullying Rove?
It's not "Luskins" claim, the fact that Cooper had a waiver for the last 18 months, came from the Prosecutors Office. It is actually standard procedure to help witnesses testify.
In fact the actual waiver was drafted by Fitzgerald's office.
Again, that's why Luskin, and quite frankly a lot of legal experts are asking the same question. What in the heck did he need another one for?
I need to point out that the prosecutor's office both authored and issued the original waivers - not Luskin. The source of that information IS the prosecutors office.
Luskin was merely surprised, as a lot of legal experts are, that Cooper would ask for another. The first was sufficient.
forget the second reply, .....
thought the first one didn't go through....
(darn stubby fingers....)
Yea i completely believe that Time and Cooper violated journalistic ethics. Cooper had intended on following journalistic ethics for most of the 18 months..then at some point as jail loomed closer and closer, and then luskin said publicly that Rove signed a waiver so the reporters are protecting Rove, at that point Cooper said these people are lying publicly and they expect me to goto jail for them and possibly traumatize my little boy. So at the point he decided journalistic ethics werent worth it...and thats when Coopers lawyer bullied Rove.
I thought Luskin did give a specific request, saying he felt it was unnecessary, but if you insist, here. Did I misunderstand, or as President Bush might say, misremember?
My thoughts exactly.
For one, he's spewing the moonbat's talking points, but the big give away he's DU moonbat is the terrible spelling and horrendous punctuation.
'alot' is not a word, he uses no caps and no apostrophes in his contractions, i.e.: "doesnt".
Here kitty-kitty, we have a TROLL (Zee2) for you to play with..
It's like the time mainstream meadia covered presidential candidate Walter Mondale's visit to a small town where construction was underway nearby for a nuclear power plant. Mondale had come out soundly against the nuclear power plant -- yet most of the guys building it were union members who wanted to support Mondale, but were extremely upset with his stand on nuclear power. They showed up by the hundreds to protest his speech -- the place was crawling with them. They were furious. I was there, a member of the small local media, up on the media stand crowded with dozens and dozens of "big" media reporters.
Local news reports of course covered the presence of the union members out-in-force protesting a candidate that they would certainly normally support.
But on the "Big Three" network's news reports, not only was NOT A SINGLE THING MENTIONED about the large presence of these guys, but because I WAS THERE and I SAW THE SCENE, I know that the reporters rather had to go out of their way to AVOID presenting it in any film of the event. From the "big" media, America learned that the campaign stop was unremarkable, standard, well received by local democrats, no controversy, just everything normal.
I'm interested that you seem to think there was so much "overwhelming" evidence of the National Guard story that the fraudulent documents were minor. Seems to me the evidence consisted of the memory of a very old secretary who wasn't the guy's regular secretary, and other "evidence" that looked damning until it was scrutinzed in a full context, at which it seemed pretty thin indeed. But there again, as they did with the Mondale campaign speech, the media simply ignored things that were, in reality, significant.
Going back to the Mondale speech, where large numbers of union protestors were for all purposes invisible to the news media, the story that the media sent to the nation was wildly, utterly, false in its true context. But ... did they LIE??? Technically, no.
Zee2, this is the thing. Media don't have to lie or even conspire to falsify a story. When the media is peopled with reporters and editors who lean decidedly toward one political persuasion -- and there is zero dispute that reporters and editors overwhelmingly describe themselves as Democrats -- they often fail to resist the temptation to simply LEAVE OUT the pieces of information that cast their favorite in a negative light.
By omitting key facts, are they lying? Who cares -- for sure they're presenting a false impression.
do I need to repeat myself, I never goto the DU website.
Rove never told the public he was not involved at all.
McClellan said that Rove had nothing to do with the leaking of Plame's name. All the stories prove that to be the case. So since they can't lie about Rove leaking Plame's name anymore, the democrats are now lying about what people said about involvement two years ago. When those lies finally fade away they will make up some more lies.
I went through about 4 levels of "lies" stories about Bush's 16 words with a liberal friend before I had to give up because you can't win an argument with people who just keep making up new definitions and changing what people said for their own purposes.
For example, Bush said if someone in his administration leaked her name, they would be "dealt with". Now the MSM repeats without question the democrat claim that Bush said that if anybody in the White house talked to any reporter about the affair they would be fired. But note Bush didn't say white house, didn't say "anything to do with", and didn't say fire.
Rove had nothing to do with the leak. Some reporter who already KNEW the story called him up and told him. Some other reporter called him and Rove told him what the first reporter told him.
There was no attempt to get Wilson's wife. There was no plot to make her suffer. There was no plan to reveal her "cover". There was no conspiracy to harm her in any way, or to threaten her in order to discourage other opponents.
Wilson put out false information. The White House, asked to comment about his false information, put out truthful information in order to convince reporters not to repeat his false information. That is what we expect the White House to do.
If Wilson didn't want people to know his wife worked for the CIA, he shouldn't have let her volunteer him for a trip, he shouldn't have lied about the trip, and he shouldn't have written an op-ed piece misstating the facts he learned and how he was chosen. These acts were guaranteed to "out" his wife, presuming ANY reporter had any interest at all in the facts.
If you know your wife works for the CIA, and you know your wife recommended you for a trip, and you then tell a reporter a false story about the trip, you are just asking for the reporter to find out the truth. In this case, the reporters found out the truth, and in doing so revealed several things about the CIA, all because of Wilson.
well heres a question to ask yourself, if they content of the memo was false, then president bush would have been able to immediatly say.."that memo must be forged because its contents
dont make any sense"
yet instead he kept silent..the only person to comment was laura bush who said "if the memo was forged thats awful"...
my question is..why was there any doubt in her mind, why did she need to use the word "if" she should have been sure the memo was forged.
BTW, im sorry the media misrepresented that event you were at..you must have felt quite betrayed by the media. And I do not doubt the media is capable of misrepresentation. But this sort of misrepresentation would be on a much higher scale, see how much media play this story has gotton.
>>
Well if Dummyland is your term for the mainstream media, then the answer is yes.
<<
DU just isn't sending over quality trolls anymore. Didn't you even read over the talking points they sent you by fax?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.