Do you mean like this?
Posted on 08/29/2006 2:36:26 PM PDT by neverdem
fighting words
Plame Out
The ridiculous end to the scandal that distracted Washington.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2006, at 1:02 PM ET
In his July 12 column in the Washington Post, Robert Novak had already partly exposed this paranoid myth by stating plainly that nobody had leaked anything, or outed anyone, to him. On the contrary, it was he who approached sources within the administration and the CIA and not the other way around. But now we have the final word on who did disclose the name and occupation of Valerie Plame, and it turns out to be someone whose opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq has—like Robert Novak's—long been a byword in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Night after night, Brian Williams ,Andrea Mitchell , Olbermann and the rest of the NBC anti Bush cabal,
would have breathless updates on the impending indictment of Karl Rove ,a modern day Julius Rosenberg.
They also tarnished President Bush and VP Cheney as being part of the conspiracy.
The same group of shriekers that always demand that President Bush apologize, will never mention this story again.
Cavalry?
bump for later.
You amy be overstating the respect of the media, ever, for the "whole truth". Narrative has been king sunce the days of the Yellow Press -- it was Hogan's Alley that begat it.
bttt
Your #65 post caught my attention. While channel surfing, at about 6:50 or so EST on CNN (Lou Dobbs with a female sub), she passed off to Jack Cafferty(sp?), who did a spew about how there are 2.3 billion(trillion??)worth of Gov't contracts handed out that basically are almost "non-bid", and are not really "publicly known".
Cafferty went on to say that a bi-partisan bill has passed the house, passed in commitee in the Senate, awaiting a vote on the Senate floor, that will make it a law to publish the company's names who receive these contracts, and the ammount of each contract.
The bill has NOT made it to the Senate floor for a vote, because ONE Senator has used their "Veto-Objection" to stop the bill from being voted on.
Cafferty was enraged that this ONE Senator is able to stop this bill from being voted on. He said that 2.3 Billion(again it could be Trillion) in contracts being almost secretly handed out of tax paying American's money should be available for all to see.
He then said the "weasel" blocking this shouldn't be that hard to find out of "100 weasels", and he was going to try to find out who it is.
Then after I read the article you posted in the link below,(You have to scroll down a ways to find it), my tin-foil hat got very hot.
Could it be Feinstein blocking this bill???????
Below are the lines from your post, and the link about Fienstein's "hubby", (and their new 16.5 million house) with some of his recent "contracts" that are making him (and her) rich off of "Bush's War".
From your #65 post:
"NOTE THE ARTICLES HERE ABOUT FEINSTEIN and her HUSBAND. The REAL REASON the DEMS are PROTECTING JOE WILSON."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/02/its_all_about_the_secrets.html
IMHO, Feinstein CAN NOT afford to have this come out BEFORE the Nov elections. It would "sink" the 'Rats.
Yes he was. But he always supported the Kurds in Iraq for as long as I can remember and hated Saddam Hussein.
Do you mean like this?
Just amazing! This borders on an attempted bloodless coup, on the part of several individuals, considering how hard the Left has pushed this issue, up to and including calls to impeach the President over this.
And Richard Armitage is not doing himself, or his client John McCain, and good by remaining silent about this. The longer he refrains from commenting, the worse he is going to look. Certainly there was no crime committed, in that nobody "outed" a CIA agent. The real crime has been done to Scooter Libby, and sadly there isn't any way for him to regain his reputation.
This is far from over.
liberallarry: Unbelievable!...and indefensible.
Indefensible, yes. Unbelievable? Hardly, from my POV.You say later that more free speech is the only answer, and you are absolutely correct. But I emphasize that "more speech" cannot mean louder speech by the same people who already have the biggest microphones.
What is actually required is less credulity for the big talkers. If someone tells me that they are objective, I sometimes reflexively sucker for the con. I admit it, I was raised that way. The way I intend to react to that sort of claim is to ask, "Oh yeah?? What other lie are you gonna try to sell me?"
And what I like about FR is the fact that if I don't ask the hard questions someone else generally will. The motto of FR should be Adam Smith's dictum:
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
You can do that for free.
Go to The American Thinker. Go to the search feature in the upper left and type in her name and you will get printable versions of all her articles this year, many of which are on this case. Print them.
Someone else said he wanted all of Hitchens' stuff. Go to his site on Slate and do the same thing.
Free. All for you.
The whole article, though points that have been made here on FR many times, is worth the read.
ping
bump for later
Oh man....YELLOWCAKE JOUNALISM is a FABULOUS title!!
Thanks.
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.