The New York Times just published an article about "new questions" concerning the Valerie Plame affair (via RealClearPolitics). My first thought was that the Times was going to desperately attempt to breath new life into the rapidly disintegrating conspiracy theory that they have pushing for years (according to which the diabolical Bush administration vindictively "outed" Valerie Plame as "payback" for Joseph Wilson "blowing the whistle" on the administration's "lies" about Iraq's WMDs). Imagine my surprise when I saw that one of the new questions was this:
Now, the question of whether Mr. Fitzgerald properly exercised his prosecutorial discretion in continuing to pursue possible wrongdoing in the case has become the subject of rich debate on editorial pages and in legal and political circles.
Say what?
Isn't this the same New York Times that published Joe Wilson's original fabrication entitled "What I didn't find in Africa"? With these now infamous words, Wilson single-handedly launched the misguided but nevertheless surpassingly successful "Bush Lied!" insurgency:
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Subsequent editorials published in the New York Times robotically marched to the beat of Joe Wilson's drum, like this absolutely classic column by Paul Krugman exquisitely entitled "Ending the Fraudulance:"
So is the nightmare finally coming to an end? Yes, I think so. I have no idea whether Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, will bring more indictments in the Plame affair. In any case, I don't share fantasies that Dick Cheney will be forced to resign; even Karl Rove may keep his post. One way or another, the Bush administration will stagger on for three more years. But its essential fraudulence stands exposed, and it's hard to see how that exposure can be undone.
Meanwhile, the Plame inquiry, however it winds up, has ended the myth of the administration's monopoly on patriotism, which was also fading in the face of the war.
Apologists can shout all they like that no laws were broken, that hardball politics is nothing new, or whatever. The fact remains that officials close to both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush leaked the identity of an undercover operative for political reasons. Whether or not that act was illegal, it was clearly unpatriotic.
And the Plame affair has also solidified the public's growing doubts about the administration's morals. By a three-to-one margin, according to a Washington Post poll, the public now believes that the level of ethics and honesty in the government has declined rather than risen under Mr. Bush.
Well, yes, the New York Times did manage to tarnish the president's reputation over this affair. I wonder if, in retrospect, the editors believe that was a good thing?
In any case, not to be outdone, Maureen Dowd stoked the maniacal rage of Bush-haters everywhere with these words (also in the New York Times):
The Bush hawks presented themselves as protectors and exporters of American values. But they were so feverish about projecting the alternate reality they had constructed to link Saddam and Al Qaeda - and fulfilling their idée fixe about invading Iraq - they perverted American values.
Whether or not it turns out to be illegal, outing a C.I.A. agent - undercover or not - simply to undermine her husband's story is Rove-ishly sleazy. This no-leak administration was perfectly willing to leak to hurt anyone who got in its way.
That last sentence perfectly summarizes the widely shared delusion that has animated this whole sordid affair for years (i.e., Bush is scum, end of story). Everything would be so much simpler if liberal critics would just (a) present actual arguments against the policies Bush favors while (b) accepting that he genuinely believes that his policies are best for America. But they can't. To them, the issue is always Bush himself. The discussion they want to have is this: "Is Bush evil? Let me count the ways."
Then there is Nicholas Krisof who, in one of his, New York Times editorials, asked "What Did Cheney Know, and When Did He Know It?" Here are some of his words that no doubt helped to get his readers' blood boiling:
Was Mr. Libby fearful of disclosing something about your behavior in the summer of 2003? Mr. Libby is renowned for his caution, yet he is alleged to have suddenly embarked upon a high-risk campaign of leaks and lies. If he did do that, was it a misguided attempt to protect you? The alleged lies shielded you by indicating that the information you gave him about Mrs. Wilson instead came from reporters.
Would the truth have been so potentially damaging to your position that Mr. Libby chose perjury instead?
...
So, Mr. Cheney, tell us what happened. If you're afraid to say what you knew, and when you knew it, then you should resign.
So, Mr. Kristof, tell us how and when you went off the deep end, exactly. If you're afraid to say why you helped to nurture preposterous conspiracy theories that served no other purpose than to damage your own president in a time of war, then you should resign.
But it wasn't just columnists. Here is a front-page news story in the New York Times ominously entitled "Cover-Up Issue Is Seen as Focus in Leak Inquiry:"
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.
Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.
Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.
...
But Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby may not be the only people at risk. There may be others in the government who could be charged for violations of the disclosure law or of other statutes, like the espionage act, which makes it a crime to transmit classified information to people not authorized to receive it.
And here is a front page story about the real enemy entitled "Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges:"
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23 - With a decision expected this week on possible indictments in the C.I.A. leak case, allies of the White House suggested Sunday that they intended to pursue a strategy of attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal technicalities or the product of an overzealous prosecutor.
I could go on. The stories were endless, and they were no doubt gobbled up by readers who love to hate Bush. All of this was, of course, made possible by the editors of the New York Times, whose views were not exactly top secret. For example, here is a quote from one of their own editorials entitled "Remember that Mushroom Cloud?"
The indictment of Lewis Libby on charges of lying to a grand jury about the outing of Valerie Wilson has focused attention on the lengths to which the Bush administration went in 2003 to try to distract the public from this central fact: American soldiers found a lot of things in Iraq, including a well-armed insurgency their bosses never anticipated, but they did not find weapons of mass destruction.
Finally, in this recent gem of ironic indignation, the editors of the New York Times endorsed Ned Lamont, in part because of what Joe Lieberman didn't do:
He has shown no interest in prodding his Republican friends into investigating how the administration misled the nation about Iraq’s weapons.
You mean like Joe Wilson did? And like YOU did? Over and over again?
Yet, now that the fantasy has gone up in a puff of smoke, the latest article in the New York Times can think of new questions only for Patrick Fitzgerald. Well, I have a new question for the editors:
In light of your apparent eagerness to maliciously and fallaciously savage the reputation of your own president during a time of war, what does this whole sordid affair say about you?
It seems like a fair question to me, and I am sure that an honest answer will shed light on the paper's eagerness to expose other administration "scandals" (like the NSA wiretapping program and the CIA's program to monitor the financial transactions of terrorists).
26 comments:
"Let me count the ways." ROFL. So true.
Someday, the descendants of today's newspapers will answer fair and honest questions. But that day is not today. Tomorrow's not looking too good, either.
While we wait on that, thank you for pointing out the "essential fraudulence" of Paul Krugman and the pack of his fellow braying hyenas exalting themselves via undocumented charges and other pandering to the mob. Across the river here in Hudson County, we have a multimillion dollar school building fraud with no arrests in sight. (The state will rebuild the fund, and steal again.) There's corruption and sandal begging for exposure all over the country, but a truckload of cash could not induce the Times to pursue a legitimate, constructive story to a conclusion the way they've hounded the Plame affair.
This garbage is what they preen over. They're actually proud of it. And their world is so insular, they think everyone else is proud of them, too.
There is zero chance the NYT will own up to its errors. But is there any chance the WaPo or other MSM types will do a nice review of how bad the NYT has been on this one? One can hope.
Look how many years it took them to own up to Walter Duranty's lies.
The problem is that the damage has been done. They have undermined confidence in the president, the administration and indeed the entire country; they have aided and abetted international Islamic fascism; they have, and continue, to lie and misrepresent the truth about Iraq, the actions of the administration to track and destroy terrorists.
They have a lot to answer for --- and unfortunately ALL of us are going to pay the price for their perfidy.
Dean,
I believe you are wrong in that the NYT has NEVER admitted that Duranty lied.
You are missing the whole point: Like the pope, the NYT cultivates the idea that it is infallible. Which is why you will never see anything more than "In our article titled "Northern Spotted Cockroach Disappearing, Many Blame Republicans", John F. Doe was incorrectly identified as John S. Doe."
Excellent commentary, Engram. I've not seen your site before, but I'll be coming back.
And yes, it's time we did start questioning the patriotism of those, like the editors of the New York Times, commit such obviously unpatriotic acts.
Check out the editorial in the Washington Post on Sept. 1, this past Friday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html
The last paragraph:
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
"It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."
And why did all those people take him seriously? They must just be gullible, because there's nothing here to suggest that the Post's brethren propagated a lie.
"You are missing the whole point: Like the pope, the NYT cultivates the idea that it is infallible. "
THe NY Times has a lot to answer for... but also you sound like a bunch of fanatics yourselves. Have fun out-outraging each other.
How much outrage would be proper, I wonder?
Thank God Anonymous came along to adjust our outrage level. What would we do without him?
The New York Times has, in fact, repudiated Walter Duranty's coverage. It merely took them decades to do it. Here's their official statement.
