Whacking Wilson
Husband Is Conspicuous in Leak Case
Wilson's Credibility Debated as Charges In Probe Considered
This is a confounding article.
It's as if the writers decided to compile a list of pros and cons about Wilson without actually doing any new reporting or weighing in on the accuracy of the pros and cons.
The mention the Vanity Fair pictures, as if the pictures actually mean anything to the issue of claims about Iraq's WMD's or leaks of covert agents. Something about propriety, I guess. Mr. Wilson, please contact Ms. Manners.
They throw in the "boondoggle" boondoggle, as if that was a logical, Earth-based criticism and not some half-baked, throw-away deflection.
They commit a real sin in quoting verbatim from the rabidly insane Wall Street Journal editorial page. Oh wait, but they threw in the descriptor "conservative." If we lived in a world where "conservative" was accepted to mean "lying and distorting," that would be OK, but, alas, we are not quite there yet.
They quote Waxman defending Wilson.
They go on to talk about Wilson's political affiliations, including work for the Kerry campaign. This, of course, is part of the theory that every criticsm is at heart partisan, regardless of the truth or how important to the country the charges are. Thanks for that, big media political writers.
The article is basically a primer to the past and future smears of Wilson, with very little given in the way of judging the validity of the those smears. All is fair, I guess.
PS Even if Wilson was a tin-foil-hat crackpot who said he was kidnapped on the way to Niger and the aliens from Tralfamadore told him that Iraq didn't try to acquire uranium, that doesn't (A) change the fact that the White House decided to go after him and (B) excuse the White House's actions in going after Plame and (C) oh, that damn cover-up.
Wilson's Credibility Debated as Charges In Probe Considered
This is a confounding article.
It's as if the writers decided to compile a list of pros and cons about Wilson without actually doing any new reporting or weighing in on the accuracy of the pros and cons.
The mention the Vanity Fair pictures, as if the pictures actually mean anything to the issue of claims about Iraq's WMD's or leaks of covert agents. Something about propriety, I guess. Mr. Wilson, please contact Ms. Manners.
They throw in the "boondoggle" boondoggle, as if that was a logical, Earth-based criticism and not some half-baked, throw-away deflection.
They commit a real sin in quoting verbatim from the rabidly insane Wall Street Journal editorial page. Oh wait, but they threw in the descriptor "conservative." If we lived in a world where "conservative" was accepted to mean "lying and distorting," that would be OK, but, alas, we are not quite there yet.
They quote Waxman defending Wilson.
They go on to talk about Wilson's political affiliations, including work for the Kerry campaign. This, of course, is part of the theory that every criticsm is at heart partisan, regardless of the truth or how important to the country the charges are. Thanks for that, big media political writers.
The article is basically a primer to the past and future smears of Wilson, with very little given in the way of judging the validity of the those smears. All is fair, I guess.
PS Even if Wilson was a tin-foil-hat crackpot who said he was kidnapped on the way to Niger and the aliens from Tralfamadore told him that Iraq didn't try to acquire uranium, that doesn't (A) change the fact that the White House decided to go after him and (B) excuse the White House's actions in going after Plame and (C) oh, that damn cover-up.
posted by albany layman at 10/25/2005 11:29:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home