WaPo 10/29: a column of LIES and an op/ed of GOP talking points (SHAME!)

[Nothing Without Hope]

Even knowing that the Washington Post often prints blatantly GOP-biased, misleading articles, you will be shocked by the 10/29 column by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey titled "No More Special Counsels" - it is stuffed with outright LIES. Another editorial production in the 10/29 issue of the online paper doesn't -- quite -- lie, but it is a recitation of misleading GOP talking points about the Fitzgerald investigation and Libby's indictment. I'll give descriptions and excerpts from both.

IMO this is such an outrage, we cannot allow it to stand unchallenged. See if you feel the same.

I'll start with the Rivkin and Casey column:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This column, by a pair of lawyers who served under Reagan and Bush41, begins with the provocative statement: "Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby should be the final proof that the system of "special prosecutors" is bankrupt and ought to be abandoned." It then goes downhill from there.

It repeats the tired, repeatedly rebutted lie that Wilson claimed he was sent by Cheney and Novak’s attempted smear of saying Wilson's wife was involved in getting him the assignment. And then, amazingly, it implies that the infamous “16 words” in Bush’s speech were TRUE. Read it and see for yourself.

The column does NOT mention that the Niger yellowcake documents were forgeries. In fact, it implies that Saddam actually DID seek yellowcake from Niger and that British intelligence confirmed it: “Iraq's efforts to obtain weapons-grade uranium ore or "yellowcake" in Africa became an element of President Bush's justification for war, and it was included in his 2003 State of the Union address. British intelligence also believed that this attempt had been made, and the CIA's review of the matter -- including Wilson's trip -- emphatically did not suggest otherwise.”

And the column STILL isn’t done with outrageous statements. It ends with the claims that the independence of special prosecutors such as Fitzgerald is “dangerous” and that the government should be allowed to investigate itself. Which is, of course, the same as no honest investigations ever, just what the Bushies want.

Without surprise, I saw that the authors of this pack of lies and Bushie propaganda are “Washington lawyers who served in the Justice Department during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.” Clearly, they are still serving the Bushes, and it is an outrage that the Washington Post allows their lies to stand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801771.html

No More Special Counsels

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A23

(snip)

The Plame affair began with the implication by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, that Vice President Cheney had sent him on a mission to Niger in 2002 to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy nuclear weapons material. Iraq's efforts to obtain weapons-grade uranium ore or "yellowcake" in Africa became an element of President Bush's justification for war, and it was included in his 2003 State of the Union address. British intelligence also believed that this attempt had been made, and the CIA's review of the matter -- including Wilson's trip -- emphatically did not suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, in July 2003 Wilson published a New York Times op-ed piece designed to undercut the administration's claims regarding Iraq's nuclear ambitions. The piece noted that Cheney's office had "asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer," and Wilson criticized the administration for proceeding to war despite his conclusions.

In fact, Wilson was not selected by Cheney's office. His wife, a CIA analyst working at the agency's Northern Virginia headquarters, was involved in getting him the assignment. Apparently in an effort to set the record straight, and to put the whole story before the American people, administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak about Plame's role in selecting her husband for the Niger mission. Administration critics immediately alleged that the name of a "covert" CIA agent had been revealed -- a federal crime. Instead of permitting this allegation to be investigated in the normal course of events by federal prosecutors in Washington, the Justice Department tapped Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, to serve as a "special counsel" to investigate the officials who might have been involved. Ironically, the pressure to appoint a special counsel came only after the information about the Justice Department internal investigation was leaked to the media.

(snip)

By being assigned to investigate one individual, or a small group, the prosecutor is deprived of normal constraints such as resource limitations and the perspective of having to choose from a range of cases to pursue. Another vital missing ingredient is supervision. Normally federal prosecutors have political superiors who review their decisions. This is supposed to be the case even with special counsels. Unfortunately, for reasons that are not entirely clear -- but that may have involved some buck-passing by Justice Department officials -- Fitzgerald was specifically excused from even this minimal check on his power and as a consequence was accountable only to himself.

Enough should be enough. The courts will now handle Fitzgerald's allegations against Libby. But in the future, the investigation of high-level misconduct should not be removed from the normal processes of the Justice Department. The U.S. attorneys, and the department's Criminal Division, are fully capable of investigating and prosecuting alleged wrongdoing by important government officials, and can do it with proper perspective. Almost all federal prosecutors are, in fact, career lawyers quite capable of balking if their political supervisors abuse their authority. They should be left alone to do their jobs.

The writers are Washington lawyers who served in the Justice Department during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

And now for the editorial. Coming in the same issue as the Rivkin and Casey column, you might expect it to attempt some kind of balanced view - but it is nothing but a collection of the Bush Administration talking points that we've been reading and hearing all week. See if you can pick them out; I've highlighted some in the excerpt below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801787.html

Mr. Libby's Indictment

Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A22

(snip)

Nevertheless, it is also a fact that Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, after substantially completing his two-year investigation, has brought no criminal charges in the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and its publication by columnist Robert D. Novak. Judging from the indictment, Mr. Libby was not Mr. Novak's source, and Mr. Libby himself is not charged with any wrongdoing in revealing Ms. Plame's identity to journalists. Though Mr. Fitzgerald says he has not wrapped up his work, that is the right outcome and one that reflects prudent judgment on his part.

The special counsel was principally investigating whether any official violated a law that makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover agent. The public record offers no indication that Mr. Libby or any other official deliberately exposed Ms. Plame to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Rather, Mr. Libby and other officials, including Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, apparently were seeking to combat the sensational allegations of a critic. They may have believed that Ms. Plame's involvement was an important part of their story of why Mr. Wilson was sent to investigate claims that Iraq sought uranium ore from Niger, and why his subsequent -- and mostly erroneous -- allegations that the administration twisted that small part of the case against Saddam Hussein should not be credited. To criminalize such discussions between officials and reporters would run counter to the public interest.

That said, the charges Mr. Fitzgerald brought against Mr. Libby are not technicalities. According to the indictment, Mr. Libby lied to both the FBI and a grand jury. No responsible prosecutor would overlook a pattern of deceit like that alleged by Mr. Fitzgerald. The prosecutor was asked to investigate a serious question, and such obstructions are, as he said yesterday, like throwing sand in the umpire's face. In this case, they seem to have contributed to Mr. Fitzgerald's distressing decision to force a number of journalists to testify about conversations with a confidential source.

Both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove appear to have allowed the White House spokesman to put out false information about their involvement. But nothing in this indictment suggests a broad-based conspiracy that requires endless further investigation by Congress or others. Nor does this case prove (or refute) charges that President Bush misled the country about the grounds for war. As Mr. Fitzgerald said yesterday: "This indictment is not about the war. . . . Anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fellow DUers, I believe that this represents not only a notable low point in journalism from the Washington Post, but a distressing indication of the lengths the editors of that paper will go to support the Bush Administration's agenda and propaganda stance. I feel we should not allow this to stand unchallenged.

The contrast with the coverage by the Los Angeles Times for the same date, 10/29, is remarkable. The LAT presented EIGHT news articles plus two op/eds which, taken together, constitute a fairly thorough and balanced portrayal of the Fitzgerald case and the culpability of the national media in failing to question the deceit of the Bush Administration in the rush to war with Iraq. I've posted excerpts from the two LAT op/eds and one of the eight news articles here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all=104x5216210
Thread title: LA Times: EIGHT News articles plus TWO op/eds on the Fitz case! 10/29

[ElectroPrincess]

1. Agreed!

I've lived in the D.C. area for over a decade and subscribe to the Washington Post. It is a ritual for our family to peruse the Front and Lifestyle Sections each day.

IMO you're 100% spot on with your analysis. I noted that, specifically, the Editorial Section of the WP took a SHARP right turn during the run-up to the Iraqi Invasion.

In their defense, the basic "reporting sections" (non-editorial) of the WP are still, IMO, quality productions. But again, I'm with you on all that they tend to *spew* within their editorial pages.

In the D.C. area, the above is "common knowledge" among those who love to real and keep up with current events. :-)

[Nothing Without Hope]

3. The editorial is a spew - it's the GOP talking points. But the column LIES

and that's against journalistic rules. Multiple blatant statements which are known to be false are tied together into a truly horrible piece of deceit and propaganda.

I have no doubt its primary function will be to be quoted as gospel truth from the floor of Congress and in every other venue they can find. IF it's printed in the Washington Post, it has a certain cachet of respectability, spewing or not. And too many people will BELIEVE it.

This cannot be allowed to stand.

[depakid]

2. Nothing that Pravda- er, I mean the Post

publishes shocks me anymore.

Their editors give most anything a pass- without much regard for the facts.

