The Washington Post has sunk to this level.
Photo: a kingdom for a donkey

It's no big secret that the Washington Post has been a corrupt, partisan, rightist, unpatriotic, and unreliable news source for some time, especially when it comes to the lies of wealthy and powerful Republicans.

However, a 12/3/10 editorial by this propaganda rag attacking the movie "Fair Game" which explores the crimes committed by the Bush regime against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson took things to astonishing extremes.

The only grudging admiration I can offer the Post's editorial board was its efficiency. They managed to pack so many lies into such short sections of text with a ruthless efficiency that the paper seldom devotes to actual new reporting.

Lies (3):

The movie portrays Ms. Plame as having cultivated a group of Iraqi scientists and arranged for them to leave the country, and it suggests that once her cover was blown, the operation was aborted and the scientists were abandoned. This is simply false. In reality, as The Post's Walter Pincus and Richard Leiby reported, Ms. Plame did not work directly on the program, and it was not shut down because of her identification.

Facts:

1) Ms. Plame did work directly on the program.

2) There was no claim that the entire program was shut down. The claim was that CIA front company that Plame was involved with was shut down.

3) That company was shut down, and the lives of its employees were endangered.

Lies (7):

The movie portrays Mr. Wilson as a whistle-blower who debunked a Bush administration claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger. In fact, an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee found that Mr. Wilson's reporting did not affect the intelligence community's view on the matter, and an official British investigation found that President George W. Bush's statement in a State of the Union address that Britain believed that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger was well-founded.

.
Facts:

1) Joseph Wilson was a whitle-blower.

2) He debunked the claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

3) The entire US intelligence community knew that the claim was false.

4) George W. Bush and the rest of his administration deliberately lied when they made the claim.

5) The Senate intelligence committee's "investigation" was a fraudulent, partisan, GOP sham.

6) The British "investigation" was a white wash designed to protect Tony Blair from political scrutiny and criminal prosecution.

7) The Downing Street Memos prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that both the US and British Government knew that there was no Iraqi nuclear program.

Lies (4):

"Fair Game" also resells the couple's story that Ms. Plame's exposure was the result of a White House conspiracy. A lengthy and wasteful investigation by a special prosecutor found no such conspiracy - but it did confirm that the prime source of a newspaper column identifying Ms. Plame was a State Department official, not a White House political operative.

Facts:

1) The supposed "investigation" was conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald, a highly partisan and politically connected Republican who took Bush regime claims at face value rather than running a real investigation.

2) It is physically impossible for a newspaper column to be the prime source of information on this. Insider information was needed for Robert Novak to make his treasonous revelations.

3) The sources of the leak were in the Bush regime.

4) The leaks were coordinated by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and probably other Bush regime officials.

Lies (2):

Though it was long ago established that Mr. Wilson himself was not telling the truth - not about his mission to Niger and not about his wife - the myth endures.

Facts:

1) Joe Wilson did tell the truth about the war.

2) Joe Wilson did tell the truth about his wife.

---

The Washington Post really is trying to out Moonie the Moonie owned Washington Times.

I should note that the facts I have pointed out have been widely and publicly known for several years for now. There is no possible way that the Washington Post could not be aware of them.

The dishonesty is yet another example of the corporate media's Judith Miller style approach to "journalism." "Reporters," pundits, and editorial boards act as stenographers for the lies of the wealthy and the powerful, especially when those lies get our country into illegal, corrupt, and genocidal wars. I can't imagine why anyone would subscribe to the Washington Post. Why pay to be lied to in a way that only serves to insult one's intelligence?

Journalist Robert Novak dies at 78 (Los Angeles Times 8/18/09)

I have to laugh at the "Journalist" part.

 

Clinton is under pressure from some Democrats to drop out if she does poorly in Tuesday's primaries. She has gotten a surprising defender.

From the New York Times Website 3/2/08:

But Karl Rove, the former senior political adviser to President Bush and architect of his presidential election victories, said such calls from Democrats for Mrs. Clinton’s withdrawal were unwise and unbecoming.

“I think it’s a mistake for his campaign to be calling for her to drop out,” Mr. Rove said on Fox. That would be seen as “rubbing her nose” in the fact that she is trailing, he said. “It’s up to the delegates at the convention to decide who wins and loses,” he added.

There are at least three reasons why Rove is doing this.

1) He loves media attention.

2) He wants the Democratic race to go on as long as possible to use up as much Democratic campaign money as possible.

3) He has made it clear that Clinton is the candidate he thinks would be easiest for Republicans to beat.

 

After Kucinich received only 2% of the vote in New Hampshire, I was open to supporting other candidates. The Clinton's use of Karl Rove style tactics convinced me that defeating a political dynasty whose campaign style is as Republican as its policies was the most important priority at the moment. I have supported Obama's presidential campaign since then while enthusiastically supporting Kucinich's reelection campaign for his House Seat.

I'm not the only one who is disgusted with the Clintons.

Obama's doubling of Clinton's vote in South Carolina shows that Democratic primary voters are disgusted with the Clinton smear campaign. But, primary voters are not the only people frustrated by Clintonism. Frank Rich skewers the Clintons in his latest column and questions Ms. Clinton's electability in the present context.

IN the wake of George W. Bush, even a miracle might not be enough for the Republicans to hold on to the White House in 2008. But what about two miracles? The new year’s twin resurrections of Bill Clinton and John McCain, should they not evaporate, at last give the G.O.P. a highly plausible route to victory.

Amazingly, neither party seems to fully recognize the contours of the road map. In the Democrats’ case, the full-throttle emergence of Billary, the joint Clinton candidacy, is measured mainly within the narrow confines of the short-term horse race: Do Bill Clinton’s red-faced eruptions and fact-challenged rants enhance or diminish his wife as a woman and a candidate?

Prominent Democratic functionaries have expressed their frustrations to the Clinton smear campaign.

The war of words raged between the two campaigns amid media reports prominent Democratic figures, Senator Edward Kennedy and Representative Rahm Emanuel, had recently phoned Bill Clinton and demanded to stop bashing Obama.

Emanuel's involvement is telling, since his policy positions are almost as conservative as the Clintons'. He runs the Democratic House campaign operation and knows a divided party will get in the way of his work.

Ari Melber, writing for The Nation and posted at the Huffington Post, attacks the Clinton's strategy.

An AP article after the victory reiterated the claim by Clinton strategists that Obama has been branded "the black candidate" - a supposedly negative development that "could hurt him" as the campaign continues. This "black candidate" strategy was advanced by a "top adviser" to Clinton in another article this weekend, concluding that recent attacks have "marginalize[d] Obama as 'The Black Candidate.'" And one more top adviser to Hillary, former President Bill Clinton, flatly claimed that Obama is "getting votes" because of his race, leaving Hillary with no chance to win South Carolina. The strategy turns on the unstated premise that Hillary will get votes for her race, too, and a lot more of them are available on Super Tuesday.

The Shakesville blog has the harshest words I've yet seen for the Clintons' tactics.

I've defended your wife from harsh attacks based on her gender. But I'll defend Barack Obama no less vigilantly from attacks on his race. When your wife's campaign is saying that they're pleased you've branded Obama as "the black candidate," well, all I can say is fuck you, Bill.

And while we're at it, fuck you too, Hillary, for authorizing and endorsing and supporting these attacks. I don't for a second think Bill's just out there saying stuff, without your approval. This is your campaign, and you're using Bill as the attack dog, so you can keep your hands clean. But this stuff is beyond the pale. You've taken a lot of crap in this campaign from the media and from allies of you opponents. You don't deserve it. But that hasn't come from the Obama campaign itself, and certainly not from Obama himself, nor from his wife or anyone close to him.

Bill, you need to STFU, and Hillary, you need to repudiate these attacks, and make clear once and for all that you are not a campaign for whites only. That crap works in the Republican party, but our party kicked the racists out in the sixties, and thank God. If you want to pander to the racists, fine -- but the rest of us, the vast majority of the Democratic party, will find someone else to vote for.

The Clintons are using the GOP's Southern Strategy. Let's hope it continues to backfire.

The Washington Post has been a partisan Republican rag for years or even decades, but sometimes they take it to extreme levels. One case was today's coverage of U.S. District Judge John D. Bates' dismissal of the Plame lawsuit against corrupt members of the Bush regime.

The Post omitted critical information in order to create a false air of legitimacy to the ruling. The article acknowledged that the defendants in the case revealed Ms. Plame's then-undercover identity as a CIA agent, but conveniently neglected to mention that the identity of an undercover CIA business used to monitor weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East was revealed, in addition to the identities of agents and informants who had worked with Plame while she was under cover.

