Replies

All this brouhaha over one sentence about some bad intelligence from the CIA in a State of the Union speech.

I don't remember the press going bonkers over the easily refuted Clinton remark in one of his SOTU's where he said that Russian nukes were not pointed towards the US anymore.

Now cut that out. Can't have you making that much sense this early in the morning.

The problem I see is that Bush wanted a real zinger in his speach and thought this one would probably pan out. Why did he overreach when it wasn't necessary? Now all intelligence presented by the administration is going to be treated as suspect.

>>>I don't remember the press going bonkers over the easily refuted Clinton remark in one of his SOTU's where he said that Russian nukes were not pointed towards the US anymore.

BINGO!

If I may borrow a line from Bill Shakespeare, this entire event is "much ado about nothing".

I don't remember the press going bonkers over the easily refuted Clinton remark in one of his SOTU's where he said that Russian nukes were not pointed towards the US anymore.

Yeah, but he's a Democrat. The media have no interest in throwing spears at a Democrat. They'll do it if they have to, to look "objective" if it's already obvious to the public that the guy shot himself in the foot, but they certainly aren't going to instigate such a thing.

But they stage these jihads all the time against Republicans. Last year it was "Bush knew" about 9/11 before it happened. Gephardt got up there and actually said, "What did the President know, and when did he know it." The media had a field day with that crap. Had Hillary stood up on the Senate floor and said, "He had to have known about it... Hell, we knew about it in 1998," the media would have called that The Smoking Gun -- the "proof" that Bush Knew.

The New York liberals have these Gotcha Orgasms every once in a while. It's just part of what they do. They almost can't help it. The public knows all about the leadup to the war, and what happened there, and what the media was doing the whole time. The media keep putting nails in their own coffin, from the inside. They're beyond help.

Here's Mike Glover at the AP. He's on the press plane, and here comes an actual human being, the highly-recognizeable Ms. Condoleezza Rice, known for a fact to be the National Security Advisor to the President. She states, in person and on the record, that the CIA reviewed the speech and OK'd the use of the language concerning the uranium.

Nowhere out there among all these stories to the contrary is there one person who has been quoted by name, except the one who has subsequently been revealed to have been a fraud, the mysterious Terrance Wilkinson.

How does Glover, hot-shot AP reporter and devoted liberal advocacy shill, deal with this threat to the latest press-driven jihad? He puts this in his "news" story:

The comments come amid published reports that some CIA officials...

"Some" CIA officials, eh? Who, Mike? Who exactly said that? Surely you know... you're a hot-shot AP reporter who rides around in the White House press plane. We in the public know who Condoleezza Rice is. Who are these "CIA officials" who say otherwise? Are they all as credible as 'Terrance J. Wilkinson'? Do they exist at all? How does juxtaposing on-the-record statements from identifiable people, with sourceless, possibly baseless comments from anonymous witnesses serve the public? It looks like an exercise in hatchet-throwing by a press corps that is known through surveys to be partisan, and in favor of the President's political opposition. So why should we believe that these 'published reports' (Where? Capitol Hill Blue?) about 'some CIA officials' have any weight or credibility?

They don't have any credibility, and they won't until you tell us who the Hell these people are, and we find out whether they even exist. Otherwise, you're just another damned hatchet-thrower hiding behind a press pass.

I don't remember the press going bonkers over the easily refuted Clinton remark in one of his SOTU's where he said that Russian nukes were not pointed towards the US anymore.

I remember that, you may not have been paying full attention. The mainstream press (liberals) didn't say much about it. The conservative media went nuts. The situation on this uranium-in-Africa vis-a-vis the media is reversed.