You might as well read the Moonie Times- at least you know for sure that most of what's in there is either slanted or false.

[Nothing Without Hope]

7. I was shocked to see the clear implication that the "16 words" were true

and that was only one of the points. This is beyond outrageous. It is not laughable because far too many people trust that newspaper to be respectable enough not to print blatant lies. The articles will be cited to "prove" the lies are true and the Bush Admin talking points are reality.

[depakid]

11. People may cite the articles

but they won't be taken very seriously (at least not in circles where truth is important).

I don't think most people realize that outside of the beltway (especially in colleges and grad schools) most students know better than to cite the Post for anything factual. They'd be laughed at (or worse, risk a poor grade).

It's simply not a credible source anymore. Sad but true.

Katherine Graham would roll over in her grave if she knew how far her paper had fallen....

[Nothing Without Hope]

14. Students might know, but regular working people might trust an article

cited or printed from the Washington Post as evidence to support an argument being made by a politician.

I do believe this is serious and some activism is needed to forestall their attempt to get blatant lies into the public record. Again.

[Missy M]

4. This is the start of the White House to smear and undermine...

Fitzgerald campaign. Karl Rove is still at work and will stop at nothing.

[Gman]

5. They didn't find a specific violation of outing Plame because

Libby lied and obstructed justice. That's why his ass is in the fryinig pan. Of course they didn't find anything because the process was intentionally subverted and Fitz said so.

[freeplessinseattle]

6. this is in definite need of LTTE

too many will take it as gospel coming from such a "reputable" paper, after all, why would they allow such lies to stand? why indeed. This is outrageous!

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. Yes, that is the danger: too many people will believe it and it will be

cited in Congress and all across the country as valid facts. We CANNOT allow this to happen unchallenged!!

[TheGunslinger]

9. From the same paper that pretty much single-handedly brought down Nixon.

A sad day for the WaPo, indeed.

[Nay]

10. Well, I guess when it looks like only one person (Libby) is going

to jail, the Repubs stop worrying and start spinning. Again. And the Pravdas all over the country, seeing which way the wind is blowing, get right back into line with the administration.

If nothing comes of this investigation, * will take it as another "mandate" and double his efforts to destroy this country.

[glitch]

27. Let them spin. They think they can win this in the court of public opinion

They are wrong.

All they're doing is dancing on the deck of the Titanic. They would be smarter if they looked for room in a lifeboat.

Edit to add: we are leaving their world of spin and illusion now and entering the world of substance, where these boys don't do so well. Anybody sticking with them will suffer their fate.

[Tuesday_Morning]

30. That's right. Did you see yesterday's

CNN poll?

81% of Americans were supportive of Fitzgerald's investigation. That's a lot of people who are no longer buying the bushit.

[glitch]

31. Sweet! No I did not see it, thanks for pointing it out.

Lot of angry Americans nowadays. Yet another reason to be glad you're not *.

[druidity33]

12. outrage be known

Hey Nothing without Hope, have you got a link to the editorial dept so we can write and complain? I would gladly do that... i'll even say i'm a weekly reader who won't buy their paper anymore (somewhat true)...

[Nothing Without Hope]

13. Here is info for writing or emailing letters to WaPo editor or Ombudsman:

The various links are in the bottom left corner of this page in the "Feedback" box:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/opinions

In case you don't look at the WaPo online, here's what the links go to (I won't copy the examples they give):

Letters Policy
Letters must be exclusive to The Washington Post, and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers. Because of space limitations, those published are subject to abridgment. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments.

Letters via E-Mail
The e-mail address is [email protected]. Do not send attachments; they will not be read.

Letters via Surface Mail
If you prefer to send your letter by surface mail, find the address here
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A44209-2000Feb28¬Found=true).

Here’s what is on that page in case the link doesn’t work:

Submitting a Letter to the Editor

Monday, February 28, 2000; 1:48 PM
Letters to the editor for the print edition of the Washington Post should be sent to:

Letters to the Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071

The Post publishes the following guidelines concerning letter submissions:
Letters must be exclusive to The Post, must be signed and must include the writer's home address and home and business telephone numbers. Because of space limitations, those published are subject to abridgement. Although we are unable to acknowledge those letters we cannot publish, we appreciate the interest and value the views of those who take the time to send us their comments. Letters intended for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Another possibility is to send a letter to the OMBUDSMAN, who in theory rules over such issues as printed falsehoods and unbalanced bias. Here are the instructions:

The ombudsman’s email is [email protected] and presumably the rules above would apply.. For example, sender info and no attachments.)

