quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
originally posted by Whomod:

The only people i've heard that swear that Wilson's wife was merely an analyst are Novack and Sean Hannity who of course try to spin this as a non-issue hatched by (who else) THE "LIBERALS" that should be beneath anyones interest level. Every other news source I've read has her as an operative. But of course these guys on AM talk radio (and of course Novak) are imapartial and would never ever lie or mislead.
And the Wall Street Journal, which is conveniently ignored.

(see the editorial I posted at the bottom of page 10 here)

The Wall Street Journal's take is that Joseph Wilson went on a secret mission for the CIA in Niger. And when Wilson outed himself, with his New York Times editorial, accusing the Bush administration of lying and wrongdoing, WILSON HIMSELF drew public attention to his work for the CIA, who sent him to Niger, etc., and drew public investigation to the person (within the CIA) who recruited Wilson for the mission, and that it WAS HIS WIFE.

When Wilson slanders the President, that requires the media to investigate Wilson and his mission, and his allegations. So Wilson himself drew attention to his wife, and if he wasn't prepared for that kind of investigation, then he shouldn't have gone public.

Conversely, it is of concern for me that four former CIA operatives went on ABC's Nightline last Thursday to criticize the Bush administration for disclosing Wilson's wife's name. But that is four operatives, I don't know that the entire CIA feels that way.

And Wilson likes to pass himself off as non-partisan as well, but as I discussed on another topic, Wilson spent a fair part of his career working directly for Gore, and other high-level partisan Democrats. It has yet to be discosed what biases these four operatives, out of the thousands in the CIA, might have against Bush's White House. The question is not even asked.

Once again, I get the feeling that this is the slanderous-accusation-of-the-week aimed at Bush, just the latest trumped-up charges in a slanderous three-year string. When there is hard evidence, I'll believe it.

I get the impression only the Bush-bashing side of this story has been told, and there's another side that would vindicate Bush's White House, that's just screaming to be told, and perhaps even HAS been told but not reported, that is not given exposure in a media eager to lynch Bush and downplay anything that would vindicate him.

I caught a few minutes of the 700 Club today, and they discussed the level of bias with which the L.A. Times is covering the governor's election in California.
It reported that the L.A. Times is at the core of all these sex allegations and Nazi allegations surfacing just days before the California governor's election.

The report said about 1000 people have cancelled their subscriptions to the L.A. Times in protest to the one-sided coverage.
I saw L.A. Times reporter Robert Scheer interviewed on PBS News last Friday, who really hyped Gray Davis, and laid into Schwarzenegger, in a one-sided fashion that I've come to expect from the L.A. Times.
With the same allegations against Clinton, the liberal media and reporters sneered at Republicans and conservatives, saying that his private sex life has nothing to do with his job performance.
Again, that double-standard.

And 700 Club story also reported that The L.A. Times has two teams of reporters working tirelessly on the sex allegations against Schwarzenneger, and simultaneously has NO REPORTERS, NONE investigating incumbent Governor Gray Davis, despite allegations that Davis has been verbally abusive to women staffers in his office, and even grabbed a female employee at least once, in a fit of rage.

Another example of the Democrat-biased media playing favorites. The National Organization for Women (NOW) also vitriolically protests Schwarzeneeger's candidacy, whereas they ardently supported Bill Clinton against similar allegations, by women who came forward with sexual harrassment charges against Clinton.

You just have to laugh at that double standard, where allegations Liberals are always portrayed as "overblown", and allegations against conservatives are always assumed to be true, and warrant being nailed to a cross, or calls for impeachment.

And no doubt this bias carries over to the flavor-of-the-week allegations against Bush as well.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial doesn't sight any source does it? It just says she's an analyst with no source mentioned. So they know this how? Also not sure how Wilson slandered the President. The info Wilson came out with has embarrassed the administration but it's info that seems to be true. Even they said that bit referencing it shouldn't have been in the State of the Union address. Can't really slander somebody if they end up agreeing with you.

This weekend on Meet the Press Wilson said he was a Democrat. Nothing to ambiguous there.

According to Novak, 2 Senior White House officials gave him Wilson's wife name. It doesn't look like their coming forward despite it becoming a criminal matter. This is not honorable or noble behavior.

It would have been one thing if a reporter had dug out her identity but quite another for the government to give out a covert operative name. For somebody who likes to shout treason at the liberal boogie men I would think it would deeply disturb you too that this administration would resort to such dirty tactics.