Sep 06 2006
NY Times Doesn’t Like Plame Answers, Wants New Ones
I am about Plamed out this week. But I had to post on the NY Times editorial today grasping for dirt from the Plame fiasco they expected but never materialized:
Last week, it was reported that Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, was the first to mention Valerie Wilson to Mr. Novak, and that the federal prosecutor knew this more than two and a half years ago.
The revelation tells us something important. But, unfortunately, it is not the answer to the central question in the investigation — whether there was an organized attempt by the White House to use Mrs. Wilson to discredit or punish her husband, Joseph Wilson
…
It’s conceivable that Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, has evidence that suggests the information in the memo was used in some illegal manner. Or his investigators may have learned something troubling about the second, unknown, source cited in Mr. Novak’s column, or about some other illegal activity. But whatever it is needs to be made public. The Armitage story is mainly a reminder that this investigation has gone on too long.
The NY Times is having a serious mental breakdown. After fanning the flames of this and not getting their Fitzmas present they are angrily demanding all information Fitz has so they can create their own Fitzmas. Gone on too long? These people are truly strange. And the list of possible conclusions to draw strangely never includes the one where the NY Times was duped by the Wilsons and helped smear good people working in government. I guess it is too much to ask for the editorial to accurate and complete, after all it is one person’s mental droolings. Get a life NY Times.
The pLame question has been answered, to everyone but the far left … and the NYT…
But I’m repeating myself.
The NYT finally responds to the blockbuster news about former Deputy Sec. of State Richard Armitage’s admission – via his lawyer – that it was he who ‘leaked’ la Plame’s name. The title of the NYT…
Note the last sentence in the editorial’s second paragraph:
“A former diplomat, Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.”
Ha! Still in denial.
Unfortunately, the NY Times has a life and it consists of being partisan on the side of the left.
Watching a show on nuclear jihad yesterday I saw some interesting insights from some NY Times reporters. I was sitting there thinking, “Well, it is odd how they also actually get some original stories”… and then a few statements later and the reporter brazenly spews out some anti-Bush slander for no apparent reason. He had no evidence for his charge whatsoever, strong facts contradicted him, and his statement was exceedingly hypocritical.
So, why did this reporter damage his own credibility to make a smear attack on Bush in a report on nuclear terrorism?
That is how they sell papers. They sell to the left market. And they have a vested interest in growing that market.
The reporter wasn’t thinking of the truth. He was thinking of his current job. He didn’t care about leaving the Times. He wanted to impress his bosses.
We see this with CNN and every other group all the time. These are corporations, not institutions of journalism, and like any corporation the employees are rewarded for speaking the party line. Group think. Corporate submission against the individual. The very sorts of things the Left claims the conservatives are guilty of.
Of course, we have all known all along that most of us are not conservatives because we are concerned about “fitting in”, but it is the rational course. The Left, however, is a different kind of animal entirely… I would suggest.