Wednesday, January 12, 2005

Meet Your Liberal Media: Asses-R-Us Edition

Meanwhile, the so-called liberal Washington Post engages in character assassination and blame-the-victim advocacy, in an op-ed that has Victoria Toesspot trolling for clients. The right-wing mouthpiece and her co-author write:

There is even more telling CIA conduct about Plame's status. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," when the agency asked Plame's husband to take on the Niger assignment, he did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement, a requirement for just about anybody else doing work for an intelligence agency. This omission opened the door for Wilson to write an op-ed piece for the New York Times describing his Niger trip. Did it not occur to our super sleuths of spycraft that a nationally distributed piece about the incendiary topic of weapons of mass destruction -- which happens to be Wilson's wife's expertise -- could result in her involvement being raised?

Ya see, the real criminals were not the ones who violated the confidentiality laws, but the ones who didn't attempt to gag Wilson. By not engaging in prior restraint, the CIA practically forced Administration stooges to violate the law!

Bruce W. Sanford isn't an advocate for the First Amendment, he's a bought-and-paid-for clown. (A clown with a history of teaming up with Reagan Administration hacks to carry Karl Rove's water [.pdf file].)

Of course, the piece is built on a foundation of unwarranted assumptions, the most dubious being the assumption of Bob Novak's honesty.

If you parse the article, what it actually says is that if we assume that Plame wasn't really covert AND that her covert status was the subject of much gossip AND that the leakers were merely careless AND that the leakers were idealists attempting to expose wrongdoing rather partisan hacks bent on smearing truthtellers, but still acted unintentionally AND that Novak is telling the truth AND that Toensing has any credibility whatsoever, THEN maybe there wasn't a crime. Watch how the game is played by Toesspot and Sanford:

Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.

From "fact" to fantasy in zero characters.

(And the paragraph makes no sense. What the authors say, though they mean something entirely different, is that "Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA DOES provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret.")

Why would the Post publish this fact-free apology for potentially criminal Administration conduct? Maybe the jokers who wrote this ass-u-me article will explain in their little on-line chit chat. More likely, they'll just delete the tough questions.

No comments: