Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame And Liberal Media Bias (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

When somebody attacks a Republican president, the media blindly reports their accusations as fact, no matter how obviously bogus the charges are. The credibility of the accuser is an afterthought, and when the accuser turns out to be lying, after what is usually months of unending, front page, reinforcing coverage, the “mainstream” papers grudgingly acknowledge the discrepancy, and only on the back pages (if at all).

No recent event bears out this truth more than the Valerie Plame incident. Here are some things you probably don’t know if you get your news from the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, ABC, NBC, CBS or any of the other “mainstream” media outlets:

-When Joe Wilson wrote that now infamous Op-Ed piece, “What I didn’t find in Iraq,” which the New York Times unquestioningly took seriously and printed, he was working as an operative for the Kerry campaign.

-The claim about British intelligence finding evidence that Saddam sought uranium in Niger was painstakingly investigated by a bipartisan Senate committee and their conclusion was supportive. The British also painstakingly investigated the matter (the Butler Commission) and concluded through multiple sources that Iraqi officials had visited Niger for the purposes of acquiring Uranium.

-Wilson was not sent to Niger to investigate the matter by Dick Cheney. Wilson was a former low-level toilet inspector at an African embassy, out of work at the time, and contrary to what he and the media alleged, his wife, not Dick Cheney, hooked him up to go to Niger. He blatantly misrepresented his role there as some sort of direct order handed down by the Vice President to settle the matter once and for all. But it was really just an under-achieving, delusional, pathological liar’s unilateral wet dream.

-Wilson was never U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. That was a blatantly false promotion he got from the media as a reward for trashing the president in a time of war.

-Wilson’s “evidence” amounted to answers he got from low-level African politicians when he asked them if they had tried to help Saddam develop WMD.

-Wilson unwittingly verified that Saddam HAD IN FACT sought uranium from Niger when he told the CIA that the former president of Niger admitted an Iraqi delegation had proposed “expanding export relations” with Niger. Niger only exports one thing-uranium.

-Wilson’s wife was NOT a covert spy.

-Wilson submitted no written report of any kind. This is significant only due to the fact that he and the entire “mainstream” media repeatedly perpetuated the lie that Wilson’s report was on Cheney’s desk and readily available to the Bush administration.

-The Washington Post (among others) eventually admitted (on the back pages, of course, and after the damage was done) that Wilson had lied about what his claims against the Bush administration were based on. The Senate Intelligence committee also confirmed this.

 

[Caine]

When somebody attacks a Republican president, the media blindly reports their accusations as fact, no matter how obviously bogus the charges are. The credibility of the accuser is an afterthought, and when the accuser turns out to be lying, after what is usually months of unending, front page, reinforcing coverage, the “mainstream” papers grudgingly acknowledge the discrepancy, and only on the back pages (if at all).

No recent event bears out this truth more than the Valerie Plame incident. Here are some things you probably don’t know if you get your news from the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, ABC, NBC, CBS or any of the other “mainstream” media outlets:

-When Joe Wilson wrote that now infamous Op-Ed piece, “What I didn’t find in Iraq,” which the New York Times unquestioningly took seriously and printed, he was working as an operative for the Kerry campaign.

-The claim about British intelligence finding evidence that Saddam sought uranium in Niger was painstakingly investigated by a bipartisan Senate committee and their conclusion was supportive. The British also painstakingly investigated the matter (the Butler Commission) and concluded through multiple sources that Iraqi officials had visited Niger for the purposes of acquiring Uranium.

-Wilson was not sent to Niger to investigate the matter by Dick Cheney. Wilson was a former low-level toilet inspector at an African embassy, out of work at the time, and contrary to what he and the media alleged, his wife, not Dick Cheney, hooked him up to go to Niger. He blatantly misrepresented his role there as some sort of direct order handed down by the Vice President to settle the matter once and for all. But it was really just an under-achieving, delusional, pathological liar’s unilateral wet dream.

-Wilson was never U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. That was a blatantly false promotion he got from the media as a reward for trashing the president in a time of war.

-Wilson’s “evidence” amounted to answers he got from low-level African politicians when he asked them if they had tried to help Saddam develop WMD.

-Wilson unwittingly verified that Saddam HAD IN FACT sought uranium from Niger when he told the CIA that the former president of Niger admitted an Iraqi delegation had proposed “expanding export relations” with Niger. Niger only exports one thing-uranium.

-Wilson’s wife was NOT a covert spy.

-Wilson submitted no written report of any kind. This is significant only due to the fact that he and the entire “mainstream” media repeatedly perpetuated the lie that Wilson’s report was on Cheney’s desk and readily available to the Bush administration.

-The Washington Post (among others) eventually admitted (on the back pages, of course, and after the damage was done) that Wilson had lied about what his claims against the Bush administration were based on. The Senate Intelligence committee also confirmed this.

Can you show me solid examples of the media NOT doing this to past Democratic presidents?

And I mean the full media, not just the NYT.
Multiple solid examples would be great.
Thanks.

 

[aquapub]

Can you show me solid examples of the media NOT doing this to past Democratic presidents?

And I mean the full media, not just the NYT.
Multiple solid examples would be great.
Thanks.

You mean like the media downplaying the news that Clinton accepted illegal campaign contributions from an enemy of this country?

Or more like Newsweek trying to bury the Monica Lewinsky story?

 

[Caine]

You mean like the media downplaying the news that Clinton accepted illegal campaign contributions from an enemy of this country?

Or more like Newsweek trying to bury the Monica Lewinsky story?

Im not convinced.
Maybe that is because this is comming from you instead of credible sources?

 

[Stinger]

Im not convinced.
Maybe that is because this is comming from you instead of credible sources?

What aquapub posted is absolutely true, both of them. The media totally downplayed the China-connection doing no investigative reporting to speak of and Newsweek did not go with the Lewinsky story when they had it. A story of the President of the United States conspiring to comment a felony in a courtroom with a young intern he had been having sex with in the Oval Office and urgint that same woman to do the same putting her in jeopardy of going to a federal prison all to save his own butt.

Nice guy isn't he.

 

[Stinger]

No recent event bears out this truth more than the Valerie Plame incident. Here are some things you probably don’t know if you get your news from the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, ABC, NBC, CBS or any of the other “mainstream” media outlets:

Good post!

What is hilarious is that when you do post the facts, and more often than not they come from NewsMax or the Weekly Standard or the Washington Times or NR they immediately dismiss them out of hand. And in the end they are wrong. Witness those who invested so much in the "Rove has been indicted reporting" or "Republican culture of corruption", even though cautioned by more rational minds about the evidence they were citing. And they crashed and burned. Had they been reading more honest news reporting, yes by conservative leaning cites but thier reporting was dead on, they wouldn't have invested so much in so little.

As you noted even the Washington Post finally admitted Wilson was the liar and the WH did exactly as it should have in responding to his phoney editorial, but still they hold on to the misrepresentation and out dishonest reporting of the sources you mentioned.

 

[Hoot]

In all seriousness...how did Joe Wilson lie?

Is it just the idea of who sent him to Niger? Is that it?

 

[tecoyah]

I listened, Yesterday, to an interview on NPR with Wilson, and the former deputy district attorney of the U.S. who actually drafted the legislation protecting Covert C.I.A agents. After contemplating the discussion, Wilson has lost all credibility in my mind. Unless there is something we dont know.....his lawsuit is a pointless Jab at the Administration, and will be tossed before it goes anywhere.
That said.....He was singled out and "Used" in my opinion, But it was done so legally....heh.

 

[aps]

I listened, Yesterday, to an interview on NPR with Wilson, and the former deputy district attorney of the U.S. who actually drafted the legislation protecting Covert C.I.A agents. After contemplating the discussion, Wilson has lost all credibility in my mind. Unless there is something we dont know.....his lawsuit is a pointless Jab at the Administration, and will be tossed before it goes anywhere.
That said.....He was singled out and "Used" in my opinion, But it was done so legally....heh.

I didn't think the lawsuit involved a violation of that statute. I saw him last night on Keith Olbermann and I never heard him say that Valerie was a covert agent. He stated her status was classified, but did not say she was covert. Personally, I found him to be a rather credible person. He is very articulate.

What I find interesting is that Novak has changed his story regarding how he got Valerie Plame's name. See the transcript from Sunday's Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Did he give you the—her name?

MR. NOVAK: No, he did not.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, Newsday interviewed you a few weeks after your column ran, back in 2003, and quotes you as saying this, “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”

MR. NOVAK: That was a misstatement on my part. I—I’m—I’ve found I’m much better—I hope I’m not screwing up on this interview because I’m much better interviewing than I am giving interviews. They didn’t give me the name. And of course it was not a “they,” it was one person, which I later checked out with Mr. Rove. They, they—the Newsday article also paraphrased me as saying they came to me, I never said they came to me, because obviously I initiated the interview. . . .

MR. RUSSERT: When you were on MEET THE PRESS October of ‘03, I asked you about the Newsday piece, and you did repeat, you said, quote, “What I meant was that the senior official had given me her name.”

MR. NOVAK: Well, that, that was just—that’s just a misstatement on my part. He, he—what he said exactly was his wife, his wife had done it. I got the name—because I, I, I realized I didn’t have the name, and I figured out, how am I going to get this name to put in, in the column? So I said, “Maybe it’s in ‘Who’s Who.’” And I looked it up and there it was. . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13839698/page/6/

I find it suspicious that he said in 2003, close to the time he wrote the article, that he received Valerie Plame's name from a senior official, but now, 3 years later, he says he learned the name from looking it up. That causes me to question his credibility. Additionally, he quoted the republican talking points about how everyone knew where she worked and that she was not covert. The former is total bullshit. The latter is true, but neglects to address the issue that Plame's status at the CIA was classified.

 

[aquapub]

Im not convinced.
Maybe that is because this is comming from you instead of credible sources?

I make can and always do back my claims up with facts and evidence. You are a liberal, of course you're not convinced. I would have to be a conspiracy theorist to "reason" with your end of the intellectual food chain.

Until you even begin to confront the evidence or the claims made here, this kind of transparent avoidance of the issue is going to be taken as an admission that you can't refute any of this.

 

[aquapub]

What aquapub posted is absolutely true, both of them.

Thank you. :mrgreen:

 

[aquapub]

In all seriousness...how did Joe Wilson lie?

Is it just the idea of who sent him to Niger? Is that it?

Um...here's what I had already posted addressing this question:

-Wilson submitted no written report of any kind. This is significant only due to the fact that he and the entire “mainstream” media repeatedly perpetuated the lie that Wilson’s report was on Cheney’s desk and readily available to the Bush administration.

-The Washington Post (among others) eventually admitted (on the back pages, of course, and after the damage was done) that Wilson had lied about what his claims against the Bush administration were based on. The Senate Intelligence committee also confirmed this.

-Wilson was not sent to Niger to investigate the matter by Dick Cheney. Wilson was a former low-level toilet inspector at an African embassy, out of work at the time, and contrary to what he and the media alleged, his wife, not Dick Cheney, hooked him up to go to Niger. He blatantly misrepresented his role there as some sort of direct order handed down by the Vice President to settle the matter once and for all. But it was really just an under-achieving, delusional, pathological liar’s unilateral wet dream.

 

[aquapub]

He was singled out and "Used" in my opinion, But it was done so legally....heh.

He was singled out by his own lies. If he hadn't intentionally misrepresented his unpaid, meaningless trip to Niger (which he was sent on by his wife, not Dick Cheney) as an assignment from the VP, it wouldn't have been necessary for them to clarify that his NON-COVERT wife was the one who sent his fiction-writing ***.

 

[aquapub]

I didn't think the lawsuit involved a violation of that statute. I saw him last night on Keith Olbermann and I never heard him say that Valerie was a covert agent. He stated her status was classified, but did not say she was covert. Personally, I found him to be a rather credible person. He is very articulate.

What I find interesting is that Novak has changed his story regarding how he got Valerie Plame's name. See the transcript from Sunday's Meet the Press:

:liar2

Comically self-discrediting as always, Aps. The real outrage here isn't the Kerry campaing operative lying through his teeth about his non-existent report sitting on Cheney's desk, lying about what he based his findings on, and lying about a dozen other critical points (i.e., the guy YOU find credible).

It's the guy who corrected himself when he realized he had misstated which one of the dozens and dozens of national security officials he routinely interviews-from years ago.

 

[aquapub]

Caine, since you asked for more examples in post #2, here's something you might find interesting:

Bob Packwood (liberal Republican) had been sexually harassing and sexually assaulting women since 1969. It was a commonly known fact among the media. Still, none of them would pursue the matter because he always voted for every single thing the New York Times editorial page agreed with (a.k.a., the Democratic Party line), and particularly because he defended abortion in a time when liberals needed all the support for abortion they could get.

There are literally hundreds of Lexis Nexis hits for Bob Packwood with glorifying terms like these: “maverick,” “courage,” “political savvy,” “gadfly.” Magically, Bob Packwood became referred to with very different adjectives once liberals (i.e., the media) didn’t need him anymore.

But in the mean time, the “objective” media would use their standard tactics to keep pro-abortionists in office like only interviewing friends of Packwood’s while only interviewing people who were critical of his opponents.