Yeah, Dean, but they would not give back the Pulitzer.
How could you pass up the chance to quote from any one of the deranged Frank Rich columns in the Times from the past year and a half or so? That took some considerable restraint!
"Have fun out-outraging each other."
As in the Pinch-Krugman-Dowd-Krisof-Friedman circle jerk?
Let's not forget to add to the NY Times long list of crimes the notoriously inaccurate reporting of Judith Miller on Iraq's WMD programs in the run-up to the Iraq War. I didn't see Republicans wailing about the NY Times when it served their designs by misleading the American people into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that threatened main street America. Remember the absurd chemical weapons drones that could hit the East coast? How soon we forget.
And while we're bashing media outfits how about some criticism of Fox News' saturation coverage of Zawahiri's latest video and the pathetic clown "Assam the American" offering all of us a chance to convert to Islam? By repeating the enemy's propaganda statements over and over again ad nauseum, Fox is lending much-needed support to Al Qaeda's faltering effort to regain the spotlight that Hezbollah and Iran have stolen. How about some "objective" analysis in here of whether Fox's coverage is helping the enemy in a time of war?
Dean, you mean they've returned Duranty's Pulitzer?
They're not in possession of his Pulitzer. Read their statement.
Regardless, it was claimed above, "...the NYT has NEVER admitted that Duranty lied."
Read their statement.
Check this out, daily trivia questions and contests, come join in on the fun!
Thanks for an interesting contribution to the blogworld discussion of the WaPo editorial.
The fourth estate seems to want to sniff out scandals and bring down a president they hate--their meme tape playing in their heads is "All the President's Men."
However, they have become so partisan and it's obvious. They forgot that they must maintain the pretense, no matter how thin, of objectivity. That's out the window. They have lost their cred.
Anyone who bought Joe Wilson's lies hook line and sinker this whole time, and who continue to contribute to their cause on their fundraising website, is a world class fool. Even if they are editors at the NYT.
I can't stand listening to the rants of the BDS infected. They refuse to take in new information.
Leads me to think of their spin on Rathergate--well, the document is false but it communicates an underlying truth, because we just *know* it's true.
OK, Goebbels.
This one is good from the Times (about Duranty):
"...Since the 1980's, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures."
But not acknowledging the paper´s failures. It´s all Duranty´s fault. Not the Times, of course...
Excellent. Those who accused Bush of lying America into a war-when their party had access to the same intelligence and the majority voted for the same war -have indulged their partisanship at the expense of the nation.
Their political attacks on the President and the war effort have strengthened the insurgency and sapped America's will to win.
Evidence is generally not necessary to support the wild charges printed daily by the "paper of record" but when it is thought necessary to sometimes present evidence to lend verismilitude to their claims they simply present fabrications.
Let the record show that they have yet to expose Wilson for the unpatrioric liar that he is -putting his own financial welfare ahead of the interests of the nation.
These small minded partisans have blood on their hands.
Terry Gain
The NYT statement on Duranty is indeed worth reading.
The claim above, that NYT never acknowledged that Duranty lied, stands substantiated.
The NYT position is that Duranty chose the wrong sources to believe when confronted with conflicting testimony. He was (presumably) doing his best under difficult circumstances, yada yada, got it wrong unfortunately, but these things happen...
Oh. And some editors thought his writing was tendentious. But only some. Nothing more than that.
T.D. Larkin says, "I didn't see Republicans wailing about the NY Times when it served their designs by misleading the American people into believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that threatened main street America."
T.D., your conspiracy theory is showing. Do you recognize that? Do you recall, at all, the global consensus that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was in possession of as well as seeking more and better WMDs? And finally, do you have anything to back up your impression (I won't dignify it by calling it a "claim") that it was the "design" of Republicans to mislead everybody else into a war with Iraq?
Geez, this subject gets boring. No offense to our good host. It's just the constant revisiting of the "rush to war," the shiny happy kite-flying Iraq that we ruined, ruined I tell you, by our imperial greed for its oil. (We must be the most inept imperium ever.)
One would think that after learning that they have wrongly accused someone, New York Times authors and editors would be willing to make a great effort in not just acknowledging, but actually repairing the damage they have done. Isn't it the only honest thing to do? And, nowadays, when we all know the truth - isn't it just plain smart thing to do?
Post a Comment