[druidity33]

24. Thank You NWH!!!

i will spend TIME tomorrow crafting a letter to these folks in the strongest diplomatic language i can muster... on that note if i spend time on this, are there other papers that need schooling? I will check with my area dailies/local weeklies today and see what they've said... (Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Hartford papers and the Advocate...)
Good luck and goddess speed!

[domlaw]

26. My Letter, Simple to the point

I’m confused, by your recent OP/ED “No More Special Counsels”. The writers state that:

"The Plame affair began with the implication by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV,that Vice President Cheney had sent him on a mission to Niger in 2002 to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy nuclear weapons material.”…. “In fact, Wilson was not selected by Cheney's office.
His wife, a CIA analyst working at the agency's Northern Virginia headquarters, was involved in getting him the assignment.”

In Wilson’s original New York Times article he states that:

“In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story
so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ex=1121400000&en=81e0aa9d9cb1d0dc&ei=5070


Can you please point out where Wilson says that Cheney sent him on this mission? If you are unable to back this up with fact, can you please post a retraction?



Sincerely

[SittingBull]

28. They try to keep

their own ass clean. ;)

[Why Syzygy]

15. Well this says it all does it not?

The writers are Washington lawyers who served in the Justice Department during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

:wtf: Oh. Who was screaming when Bill Clinton was being special prosecuted out the kazoo? Anyone? Anyone? Move-on, that's who.

This is high treason right here. HOW DARE THEY postulate that the American people do not have the Right, nay the Obligation, to secure honest governance?

That's not my land. THIS is my land. And you better bet your britches that we WILL find Justice.

[Fluffdaddy]

16. WaPo had no problem with Special Counsels in the 1990's

The Clinton years

[highplainsdem]

17. Rivkin and Casey have been spewing out RW spin like that for years.

Here's one example, from the beginning of their long op-ed praising Alberto Gonzales in the 12/31/04 issue of National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/casey_rivkin_200501040657.asp ):

President Bush's nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general will soon come before the Senate for its advice and consent, and there is going to be a battle royal. The Left is marshaling its forces to bloody Gonzales, and clearly hopes to deny him confirmation. The pretext for opposing this superbly qualified appointee will be his role, as White House counsel, in developing the administration's legal position on the classification and treatment of individuals captured in the War on Terror. The stakes in this battle are high: At issue may be nothing less than the future of American sovereignty.


They seem a bit obsessed with battles and bloodying there, and their new WP column mentions samurai and bloodied swords. (If I had time, I'd look up more of their op-ed pieces to see if these RW hitmen use the same imagery there -- someone could do an interesting psychoanalysis if they do.) I had that link handy because I'd found their op-ed piece last night via Google News and had done some checking online for what else they'd written; I was going to post about this but was so tired I couldn't see straight, let alone type decently. I decided to let it go till this morning, and I'm glad to see you posted about it.

I was going to quote the "samurai" paragraph of their attack on Fitzgerald, which you didn't quote:

It is clear that, at least by sometime in January 2004 -- and probably much earlier -- Fitzgerald knew this law had not been violated. Plame was not a "covert" agent but a bureaucrat working at CIA headquarters. Instead of closing shop, however, Fitzgerald sought an expansion of his mandate and has now charged offenses that grew entirely out of the investigation itself. In other words, there was no crime when the investigation started, only, allegedly, after it finished. Unfortunately, for special counsels, as under the code of the samurai, once the sword is drawn it must taste blood.

This is sheer propaganda and spin, couched in lurid terms. I'd bet that column about Fitzgerald was written well in advance of his announcements yesterday, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if Rove was consulted before they wrote it.

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. So they have a record of lying and are being allowed to lie again

But the lies in this piece of garbage are way, way over the top - even to strongly implying that Saddam WAS trying to get yellowcake from Niger and Wilson was just being peevish.

This is a sanctioned attack, no question, and I feel strongly that we cannot let it stand unopposed.

[wordpix2]

25. their spin seems to be a call for violence against whoever

is willing to challenge BushCo. We must protect Fitz.

[Nothing Without Hope]

47. True, and also the entire system of special prosecutors to hold government

accountable. These Bush sycophants want to have as the only option goverment investigating ITSELF. Well, no wonder, that's what the Bushies want so their crime spree can continue unchecked.

