The lie they feed us 100's of times a day

[JNelson6563]

Has anyone else noticed this? All the media is claiming Ambassador Wilson "disagreed" with Bush on the Iraq war. They say the theory is the leak was because of this "disagreement".

While indeed Wilson disagreed with the war that is not the problem. The problem is that he exposed the lies of Team Bush and the Niger yellow cake business.

I think there is a big difference and the "disagree" lie only serves to soften the blow to Team Bush.

Julie

[TahitiNut]

1. It also serves to amplify the egregiousness of retaliation.

Sadly, the media isn't often either erudite or articulate. Nor are they even-handed in the pretense of mind-reading. All too often they'll report what Bush* "believes" or (even more questionably) "thinks" -- but, with a possible fear of libel(?), take a disporoportionally great distance from the allegation of a "lie" that clearly implies both knowledge and intent.

[Cocoa]

2. there's also the lie that somehow Wilson's credibility is an issue

Novak's column is in black and white, there is absolutely no doubt that this thing happened, and yet some reporters are still saying "alleged leak."

There's also an implication that this is less of a crime since Wilson is partisan, which is also ridiculous. This whole thing is mostly about Bush retaliating against his enemies.

[Brucey]

3. And on CNN they show a clip of Wilson shaking hands with

who else: Clinton. Looks kinda like the Monica Lewinsky clip we saw seventeen jillion times. They don't show Wilson being congratulated by former President Bush, that wouldn't be fair. They show him with Clinton so everyone can see that this is just a political fight.

[Catherine Vincent]

5. CNN shows a clip of Wilson shaking hands with Clinton?

Another case of media whoring.

[BattyDem]

4. I've noticed that the press is saying ...

"Wilson says the White House leaked his wife's CIA connections."

Um, no ... Novak is the one who said the White House leaked Wilson's wife's CIA connections.

Of course, Novak now claims he didn't get it from the White House - he overheard a random conversation, or something like that. But that makes me wonder how a journalist with over 50 years experience could be so careless as to write a story in which he "mistakenly" implicates the White House in a crime, and yet did absolutely nothing to correct that mistake up until now - 2 1/2 months after it was printed.

I'm so glad we have a liberal media - I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it and nail Novak on his changing stories. :eyes: