[martin_fierro]

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband

News to me.

What's more probable is that the WaPo can no longer deny the obvious.

[MJY1288]

"WE'RE RELUCTANT"

They weren't "reluctant" when they were pushing this bogus story, back when that FRAUD Joe Wilson was the first to claim George W. Bush purposely exxagerated the Intel reports on Iraq

[ChadGore]

Re: WE'RE RELUCTANT to return

Because Joe Wilson has been busted as a liar. They'll of course want to "move on" now.

[Bernard Marx]

What's more probable is that the WaPo can no longer deny the obvious.

And that's why they buried the lead in the last graph. This story is a classic example of telling the truth in a way that won't attract the attention of an average reader who scans the headline and maybe the first 2 or 3 graphs.

[Liz]

......more probable is that the WaPo can no longer deny the obvious........

Bingo.......but I guess the MSM doesn't play that game (/sarc).

[silverleaf]

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband...

...." and besides, we're now busy running "macaca" stories every day to try to get Senator George Allen defeated."

[Grampa Dave]

'What's more probable is that the WaPo can no longer deny the obvious.'



"Create the story.....build the lead.....milk the sources till they bleed.....Headlines ....deadlines.....Run......Run.....Oh sh*t!......the Truth."

Big Look posted the above later on in this thread.

It is apparent, that, even the Compost is scared of the reality that could come out of this 3+ year lie.

[Grampa Dave]

[weegee]

What's more probable is that the WaPo can no longer deny the obvious.

It's a bitch to write retractions.

[muawiyah]

The Washington Post is trying to curry favor with the White House so they don't all get Frog Marched to the DC lockup for booking on treason and espionage charges.

[hgro]

The Washington Post is reluctant to return to their "outhouse" reporting.

[Purrcival]

From the very beginning of this "scandal", when I was reading about it in the DUmp, before it even hit the headlines, one thing stood out to me as being particularly asinine:

If the Bush administration wanted to get back at Joe Wilson and try to discredit him, WHY in the name of heaven would they have to do it by outing Wilson's wife, if she was covert? How many other ways might they have of getting back at him without doing that?

To me the whole assertion was idiotic from the starting gate.

[martin_fierro]

WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband

BULL!

From Freddie The Beadle Barnes' article today:

The media--especially the Washington Post and New York Times--relied heavily on Wilson's reckless and unfounded charges to wage journalistic jihad against the White House and Bush political adviser Karl Rove. Reporters and columnists, based on little more than Joe Wilson's harrumphing, bought the line that the White House "leaked" Plame's name to discredit her husband. In an editorial last January, the New York Times said the issue in the case "was whether the White House was using this information in an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband, a critic of the Iraq invasion, and in doing so violated a federal law against unmasking a covert operative." The paper's answer was yes.

[n-tres-ted]

What's more probable is that the WaPo can no longer deny the obvious. Of course they could have. Look at the NYT, for example. Or almost any left wing blog. Or the Dems on cable.