[MelissaB]

19. Seeing things like this in print and repeated by the corporate media

physically makes me sick. How can they print/say this "stuff" that has been proven false? People still believe what the media tells them. :grr:

[Nothing Without Hope]

21. "People still bellieve what the media tell them" YES. That's why we have

to oppose this. It's being put forward as truth for people to believe, and too many of them will even though the lies are outrageous.

We need to media blast this - make it clear that the WaPo has no journalistic integrity at all and cannot be trusted.

[seemunkee]

20. Just read it, at least as much as I could stomache

[paineinthearse]

22. Contacting Washington Post Writers and Editors

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/interact/longterm/stfbio/wpemail.htm

Contacting Washington Post Writers and Editors

Below is a list of writers and editors who offer their e-mail addresses to the public. This list is offered for readers of The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com who would like to contact a specific reporter or editor about specific stories or with story tips. The use of this list for mass-group e-mailings is strongly discouraged.

Those Washington Post writers or editors not on the list can be contacted by regular mail at:

Writer's Name
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20071

The Post's Ombudsman, Michael Getler, is the readers' representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at [email protected] or call 202-334-7582.

Send a Letter to the Editor - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

[wordpix2]

23. note both articles talk about "the prosecutor" and not the Grand Jury

as if the "prosecutor" is one man alone making the decision that LIBBY lied and obstructed justice. Hey, BushCo, the GJ decided to indict, not just Fitz.

And don't rule out any further indictments in future b/c Fitz made it clear investigation is ongoing. Rove and Cheney are going down over this eventually and hopefully Chickenhawk-in-Chief soon after.

[understandinglife]

29. WaPo editor's office is on my call list for Monday. Thank you for posting.

Peace.

[Nothing Without Hope]

32. That's good, but I believe a BROADER response is also needed. n/t

Writing to or calling the editor and/or the ombudsman is of some help, because they do need to get numbers of letters expressing true outrage at the lies. But we also need to write to Congress members, our local media, and also to COMPETING newspapers about this.

The Washington Post editors have shown that they intend to print obvious, known lies in support of the Bush Administration's false propaganda. The Rivkin and Casey article even strongly implies that the "16 words" were TRUE and that Saddam was indeed trying to get yellowcake from Niger, while Wilson was just grandstanding and acting peevish. This is far from the only lie, but this one is the most sinister. It underscores the fact that these WaPo articles constitute important NEWS: this newspaper's editors have now demonstrated that they do not intend to change the habits of blindly stenographing Bush Administration talking points just as they and the other papers did in the rush of the nation into the Iraq war.

The publication of these articles by the Washington Post seems to show that its editors have learned NOTHING from the experience of these last years and are unwilling to take any responsibility for the great harm of irresponsibly printing false talking points that advance the Bush Administration agenda, however dangerous and falsely framed it may be. But in fact, this time there is a difference.

This time they KNEW that what they were printing were not only false but deliberate lies designed by Administration spinners to deceive and manipulate the public. In so doing, they have left journalism entirely - they are now indistinguishable from the propaganda branch of the Administration, purposefully deceiving the public in support of a partisan political agenda that has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands, bankrupted the nation, forced hundreds of thousands into the blackest poverty, and made this country a pariah in the world.

And they have taken this step away from journalism and into deliberate furtherance of deceit for advancement of the destructive Bush agenda WILLINGLY.

I believe that this is not only wrong, it's so wrong that it is NEWSWORTHY. That as patriotic, concerned citizens, we must publicize and explain what is happening at the Washington Post, making the American public and their representatives in Congress aware of what they are doing. Part of the discussion of this story should be a comparison of how the different US papers are responding to the revelations of the consequences of their blind complicity in spreading prewar propaganda. Some leading media venues - like the LA Times, the New York Times, and Knight-Ridder, have publicly acknowledged their failure of responsibility. They should be ENCOURAGED in this.

The editors of the Washington Post has clearly shown in these two 10/29 articles that they intend to continue the same disastrous policy of deliberately enabling and promoting lying White House propaganda. They MUST be held accountable for this.

The media were allowed to drag this country into a catastrophic, immoral war based on lies. We cannot allow the Washington Post to deliberately continue the same utterly corrupt and dangerous policy. I feel strongly that this time we MUST speak out, break the silence, write letters, write editorial stories, fight back against this abdication of responsibility to the nation.

Our nation will continue its slide into fascist totalitarianism if we don't.

Others before us have seen this truth - I'll post some familiar quotes below - and the Washington Post has just made it clear that this is the time to act.

I really believe that something broader, more public is needed than only letters to the Washington Post. This is a major issue we are facing now and it will determine the future of the country: we must hold the media accountable for printing lies and show the public what they are doing. These articles in the 10/29 Washington Post are one example, and we know that there will be more there and elsewhere if we don't challenge them, challenge this political mendacity with them as an example. We need to encourage the truth and spread the word on lies.

The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -Dante Alighieri, poet (1265-1321)

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." --Edward R. Murrow

[understandinglife]

33. Before I read this, just so you know, I'd already sent your OP to ...

... Media Matters and Think Progress and urged them to consider making it one of their issues regarding the intentional mis-information being spewed by many.

Also, since it has been quite some time since DU Activist Group did anything, perhaps you will want to email Skinner and propose this as a group effort. You've certainly (as always) thoroughly documented the issues, so it would not be difficult for Skinner to launch a "broad" campaign.

Thank you.

Peace.

[Nothing Without Hope]

34. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

35. In my view, it doesn't make up for these lies to also publish something

vaguely critical of the Bush Admnistration, such as this article on how they should "stop campaigning" and "start governing." Note that this doesn't make serious charges or demands, it's a rather toothless demand.

It does not wipe away the egregious lies in the articles discussed in this thread. That is not "balance." There is NO excuse for printing KNOWN LIES, including repeating some from the runup to the Iraq war.

[Cookie wookie]

36. Nothing Without Hope, I agree that

Athe Washington Post, in allowing this article to be published in their newspaper, has violated the public trust and is intentionally propegating lies.

In the article by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, here are the statements they make that I think are false, which appears to be almost everything they say:

1) “It is clear that, at least by sometime in January 2004 -- and probably much earlier -- Fitzgerald knew this law had not been violated. Plame was not a ‘covert’ agent but a bureaucrat working at CIA headquarters.”

2) “…Fitzgerald sought an expansion of his mandate….”

3) “…there was no crime when the investigation started, only, allegedly, after it finished.”
Actually, since a CIA operative's name was leaked, that was the crime. Don't know how much documentation we need to prove that one. Maybe quote the statute.

4) “…the implication by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, that Vice President Cheney had sent him on a mission to Niger in 2002 to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy nuclear weapons material...In fact, Wilson was not selected by Cheney's office."

I don't think Wilson ever claimed to be selected by Cheney's office. I think he said in "Politics of Truth" something about Cheney wanting someone to go to Niger to investigate and that Plame mentioned that he had been ambassador to Niger, but I don't have my copy of the book to check on that. If true, then the authors are twisting the truth to make it seem like Wilson and or Plame did something wrong, when they were actually serving the country well and should be commended.

5) “British intelligence also believed that this attempt had been made, and the CIA's review of the matter -- including Wilson's trip -- emphatically did not suggest otherwise."

6) “Apparently in an effort to set the record straight, and to put the whole story before the American people, administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak about Plame's role in selecting her husband for the Niger mission.”

7) “Instead of permitting this allegation to be investigated in the normal course of events by federal prosecutors in Washington, the Justice Department tapped Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, to serve as a "special counsel" to investigate the officials who might have been involved."

8) "Ironically, the pressure to appoint a special counsel came only after the information about the Justice Department internal investigation was leaked to the media.”

9) "Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”

10) “Fitzgerald was specifically excused from even this minimal check on his power and as a consequence was accountable only to himself.”

11) The U.S. attorneys, and the department's Criminal Division, are fully capable of investigating and prosecuting alleged wrongdoing by important government officials, and can do it with proper perspective.

[Nothing Without Hope]

38. This is a super analysis - need to get get some discussion in it,

make any changes, flesh out with the documented rebuttals for each point, format for effective presentation. Then we should start media blasting on the WaPo's willing printing of blatant, knowing LIES, some of the exactly the ones that pushed the country in the Iraq war. Letters to our Congressional representatives, asking them to make a statement that can be used to show the seriousness and consequences of such lies, would be a good action too, IMO.

Re #4: Yes, you're right - that one has been rebutted many times and is totally false.

Re #10: Is that one false for sure?

You've set up a framework for that is a promising communication tool to move forward on this. We should consider starting a new thread asking for input in getting the documented rebuttals and polishing the wording of the statements of the rebuttals. I have some of the relevant documents but not all. May I have your permission to start this new thread with your valuable work? I want to set it up in such a way as to showcase the articles themselves and the need for action on this.