This is important given the grounds that Bates used in order to dismiss the case. Bates falsely claimed that the actions of the defendants were part of their duties as government officials.

From the Washington Post article:

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote.

"But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials," Bates said.

This is a flat-out lie.

Bates is perfectly aware of the fact that illegally revealing the identities of CIA agents and covert operations could not ever possibly be “within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials.” Bates also knows that the purposes of the actions against Ms. Plame were not to rebut criticism, but to punish her husband and to intimidate other potential whistle-blowers in the government.

Why did Bates lie?

The Post omitted essential facts which make the reasons painfully obvious. The facts are not difficult to find. Two are easily found in Bates' official bio, which I readily obtained running a single Google search.

Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001.

He was appointed by the same administration whose highest political operatives were defendants in the lawsuit.

Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997.

Anyone involved with Ken Starr's partisan hackery is a GOP crony of the worst kind, putting partisan politics ahead of the rule of law.

Another damning fact can be found by doing just a bit more Googling.

Bates' illegally dimissed a lawsuit by the General Accounting Office to get access to records from Dick Cheney's illegal secret meetings with energy company donors on energy policy. Bates used false jurisdictional claims in that case which were somewhat similar to the false jurisdictional claims made in the Plame case.

The Post ignored this past breach of judicial trust by Bates' in pursuit of a partisan, GOP agenda, just as it ignored Bates' conflict of interest and his involvement with the highly disreputable Ken Starr. Readers of the article were led to believe that this was a perfectly normal ruling by a disinterested jurist.

Bates' actions have seriously undermined the credibility of the federal judiciary. The Post long ago sacrificed any sliver of credibility it had on the altar of partisan, Republican politics.

Another Republican has been fired in a corruption scandal.

Karl Rove aide Susan Ralston is out. The House Government Reform Committee has accused Rove aide Susan Ralston inside info from the Bush Regime to GOP activist and confessed criminal Jack Abramoff. She partied on Abramoff's generosity, receiving tickets to sports and entertainment events while being oh-so-helpful.

Karl Rove, who was involved in revealing the identity of an under cover CIA agent working on WMDs, still has a job. Bush said he would fire anyone involved with this. Bush lied, which hardly is surprising.

Remember how Hastert protected the reputation of an old Turkish regime that committed genocide against Armenians? There were bribery allegations involved. Yet, the pro-GOP corporate media leave out this important context for Hastert's latest cover-up scandal.

Of course, the corporate media are still ignoring the Downing Street Memo, which proves that the Bush regime faked intelligence on WMDs in Iraq. This may be an older scandal than the Page Turner, but it still is relevant. Our troops are dying, and so are the Iraqis. Yet, the corporate media are still helping to cover up how they got put there.

Will Bush’s Supreme Court nomination of rightist zealot judge John G. Roberts Jr. distract liberals from Rove’s ethical problems? Do liberals have to choose whether to fight Roberts or publicize Rovegate?

I’ve heard and read various versions of these questions the past day or two. This completely underestimates liberals. We can fight the illegitimate regime in more than one area. We can focus on more than one thing at a time.

This gives us an advantage against the dittoheads of the world who can only obsess on one issue during a given time. Here are some links on Roberts:

http://media.pfaw.org/roberts.pdf
http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/John_Roberts_Report.pdf
http://www.prochoice.org/policy/courts/nominations/roberts_facts.html

Both of them were involved in revealing the identity of a CIA agent in order to obtain revenge against her conservative Republican husband whose only “offense” was telling the truth about the hokey story that the Bush regime invented about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain uranium from Niger.

Even worse, these actions of Novak and Rove have undermined the CIA’s efforts to gather intelligence on nuclear proliferation, something of critical importance in the post-911 world. The betrayal of an undercover agent also will make it more difficult for the CIA to hire and retain undercover agents.

Rove’s actions make him unfit to serve in the White House, regardless of the outcome of the criminal investigation against him. Novak’s actions have eliminated any credibility that Novak might have had at one time, and CNN discredits itself by continuing to employ Novak.

Contact Bush and demand that Rove be fired.
president@whitehouse.gov

Contact the Republican National Committee and demand that they publicly insist on Rove’s firing.
info@gop.com

Contact CNN and demand that Novak be fired.
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4a.html?1