Posted on 07/23/2005 8:44:08 AM PDT by macsmind76
I will read it, if you first tell me under what context the media submitted a brief on this case in the first place.
okay I read it...and quite frankly Judge Tatel disagreed with it. He ruled there was ample evidence of crime and hence compelled judith miller and matt cooper to testiy.
No one knows what the crime Judge Tatel suspects was commited..cause the 8 pages of evidence that lead the judge to that conclusion have been blacked out.
But, even this brief admits there information about Valerie Plames identity not being covert may not be accurate. they say , "if this information is accurate". I dont think the people who wrote this brief really even know if she was covert or not..I think they are merely saying, Judge you have access to more evidence than us..if the evidence you have shows there was no crime committed, than you should respect the right of these journalists not to testify.
You give the mainstream media a lot more credibility than I do. Quite a lot more. The media is not only capable of misrepresentation, it engages in it often, from small local stories to big national ones. Reasons vary from personal agendas, to laziness (the most common), to the seeking and manufacturing of sensationalism in order to foster notoriety. Often as not the reporter turns in a fair story, but the editor(s), much higher on the totem pole, delete parts of the story they don't like on the pretense that they're not relevant. I compare it to a picture window that looks out on a vista of mountains, a lake, and a town. Close the shades in such a way as to only see the town, and the view out the window tells an entirely different story than if the shades were arranged in such a way as to only show the mountains, or to only reveal the lake.
I have worked in one small way or another in print media, and a bit of broadcast media, for more than two decades. If you don't feel betrayed by the media, it's because you don't know any better. Thank goodness for the "new media" of the internet and talk radio -- it pulls the curtains wide on our picture window view of the world. It helps shine the light of truth on an institution that has gone unchallenged -- and been utterly trusted by naive and credible Americans -- for far too long.
You have contradicted yourself.
Same type of fast and loose game the libs and Pravda are Playing ( Pravda=MSM)
and how have I contradicted myself?
See any problems with this and what is in my previous post.
The lamestream media claimed Pres Bush lowered the bar with weaker documentation than this.
While you are technically right..that its a contradiction..its pretty obvious what i meant from the statement "i never goto DU", is i havent gone to it since the first few times when i decided it was not very good..and those first few times where like a year ago. so if you insist...I will more accurately say...
"I have never gone to DU in the past year"
Twist a while longer.
You have lowered the bar.
You have just Plamed/Wilsoned yourself.
actually i take that back..I didnt contradict myself...
you just dont understand tenses in the english language.
I didnt say "i have never BEEN to the DU website"
i said "I never goto the DU website" which means...that i currently never go to the DU website.
I think thats a reasonable attitude for you to take.
though I dont think the MSM is being unfair...cause even if Rove didnt commit a crime, rove still lied to the media, which
essentially is what the white house press corp is saying.
All they are saying, is you said before rove had NO involvement, its now clear he had minimal involvement. They are then saying if you dont care to explain the discrepancy, we will keep on airing in public that the white house appears to be hiding something.
Personally, I think Rove is worried alot more than you realize. but yes I hope all GJ evidence becomes public..i dont know how these things work..do they make the GJ evidence public at the end of this case?
well the president did respond to the question will you "will you fire anyone involved in a leak?" with the answer "yes"
But, you are right if you look at all the statements the president made in the past 2 years..i think you can make a strong case he didnt actually lower the bar..i think you are actually correct about that.
But still i think ok so he didnt lower the bar, he just keeps the bar really low to begin with...that doesnt make me feel any better about the job the president is doing.
We were taught to write stories and manipulate quotes to fit a coherent storyline. And that manipulation WITHOUT QUESTION occurs "on a much higher scale." Bernard Goldberg's books Bias and Arrogance are excellent explaining this dynamic within the press. Please understand that most of the time it is not intentional, but instead part of that "big lie of objectivity." If you haven't read them, they are well worth your time...even if you are a liberal. They will help you see it where it exists, both left and right.
We all bring the "bias" of our own life experiences to the table. If you do not recognize that in yourself, you will become blind to everything else. You cease to be fair and you become an elitist of the worst sort. The best a journalist can hope for is to be fair.
BTW, im [sic] sorry the media misrepresented that event you were at..you must have felt quite betrayed by the media.
Our feelings don't matter here. As conservatives, we understand that the press is not kind to our pov. President Bush and his team understand this as well. We're ok with that.
The great irony of your statement saying they should have said immediately that the memo must be faked because it contents don't make any sense is that if you read the Cooper memo, that is exactly what Rove was doing. To paraphrase: Hey, Mr. Cooper, Wilson's story doesn't make any sense because the VP didn't send him. When asked who did, Rove said that apparently his wife works for the CIA and she suggested he go. Now...think about it. Isn't that exactly what you just said the administration should have done on the CBS memos?
And BTW...you are a very polite troll. Although I think you are wrong on this issue, I appreciate your attitude. Very rare.
yes I think there is a difference between the two.
But both can be bad. Although I would point out...that Matt Cooper claims he was outright told by rove about valerie plame, I agree that we in the public certainly dont know what the facts of the matter are, but its pretty clear to me, based on the white house statements alone, that the white house knows it did something bad, or else they would have been much more upfront about this whole matter 2 years ago.
I find the string of requisites which you lay out to be tinfoilhattery of the first water.
however, I do not find that such a string of preconditions is indeed required.
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.