I snatched this from the front page of the dailykoz. A seconding of my (perhaps) unstated vote of 'no confidence' in the WaPo's editorial decisions:
Joe Wilson Responds to Washington Post Editorial by SusanG Sun Apr 09, 2006 at 08:48:28 AM PDT http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/9/114828/4742 The world awakened this morning to a puzzle of ridiculousness: a Washington Post op/ed that can only be described as a hit piece on Joseph Wilson's "absurdly over-examined visit" (the editorial's words, certainly not mine) to Niger, in which the editorial staff claims there was no effort at the White House to discredit Mr. Wilson ... while its news pages headlined an investigative piece on the front page entitled "A `Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic." The ironic juxtaposition of the two articles was not lost on Mr. Wilson, who in a private communication to me this morning (sorry, no link) made the following statement: Sunday's Washington Post lead editorial once again misrepresents the facts as the paper's own reporting in the Barton/Linzer article in the same edition makes clear. While I respect the separation of news and editorial function it might be helpful to the Post's readers if the editorial board would at least read the news before offering its judgments. One of the reasons my trip to Niger has been overanalyzed, as the Post editorial says, is because people like those who wrote the editorial continue to misconstrue the facts and the conclusions." Indeed. Let's follow the absurdity, shall we (all emphasis mine)? The editorial states: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. ... The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium. Then on Page 1, we find the news report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916_pf.html A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic Prosecutor Describes Cheney, Libby as Key Voices Pitching Iraq-Niger Story By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, April 9, 2006; A01 As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq. Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year -- in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there -- as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame. Here we have a two-fer in terms of self-debunking: (1) There was indeed total validation of Mr. Wilson's charges of persecution, despite what the editorial says; and (2) The news story confirms that there was "no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there" - in direct contradiction to the editorial's claim that Wilson's report supported the purchase effort. Seriously, it should be apparent to anyone following the Washington Post that ever since Bob Woodward made clear that protecting his Bushie sources and his books profit margins were more important than informing readers, the Post has been a dying newspaper. Let's have some "regime change" at the top of the Post - get a good start with Len Downie and Fred Hiatt - or readers will have to assume the newspaper is simply a thinly disguised propaganda arm of an administration that took us to war under false pretenses and is undermining our entire democracy. * Permalink :: * Discuss (77 comments, 77 new)
