Posted on 10/12/2005 4:53:45 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
October 12, 2005 - 07:23.
Does the MSM sense blood in the Bush administration water? That seems to be the case, judging from the breathtaking accusation that Katie Couric just leveled at it.
The context was Couric's interview of Chris Matthews on the subject of the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into possible leaks in the Valerie Plame affair.
Matthews was hostile enough, musing whether the Bush administration "in defending themselves against the charge we went to war for a corrupt or bogus reason, that there wasn't any weaponry, a deal with nuclear weapons, did they break the law?"
But that evidently wasn't venomous enough for Katie. She cut Matthews off peremptorily, interjecting:
"Yeah, and Chris isn't it more than just Iraq, doesn't it speak about the way this White House possibly operates" risibly seeking to distance herself from what was clearly her own notion by tacking on at the end of her question "in the minds of some?"
Matthews, perhaps shocked at the scope of Couric's charge, turned the matter back to the specific question at hand - whether the Bush administration, in seeking to discredit Joe Wilson, broke the law.
But just in case there were any doubts, now we know: Katie Couric, the most widely-watched, most powerful morning talk show host in America, views the President as heading a rogue administration whose modus operandi is to break the law. Stunning
Yes, it's one of my favourites. Was that really 5 1/2 years ago? 8~)
I thought the media was sore about this WH not being communicative. Now, they're saying there are leakers in the WH? Which is it?
Ditto on Katie. Chris Matthews makes me just change the channel to Fox News.
But this chick Valerie Plame was not undercover or anything like that, right ? She worked for the CIA but at a desk job, for example. Is there an old article you can direct me to explaining what really happened here, her husband was investigating WMDs in northern Africa, right ? (sorry)
IMO, this was another big lie by the liberal left to put a bad mark on Bush Administration. I cannot stomach either of these people. Get the remote !! LOL
I failed to change from the local news in time
this morning and I had to hear voice for about
4 or 5 words.
BUMP
I hate her.
She is a lib and loves her position to spout off her views. Hollywood loves her and so do many dumb americans.
I like you do not care for her one iota.
My mind is going blank, but his name is ringing a bell
But I can't remember why
Gosh I hate getting old
Click back and look at the top of the page, then click on CIA LEAK (Plame). That will bring you up to speed.
Just like Howard Dean -- no presumption of innocence until proven guilty -- unless you're Osama Bin Laden of course.
My advice to the one and a half Americans still watching this pap: Turn it off!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500795/posts?page=42#42
I had the same questions about National Journal and Murray Waas. the helpful link above is from cyncooper.
Others online said Waas has been around forever, and I found an old Slate article identifying Waas as "an investigative journalist".
Just heard on MSNBC, Judith Miller is before the Grand Jury already this morning.
MSNBC is NBC's echo chamber for Bush bashing. their two breathless bimbos led off the morning news with:
"His aides under fire, his judicial nomination in question, can the President battle back? Chris Matthews will be here ... ".
It sounded more like a soap opera promo than serious news!!
At other times I think of her as a motorcycle advertising model.
Couric's salary for her appearances should be considered DNC donations.
Every time she opens her mouth, she gets a free colon exam!
Katie Couric is living proof that G_d ruined a perfect a-hole when he put teeth in her mouth!
I'm finding a few interesting stuff about him and Sid Blumenthal
As for the empty headed couric. Ugh, we don't expect intellectual honesty from her. She's incapable of integrity.
On O'Reilly last night, the blowhard actually made a good observation. He says that, once someone goes to the grand jury more than two times, generally possible perjury is being investigated.
Now, who has lied about this matter?
Why, the two reporters in question, in claiming they did not have a release from their sources.
And this week, Rove testified before Miller did. If you are springing a perjury trap, who testifies second? IMO the person you are trying to trap.
So methinks any indictments will have nothing to do with the original allegation (because no crime was committed) and everything to do with perjury to cover up a conspiracy.
http://slate.msn.com/id/1000092/
True Love: An excellent conspiratorial moment at a recent Washington, D.C., party given for Salon magazine. Present were: presidential aide Sidney Blumenthal, newscaster Jim Lehrer, columnist Molly Ivins, journalist Christopher Hitchens, stunt man David Brock, and Murray Waas, the oddball investigative reporter who has been chronicling the machinations of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for Salon and the New York Observer. At one point, Waas, looking around the room as if to make sure noone was following him, snuck out the rear door into the unlit back yard. A few seconds later, Blumenthal slipped out the same back door to join Waas. They could then be seen having a brief, but intense, tete-a-tete in the darkness. ...
Who’s Conspiring Against Whom?
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.