[Cookie wookie]

40. Sure, I though it would be

helpful to get feedback from others, so we could put together a carefully documented rebuttal, but didn't know if it was okay to ask here.

[Cookie wookie]

41. #10: is that false for sure?

That I don't know. It's one we can research. I probably should have left it off the list I sent to WaPo ombudsman.

[Cookie wookie]

37. I just sent this to the Ombudsman,

and included all but the last item on the list I posted above:

"Dear Washington Post Ombudsman,

The Washington Post, in allowing the article, "No More Special Counsels" by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, to be published in the Saturday, October 29, 2005 edition, has violated the public trust and is intentionally propegating untruths.

The article by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey make the following statements that are false. I hope you will investigate this matter and that Rivkin, Casey and the Post will be required to admit that these were false statements and publish a correction as soon as possible in the paper:"

[Nothing Without Hope]

39. Well done! This is a necessary step.

It will be even more effective after concise, documented rebuttals to each of these lies are added and the whole thing is put into an clear, effective format. Then we can blast this issue everywhere and demand not only accountability but a retraction and promise to avoid such egregious, deliberate lies in the future. This is dead serious, a betrayal of public trust that is a direct outgrowth of what led the stampede to war.

[Cookie wookie]

42. I started putting together the documentation

but aren't most of these lies so obvious as to not require that we waste our time giving the Post and others documentation of what is already well-known publicly?

For instance, in #1 above, even the Post has printed that Plame was "covert":
'before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago.... " (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071001000.html)

Also: "The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence. "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation." (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:PMi-X2KWqqMJ:www.billingsgazette.com/index.php%3Fts%3D1%26display%3Drednews/2003/10/01/build/nation/25-leak.inc+Plame+CIA+referral&hl=es)

The media knows they are lying and is doing it deliberately.

[Nothing Without Hope]

43. Here I disagree. It's not as much about correcting the lies as about

holding the WaPo and the US major media in general accountable for PRINTING KNOWN LIES to support the Bush agenda. The fact that some of these lies are so well known to BE lies is part of what makes those examples valuable.

Can you believe how this piece of bubbling slime was STILL trying to pass off the "16 words" as true? As Yogi Berra said, it's deja vu all over again. Back to the relentless propaganda campaign for the war.

[Cookie wookie]

45. I guess they figure they can get away with anything.

All they have to do is print it and there will be plenty of true believers because so many people just don't keep up and don't know better.

I think the WaPo is worse that worthless. They are aiding and abetting criminal behavior by lying to make a case against prosecuting crime. They pose a danger to our national security, because of their prominence as a news source, and the false belief that citizens can trust what they say.

[Nothing Without Hope]

46. Exactly. They are partially responsible for the rush to war and now they

must be held accountable when they delliberately print lies to push Bush Administration propaganda.

[Cookie wookie]

49. The Post takes advantage of our sacred freedom of speech,

after all, it's not against the law for them to lie, print lies, or print whatever they want with few or little exceptions. That has to be one of the most disgusting and sickening facts of all of this. Our major newspapers, with the Post as one of the leads, are working to overthrow our democratic system of government and rule of law, and using first amendment rights to do it. And for what? Greed. Even that is so sickening because what they may gain is unsustainable -- immediate profit. And what we all lose could be just everything.

[Nothing Without Hope]

44. your long link is broken because it uses happens to code for a smiley

You can get around this by checking the "don't use smileys" box on the lower left of the text box when you post. You might want to edit that one and check that box - then we'll have the full link.

[Cookie wookie]

48. Fixed. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

50. Not ALL the major media. These articles from OTHER newspapers

are examples of something very different from what the Wash Post did here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all=104x5216210
Thread title (10/29): LA Times: EIGHT News articles plus TWO op/eds on the Fitz case! 10/29

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1885658
thread title (10/28): KR: Indictment doesn't clear up mystery at heart of CIA leak probe (Niger)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x169110
Thread title (10/30): There is a cancer on the presidency (Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5220490
Thread title (10/29): Frank Rich: "To believe that the Bush-Cheney scandals will be behind us ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5213011
Thread title (10/28): MUST-READ: Libby indictment likely to spark new debate about Iraq war

Here's a mixed bag in the media reaction compilation thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5208489
thread title (10/28): Official MEDIA REACTION thread