Monday, July 18, 2005

Shrill Cake

I mucked about with the order that Power Line presented these quotes (and am too lazy to fix it).

'Wow, what a scandal! White House aides had heard the same rumors about Valerie Plame that reporters had heard; in Rove's case, it's been reported that he heard the rumors from reporters in the first place.'

"Matthew Cooper: What I Told The Grand Jury", says: 'On background, Cooper had asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson’s wife sending him to Niger. Libby answered with words to the effect of “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”'


I find it interesting when they call Wilson "shrill" and a grandstanding type.

Power Line again : 'So, to sum up: the Senate Intelligence Committee's report shows that: 1) Wilson lied in the New York Times about what he told the CIA after he returned from Niger. In fact, far from debunking the concern that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium from Niger, Wilson reported that Niger's former Prime Minister told him that Iraq had made just such an overture in 1999. 2) Wilson lied when he leaked a report to the Washington Post about documents he had not even seen. 3) Wilson lied when he said that his wife Valerie "had nothing to do with" his being chosen to go to Niger.

'In the face of this evidence, which is evident to anyone who takes the trouble to read the Committee's report, Rosenkrantz and Roberts blithely assert that Wilson's assertions about Africa and uranium "have held up in the face of attacks," and that "the Senate panel conclusions didn't discredit Wilson." Having read the Senate Intelligence Committee's report with care, I can think of only two possible explanations: either Rosenkrantz and Roberts have not read the report, or they are trying to mislead their readers. In either case, this is a grotesque instance of journalistic malpractice. Sadly, however, it is not untypical of the quality of the liberal media's reporting on the Wilson/Plame affair.'

My take on this : sure the Rove and Libby comments were not safe for them to make (ie, agreeing that they heard [coments on Plame] also). And they might have truly meant them harmfully; and realized their mistake when they were duped into using them when, boy oh boy, it blew up.

So before I get attacked by defending the evil Rove company, just note : I think that all parties have their 'evil doers'. This is not a defense of Rove or all of these nasties. It is is prosecution (opposite of defense?) of the accusation of evil against a guy that most surely could have been caught out elsewhere.

I think the critics wasted their powder, and since it didn't kill him, it will make him stronger. (Such is the way of the dark side of the force)

Still, shrill takes the cake.

Yellow cake, anyone?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Dan,

I've only been following this peripherally, so I can't comment on the facts of the case. However, thought you'd like to know that, the way it is playing in the media here in the US, even many of the Republicans I know are pretty upset, and ready to see Rove "frog marched out of the White House" (quote is from WIlson, I believe). Liberal bias? Maybe. Probably just that Rove is so damn unlikable is probably closer to the truth.

Also, don't forget that there was definitely a moderately successful smear campaign mounted to discredit Wilson, which the press participated in. So the current round of anti-Rove stuff might just be "fair and balanced" reporting, LOL.

Even I, your just-to-the-left-of-Lenin brother, can't believe Rove would leave himself in a position where he might be prosecuted. He may be evil, but no one ever accused him of being stupid. Then again, they caught Nixon, and he wasn't so dumb either.

I'll check out that senate report if I have time. Sounds interesting.


Larry