Posted on 04/09/2006 11:11:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Washington Post has broken ranks with the rest of the press over the media fiction that President Bush's recently revealed decision to authorize Lewis "Scooter" Libby to leak prewar Iraq intelligence somehow constitutes a new scandal.
In a stunning editorial headlined "The Good Leak," the Post said Sunday:
"There was nothing illegal or even particularly unusual about [Bush's decision]; nor is this presidentially authorized leak necessarily comparable to other, unauthorized disclosures that the president believes, rightly or wrongly, compromise national security."
Instead, the paper says that, if anyone has behaved unethically in the entire Leakgate fiasco, its Bush's accuser, former Iraq ambassador Joe Wilson:
"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.'"
But as the Post notes: "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."
The Post says that Leakgate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has provided additional evidence of the Bush accuser's duplicity.
"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 . . . [But] after more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge."
Predictably, the Post's dismissal of the latest Leakgate "bombshell" didn't rate a single mention on the Sunday chat shows, which instead continued to cover the development as earth-shattering news.
"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately 'twisted' intelligence 'to exaggerate the Iraq threat.'"
.Joe the LIAR..
I don't trust what they said. There's an agenda hidden here, somewhere.
Well, once again, NewSmax writes a misleading headline, then doesn't really look at the Washington Post story as it is. It was not a complimentary story with regard to Bush.
You can read it yourself here. I didn't notice a link to the original story at NewSmax. Here's the WaPo link. Go read it yourself and see how NewSmax distorted their article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1611966/posts
A thread on the Washington Post story.
I don't think that a presidential de-classification of information can be called a "leak." The President has the authority to declassify information; a "leak" is an unauthorized leak of information. See, e.g., Leaky Leahy.
Perhaps with the work of jveritas and others translating the Iraq document dump, the WaPo knows it's just a matter of very little time before the truth comes out. When faced with the inevitable, they may believe that it's best to now get on the side of the truth.
And that would be unacceptable! Then the 'Rats (and the MSM slime) would have to start accepting responsibility for all of their accusations, calls for "impeachment" and problems with immigration, budgets, etc. etc.
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. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife.
I'm not the least bit fooled into thinking The WaPo gang is on the Bush bandwagon. However, it doesn't look as though Wilson has as many friends in the DC media as he'd like.
This is for real? The Washington Post really said this?
Dayum!
The DUmmies must be pooping their pants.
The Bottom line is that the President took action to Protect America unlike his predecessor. In taking that action he came under attack by the left, his critics and the MSM. To that end he attempted to show the country that Iraq was indeed a threat in that it did in fact try (attempt) to get radioactive material from Niger.... Why hasn't the Press made the same amount of coverage on the fact that Sadaam authorized the use of suicide attackers against the U.S. prior to 9/11.... smoking gun buried by the MSM.....
You may be right for all I know. That sure hasn't stopped them from harping on non-truth in the past. It's also possible that they have something they'd like to spring in a few weeks, and want to lay down a shred of credibility before they do so, as unlikely that prospect may be.
Actually, given their track record, that doesn't seem all that unlikely.
Well...they USED to be a good paper..at least on the editorial side. It's only been the last couple of years they jumped into the Liberal poll to rival the NYT's for bias.
I can't say why they'd do this now, but I don't find it incredibly unbelievable that they would.
I don't agree with you. I read the story from the WaPo and while not "complimentary" to Bush, it is pretty middle of the road which is not their ususal reporting position. The article is not complimentary to Wilson at all and does validate the truth that Bush was authorized to declassify sensitive material. So, this could not have been a "leak." What I don't understand and no one seems to write about is that even after Libby gave this information to Judith Miller at the NYT, they never ran the story. So, this is all just a DemocRAT tempest in a teapot. As the WaPo story says eventually the White House held a briefing for all the media. Probably because Miller never filed the story.
Maybe they have seen the handwriting on the NYT's wall. We can only hope.
Exactly. But the left can't wait until there is another terrorist attack which will sure come if the Rats get the majority again
Thanks for the links. I was looking for the article myself, but couldn't find it
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.