Posted on 07/18/2005 8:20:32 PM PDT by cricket
ping
That legal filing by the media is amazing, isn't it? I saw it last week and was stunned.
Bump
It came only to my atention by way of Rush who discussed it at length a few days ago; decided to try and find the thing. . .
. . .anyway; you 'would think'; surely by now; the media has gotten wind that people are hearing about this and that we are just waiting; waiting. . .for them to acknowledge the 'other side' of this story - without holding our breath, of course. . .
(Also waiting for the Mr.and Mrs. Wilson; to be held accountable for their actions)
I know what you mean.
At least Bush got the Supreme Court pick right. :)
Right. Although I do not look forward to the day they get any power back, the way they are acting now. I worry about a split Republican party or weak candidate in 2008 handing the Democrats a victory they could not achieve otherwise.
But again I think part of the problem is that to the extent Democrats have ideas, they are far left ideas which they and we know the electorate does not want. Say what you will about Howard Dean, one charge rarely leveled against him was that he was insincere, hiding his real positions, or a flip-flopper like Kerry. I think a poll of Democrats in, say December 2003 would show that Democratic activists were more in tune with Dean's views than Karry's. But Dean was deemed "unelectable," or at least Kerry was thought more so. That tells me a lot.
Joe Wilson told ABC's Good Morning, America back in 2003:
"In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove. I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment...I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the 'leaker' or the authorizer of the leak."
Then Wilson saw how the spin and lies were working and decided to keep at it.
. . .as did the Kerry/Kennedy strategists; then Demrats, et al. . .
Rush mentioned yesterday that Ms. Plame; outed herself when she donated to Kerry campaign; not using her married name; but rather her 'agent' name - 'Valerie Plame' - as well as naming; as her place of employ; a CIA cover organization (!); campaign donations being public record of course.
No question, she was rather casual about her status. And as stated here; she was not considered 'deep cover' - perhaps because she did not take it too seriously herself. . .or she just could not keep a secret. . and how can you 'feel'/be important; if no one knows 'who' you are. (She and her husband do seem a perfect match).
And still. . .the 'mystery of the investigation' goes on. . .
For what purpose did the media submit a brief...and even better question, how did the judge who saw the brief rule?
Dean has been painted as a bit crazy. Not sure if Dean could ever win a national election. The scream has hurt Dean. Many of these left wing Democrats are simply repeating talking points put out by exteme groups like Move On.Org. Now the left wing Democrats are talking heads for extemist groups. So the Democrat Party is real divided.
Not sure many of the Democrats could be elected if they are branded as left-wing kooks.
The judge ruled on the brief? Please try to constrain yourself to the facts.
not "how did he rule on the brief?"
how did he rule on what ever matter was before his court, that motivated the brief.
and it was an actual question....whenever there is brief it is done in some kind of context...the context is very important..i was simply asking what was the context?
The interesting part of this matter is how the media makes legal assertions in court, and then proceeds to take editorial positions completely opposite of their legal position. The MSM doesn't even mention their legal position. The bias exhibited by the MSM in this matter is unmatched in recent history. This is worse than CBS and their fake memo.
We don't know how the brief fit into the context of the case. It is pointless to speculate.
I guess the two things I would say is...
First when I hear the media submits a brief, I think hmm why does the media even have an interest in this case? so to me it seems like the context should be somewhat relevant.
But in terms of media bias? Well there are many possible explanation for the disconnect that have nothing to do with media bias.
The focus of the media attention has not been claiming there is public proof of a crime..rathar just proof the white house lied to the public about the facts of the case. Thats really all the media has said. I personally think it will come out that Fitzgerald has proof of a crime, but the media certainly hasnt claimed to have proof a crime. So far the media has just proof that the White House has lied about the
facts. (which of course suggests they know they did something wrong)(maybe not illegal but certainly immoral).
Agreed. But again, I think a large portion of the party elites do believe what Dean, MoveOn, etc. say. The only reason they went with Kerry is "electability." I think if they had had their choice irrespective of that they would have preferred Dean. IMHO.
The Big Media knew Kerry had more money than Dean. Kerry could buy more t.v. advertisements. Money talks louder than
Dean yells!
I know what you mean.
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.