MoltenThought Logo
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Sir Winston Churchill


The Times They Aren't A=Changin'

Think the Old Grey Lady would have the sense of basic fairness to recant their ridiculous Bush-bashing position on Plamegate now that the original leaker's been revealed to be Dastardly Dick Armitage?

Think again:

Ten days after Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and the Nation's David Corn revealed -- contrary to Corn's previous speculation -- that the original leaker in the Valerie Plame controversy was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and not Karl Rove or another of former Ambassador Joe Wilson's bogeymen, the New York Times finally got around to editorializing on the matter. And what an editorial it was.

Keep in mind that the story broke on Saturday, Aug. 27, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune editorialized on the matter on Sept. 1, five days later, the Los Angeles Times ran its editorial on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, the New York Times finally weighed in. Were the Times' editorial writers doing extensive research and crafting a masterful editorial? Nope.

In its editorial titled "Time for Answers," after identifying Valerie Plame as a "covert C.I.A. agent" the Times writes: "The revelation tells us something important. But, unfortunately, it is not the answer to the central question in the investigation -- whether there was an organized attempt by the White House to use Mrs. Wilson to discredit or punish her husband, Joseph Wilson. A former diplomat, Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons."

Yes, it's time for answers -- from the Times. How does it know for certain that Valerie Plame was both "covert" and an "agent"? The source of those claims is her husband, and other major media organizations have withheld judgment. The Washington Post calls Plame merely a "former CIA employee." The Los Angeles Times uses scare quotes when describing the "outing" of Plame. But the Times swallows the Wilson line whole.

The Times also, incredibly, persists in asserting that "Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons." Do the Times editorial writers read anything other than their own editorial page?

They're about the only ones who do---somebody's gotta keep the numbers up!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home