Posted on 09/08/2006 9:16:58 AM PDT by RatherBiased.com
Since the revelation that Richard Armitage, a former high-ranking official in the State Department, was the source of the much-ballyhooed Valerie Plame "leak," many in the media have refused to touch the story with a ten-foot pole. This was quite a turnaround since before the Armitage involvement was known, many journalists believed the CIA leak story was one worth pursuing on a daily basis. Some even believed it could bring down the Bush White House, or at least end the careers of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
One of the biggest media figures boycotting the Plame story has been MSNBC host Chris Matthews who has yet to mention the scandal at all since the Armitage report broke, a dramatic contrast to the 27 times he mentioned the "scandal" in the five months leading up to it.
Like P.J. Gladnick, I couldn't help but notice Matthews's strange flip. So I decided to ask him about it. His answer revealed an animus toward Vice President Dick Cheney and a fear of being asked to answer tough questions himself.
Last night, I went to a party held by MSNBC and National Journal celebrating a new venture the two media outlets are launching together. Quite a few NBCers were there, including Chris Matthews. I struck up a conversation with the host about the topic of Plame and why he hadn't talked about the story at all. Here's a rough transcript of our discussion which I wrote down shortly thereafter:
Q: So I've noticed you haven't done anything on the whole Valerie Plame story since the Armitage story broke. Why not invite Joe Wilson on the show to defend himself?After that remark, Matthews left the conversation. He stuck around for at least 15 more minutes afterward before leaving.
A: Because he'd say basically the same thing he always says. 'My wife had no involvement in getting me the mission.' He'd just repeat it over and over.
Q: Maybe, but isn't it at least worth showing your viewers that this guy has no credibility considering how much you talked about the story before? Shouldn't he be held accountable for wasting all our time? Why not invite one of his representatives or defenders on the show?
A: Well, the story's just gotten so complicated. I mean, it's just such a mess. Because what if it's true that Armitage was the source, but those other guys [presumably Rove and Scooter Libby], also were leakers, what then?
Q: Isn't that a question worth exploring on your show?
A: It could be but the problem is that Dick Cheney has so many apologists it's ridiculous. So many journalists like Bob Woodward will say or do anything just to get access to him. And then all the people in the administration too.
Q: I don't see why this is stopping you from mentioning the story at all. The viewers at least need some sort of closure don't they?
A: Hey listen I need to get out of here. I have to get back home.
Chris, your hypocrisy is showing.
Chris Matthews is still living down his squealing man crush episode when Bill Clinton came out at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Just one more reason why Matthews is dead last or close to it when the cable ratings are posted...............
"In contrast the Washington Post wrote a very fine post-Armitage editorial. The Post has always been better balanced than the Times"
Don't forget that Woodward is assistant managing editor. He apologized to his own paper several months ago for keeping his contact with Armitage, in which Plame was identified, a secret. Also, I seem to recall seeing him on Meet The Press several months ago expressing skepticism about Rove/Cheney/Libby?Bush's involvement in the Plame affair.
In hindsight, it is clear why he was skeptical.
Brief change of topic, Chris Matthews showing his true colors..
Yeah. The lie was so much simpler and more compelling.
Notice Armitage is a "source," but Rove and Liddy are "leakers."
Bingo!
The real answer is that the story was newsworthy when Chrissie thought it would hurt the Republicans. (Even when logic alone could prove Wilson's story preposterous). When that bird flew the coop it was too complicated to cover.
Mathews career is over. At least it should be. If there were any complications, they involve media complicity in the Democrat conspiracy to undermine the US war effort in Iraq via rogue CIA and State Department hacks (Clinton supporters) like Wilson and McGovern. Schumer needs to be investigated, and thereby his links to Russert, Mathews, Plame and Wilson, in particular. Libby's case must be dismissed, and Fitzgerald investigated also. It is only right.
Grossman requested that Carl Ford, Jr. draft the memo, which Ford sent to Grossman on June 10, 2003. Grossman wanted the memo as background to use at a White House meeting on criticism of President Bush for using the Niger claim in his State of the Union speech. On July 6, 2003, Armitage asked Ford to send a copy of the memo to Powell on AF-1. And per the above linked article, it was Grossman that told Libby about Plame and he was also the first one to point a finger at Libby when this broke.
We know Armitage had no loyalty to Bush, but it went even further than that…from a story I found last week:
Kerry Exploring Cabinet Options
An excerpt:
Clarice Feldman gives us another interesting tidbit of info about Grossman:
If Fitzgerald has known since January 12, 2004 of the name of the leaker, why is he still protecting him, and why is he treating the leaker’s (that is, Armitage’s) source, who is almost certainly Marc Grossman, former Under Secretary of State for political affairs, the man reportedly the source for the first accusations against Libby and Rove, as an impartial witness to the events? In the discovery process it turned out that Grossman was a longtime friend of Wilson’s, dating to their college days at the University of California—Santa Barbara. Is it likely that the famous prosecutor missed this fact?More on Grossman at Strata-sphere. Seems he traveled with some cohorts of John Kerry's...Rand Beers in particular. Grossman went to the same college and graduated the same year as {drum roll please} Joe Wilson and also had the same job in a neighboring country. Strato-sphere also has some interesting comments about a Turkey connection. You remember Turkey…the country that balked at allowing our forces passage into northern Iraq?
And another player in this, Carl Ford, Jr. is no "loyal Republican" either...
As is often the case in these partisan bloodlettings, Bolton's attacker is being presented by the media not only as being a devout public servant - with no axe to grind - but a conservative Republican to boot, a claim that seems to fly in the face of his past political contributions as recorded by the FEC.Links to sources at the above link.$500 to Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), $1,000 to Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), $1,000 to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) and $500 to Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii).
The Washington Times offered the following: "Gary Jarmin, a Republican consultant and president of Global Dominion Communications, questioned Mr. Ford's claim of loyalty."Bottom line, is that to the best of my recollection, Carl always considered himself a Democrat," said Mr. Jarmin, a longtime Washington lobbyist. "If he is now a self-described 'loyal Republican,' then he must have had a fairly recent conversion." - Washington Times April 20, 2005
Democrat Ford is a longtime DC lobbyist, something absent from most press accounts of his sink-Bolton campaign. Before he went to the State Department he ran his own lobbying operation - Ford Associates. Currently he is employed as the Executive Vice President of Cassidy & Associates, Washington's most powerful - and liberal - public policy consulting group.
Cassidy & Associates was founded by Gerald Cassidy, former counsel to George McGovern's ultra-lefty Committee on Hunger, he is also a former General Counsel to the DNC - 'nuff said.
Looks to me like a few people need to be prosecuted for an attempted coup against a sitting President.
My politically liberal father is a senior citizen. He was getting a weekly edition of the NY Times and the Washington Post. He dropped the Times because it was amateurishly written and choice of news to cover not as interesting.
I read his Washington Post sometimes and it's not annoying to read. Mentally filter out a bit of liberal bias and you're good to go, unlike the NY Times
He is pathetic!
With an audience in the hundreds, what's the difference if Chrissy raises the Armitage issue?
On the other hand maybe he IS dumb as a post..
Crissy is such a down the middle guy. Unfortunately it is down the middle of the moonbaters.
LOL what a phoney
Hey Chris it is LIES that are TOO COMPLICATED!!!
Then maybe they need to let another network cover it. The folks at Fox understand and didn't find it too "complicated". Neither did I.
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.