Once 1992 rolled around and liberals had another sexual predator in office with a huge vested interest in keeping abortion legal (Bill Clinton), everything changed.

A reporter named Florence Graves had stumbled onto Packwood’s history of sexual assault earlier on. In trying to investigate the matter, she learned how many Washington journalists had known about his sexcapades for years. “Several news organizations” informed Graves that they “were not interested in financing the story.” She came close to getting Vanity Fair to do something on it, but then that deal abruptly fell through.

This was 1992, just after the same media found all sorts of “interest” in Anita Hill’s accusations of sexual misconduct against Clarence Thomas-which were clearly false.

But once Bill Clinton took office, liberals didn’t need Packwood anymore, and the New York Times no longer relied on him to regurgitate their editorial page. His resulting downfall was brutal.

Suddenly, the media’s adjectives and terms for Packwood mysteriously changed to things like: “the nerdy son of a timber lobbyist,” “clueless,” “graceless clod,” “self-absorbed baby,” “Nixonian.”

The New York Times (and consequently, the entire “mainstream” media) suddenly started vilifying this pervert they had been protecting for two decades because liberals didn’t need him anymore. Now they were calling for his resignation for him “taking advantage of young women who were forced to depend on him for jobs.”

In a few years, that same “mainstream” media would then criticize the House of Representatives for voting to impeach the pro-abortion sexual predator they had given all Packwood’s affectionate coverage to-Bill Clinton.

 

[Stinger]

In all seriousness...how did Joe Wilson lie?

Is it just the idea of who sent him to Niger? Is that it?

It has been cited to you repeatedly why do you ask again?

 

[oldreliable67]

Personally, I found him to be a rather credible person. He is very articulate.

Most successful con men are.

 

[easyt65]

What aquapub posted is absolutely true, both of them. The media totally downplayed the China-connection...

You mean the Chinese MILITARY connection, as Clinton received payments into his re-election campaign directly traced back to the Chinese military in exchange for missile technolgy that FINALLY gave China the technology to reach the U.S. with its nuclear arsenal, technology they did not previously have! If for anything, Clinton should have been bar-b-qued in the media and impeached for THIS! Throw in how the media covered over him being a career sexual predator, documented and publicized throughout his political career all the way back to Govenor, as well as his witness tampering and felonious perjury before a federal grand jury by declaring that his only crime in THAT scandal had been having an affair in the White House!

The respect given a Commander and choef has definitely been abandoned by politicians on both sides of the aisle in the last 10-12 years. I can not help but personally feel that Clinton disgraced the office as well as his country, not to mention committed treason, earning at least part of the scorn he received, yet was protected by the media. Bush inherited wrath of Democrats who had lost power by losing the public (thus calling voters 'Ignorant, Inbred, redneck, bible thumpers for their rejection of the DNC) and by Dems rabid with hatred and the desire to Impeach Bush just to get even for Clinton (as proved by Feingold introducing legislation recently calling for the Censure of a U.S. President for a LEGAL program)! The disrespect and negative press against a President is at an all-time high. Part of that, IMO, is due to the liberal left but also because most of the U.S. media, or at least a large chunk of it, is controlled by foreign countries/investors/owners.

As far as Plame's law suit against Cheney, Rove, and Libby:
1. Bad timing - the middle east conflict going on right now has overshadowed their little political press conference and taken the <pop> out of the event I am sure is designed in part to hurt the GOP.
2. Fat Chance - A).She is an analyst not an operative. This has already been established in the case versus Libby - she doesn't qualify as an under-cover/covert operative. She was a desk jockey/analyst! B). There are several reporters who have already testified that her 'secret' of working for the CIA was one of the worst kept secrets in Washington because they all knew. Wilson introduced his wife at Washington functions as his 'CIA Wife'.

While the world deals with REAL crisis and issues, Plame and Wilson just need to go away!

 

[Hoot]

It has been cited to you repeatedly why do you ask again?

Just curious, I guess? Maybe I'll learn something?

I do not for one minute believe that Valerie Plame has it in her capacity to send her husband to Niger...she may have suggested his name, but no way did she have the authority to authorize that trip. ( Unless she was secretly head of the CIA?)

As far as the article written by Wilson, I don't believe there's too much to be concerned about there...I believe it was factually accurate...the Saddam/Niger/yellowcake story has been debunked 10 times over and the White House didn't like the fact that someone was downplaying one of the reasons to attack Saddam. The White House knew that Niger crap was bogus, yet Bush still included it in his State of the Union?!

Rather then be upset with Bush for misleading us, some of you would rather attack Wilson for revealing the Niger connection was without merit.

I'm reminded of the Dan Rather fiasco. People screamed that the report was a forgery, neglecting to mention that the information within that report was totally accurate.

 

[aps]

Just curious, I guess? Maybe I'll learn something?

I do not for one minute believe that Valerie Plame has it in her capacity to send her husband to Niger...she may have suggested his name, but no way did she have the authority to authorize that trip. ( Unless she was secretly head of the CIA?)

As far as the article written by Wilson, I don't believe there's too much to be concerned about there...I believe it was factually accurate...the Saddam/Niger/yellowcake story has been debunked 10 times over and the White House didn't like the fact that someone was downplaying one of the reasons to attack Saddam. The White House knew that Niger crap was bogus, yet Bush still included it in his State of the Union?!

Rather then be upset with Bush for misleading us, some of you would rather attack Wilson for revealing the Niger connection was without merit.

I'm reminded of the Dan Rather fiasco. People screamed that the report was a forgery, neglecting to mention that the information within that report was totally accurate.

Hoot, you stated this better than I could have. The republicans are relentless in their attacks on Wilson, which further supports the claim that the White House sought to discredit Wilson. Wilson exposed the White House's lies regarding weapons of mass destruction and the famous mushroom cloud. What a joke.

 

[Stinger]

You mean the Chinese MILITARY connection,

Yep.

As far as Plame's law suit against Cheney, Rove, and Libby:
1. Bad timing -

:boohoooor babies.

2. Fat Chance - A).

Did you see her in her press announcement? I thought she was going to burst out laughing while trying to read all that hypebole she was reading. She could hardly keep a straight face.

I think most people are sitting here saying WHAT! Just go away and enjoy the money from your books, if they made any. No one cares about either one of them and they have no credibilty at all. They think we are idiots to believe anything they say.

 

[Stinger]

Hoot, you stated this better than I could have.

Well then just as I urged you to pay attention to the facts and not baseless assertions with the phoney claims that Rove had been indicted, I urge you to read my response to Hoot.

The republicans are relentless in their attacks on Wilson,

The only people who did any attacking or are currently doing any attacking are the Wilson's and they deserve to be attacked back. Everything in this whole affair has been a response to the Wilson's and their attacks.

which further supports the claim that the White House sought to discredit Wilson.

Discredit his phoney claims, and rightfully so. It was the DUTY of the White House to expose the lies being told in order to discredit the foriegn policy of the United States.

"Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page B06
PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do..................The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html

Wilson exposed the White House's lies

See above, he did nothing of the sort in fact as the Senate Intelligence committe found what little information he did find out added credence to what Bush said.

 

[Caine]

I make can and always do back my claims up with facts and evidence. You are a liberal, of course you're not convinced. I would have to be a conspiracy theorist to "reason" with your end of the intellectual food chain.

Until you even begin to confront the evidence or the claims made here, this kind of transparent avoidance of the issue is going to be taken as an admission that you can't refute any of this.

Probably because you haven't proved any of this extreme "liberal" media bias, other than stating your opinion.

 

[aquapub]

Hoot, you stated this better than I could have. The republicans are relentless in their attacks on Wilson, which further supports the claim that the White House sought to discredit Wilson. Wilson exposed the White House's lies regarding weapons of mass destruction and the famous mushroom cloud. What a joke.

You are the most egregious pathological liar I have ever encountered.

You've been caught contradicting your prior stated positions to defend the NYT....You've been caught lying repeatedly....And now, you are trying to portray our outrage over Joe Wilson's PROVEN lying as a sign that we're just mean.

Wilson has been proved to be lying about nearly everything he stated, as listed in the intro. Wilson being exposed is one of the things that actually helped Bush regain credibility. Yet you are still perpetuating the already debunked falsehood that Wilson discredited Bush.

Your credibility is beyond repair.

 

[aquapub]

Probably because you haven't proved any of this extreme "liberal" media bias, other than stating your opinion.

Translation: "If I cover up my eyes and pretend not to see any of the mountains of evidence you've presented, you haven't proved anything." :roll:

Hint: If you want to chip away at the evidence I've presented on numerous threads here, vague, unqualified lying isn't the way to accomplish that.

At least, I'm guessing you're lying. You could just be illiterate (another liberal trend), and not grasping that the extensive evidence I have used all over this site is evidence.

I'm sorry, I don't speak liberal very well. Should I start phrasing things in the form of a conspiracy theory? Would that make it seem more like evidence to you people?