Rove leak is just part of larger scandal - Christian Science Monitor

[Quixote1818]

This is a few days old but it's nicely written and they seem to see how serious this is and what it's REALLY all about.

Rove leak is just part of larger scandal

By Daniel Schorr


WASHINGTON – Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.

In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."

Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.

No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p09s02-cods.html

[KaryninMiami]

1. Great- this is exactly the Spin that we need!!

Good piece- clear and to the point.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Spin, bullshit.

Call it framing if you really, really gotta use some kinda hip language to show ou're a political insider, but it is not spin. It is simple truth.

English is spinning out of control.

[Pepperbelly]

4. thank you ...

'Spin' is what you do when the facts are not on your side.

[Spazito]

7. I don't think the truth constitutes spin, lies do

This article is the truth therefore no spin needed.

[Booster]

3. I saw this when it was first posted and waited about a second and

a half before I sent it to all my fundie Repug friends with a subject title: interesting article from an interesting website. ha
that was fun. Haven't heard a word from any of them.

[FreedomAngel82]

13. LOL

I shared it too on this site that has pro-Iraq war people on it.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rosesaylavee]

8. Daniel Schorr is no

pussyfooter. He has been a straightshooter about the Bush Administration all along. I listen to him every Saturday morning for his take on teh week in politics. He is at the latter end of his career but he uses that perspective to give us the wonderful overview as quoted above.

[meganmonkey]

10. I'll second that

No one is perfect, I don't agree with anyone all the time - but Daniel Schorr is right on target most of the time. And as you point out, he has been around for a long time and sees the big picture.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

17. Where do you listen to him?

:hi: rosesaylavee!

Does he have a radio show? On the Internet?

[rosesaylavee]

18. NPR

He is on the weekend edition with Scott Simon at 8 am - I listen to the Chicago station so not sure where it plays elsewhere in the country.

Can't speak to what he did during the Iran/Contra fiasco. From what I remember no one inside the media or out grokked what was happening. Not that that is an excuse. I think Daniel may have learned from that because when I hear him - I hear a moderate voice trying to see the many sides of an issue - a journalist of the old school who is not interested in persuading me but interested in laying down the truth as he has found it.

[Swamp Rat]

19. That's the kind of journalist I like... an Edward R. Murrow type.

Give me the unvarnished truth.

[rosesaylavee]

21. omg your graphic!

is too too funny. did you build that? Very clever.

[Swamp Rat]

24. Yes I did.

Thank you.

Here's my latest pic:

[rosesaylavee]

26. Hume graphic is best

Tho I like the green cast to Scotty's complexion. Really sets off the color of his eyes. Great stuff

[Swamp Rat]

29. OK, here's 3 more you might like.

[sendero]

22. Yeah..

.... but he really dissapointed me when he fell into the "Judith Miller is going to jail for protecting a source" bullshit.

It's just bullshit and someone like Schorr is smart enough to know that. But journalists circle the wagons to protect their own just like cops do, just like doctors do, just like many professionals do.

[rosesaylavee]

25. Ok. I didn't understand

that either. But, perhaps he is going on what is known at this point and not speculating on what or who she is protecting. I even read somewhere that she is doing this out of 'fear' of retaliation from the WH. Who knows at this point.

[sendero]

27. Hey don't get me wrong..

.... I admire Mr. Schorr, and agree with his point of view 90% of the time.

As for Miller, I don't admire her and I really don't give a crap what her motivation is, whatever it is she got herself into it and she should pay the piper.

[rosesaylavee]

28. Miller can hang for what she did for

all I care too. I am interested in her motivations because of the implications in the greater scandal... If she is threatened, who by and for what? If she is covering her ***, than I want to know how come and who is helping her. The Republicans - ok Karl - most likely wove this web of intrigue around her to distract the media from the reality - what that is remains to be discovered.

Daniel is not perfect but I do trust him to speak his mind and not knowingly someone elses.

[sendero]

30. There you go...

.... and welcome to DU :)

[kentuck]

14. Daniel Schorr was on Nixon's enemies list !

Are you thinking of someone else?

[shelley806]

6. Excellent article...thanks so much for re-posting. I read it here the

day. Kick and nominated!

:kick:

[The River]

9. For The CSM to Run It

must mean the issue really has legs.
Great paper despite it's name

[FreedomAngel82]

15. I like it pretty well myself

I've used it as well.

[sendero]

23. The Christian Science Monitor..

... is probably the best (and one of the few remaining) outlets for objective journalism in the country.

[Imagevision]

11. Exactly! if Wilson didn't do Niger - no plame outing 2 b sure!!

[Imagevision]

12. No spin! this is exactly the way it went down ---->

Wilson SHOWED THAT bUSH WAS IN FACT "FIXING POICIES" TO GO TO WAR AND WILSON THRU A FORK IN THE WORKS -- WHAT? A WEEK LATER wILSON SMEAR CAMPAIGHN BEGINS, pLAME IS OUTTED!..hOW MUCH PLAINER CAN IT BE EXPLAINED BECAUSE ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE FACTS NOT OPINION.

[Just Me]

20. Powerful opening!!! I love that!!!

He opens with the fundamental issue: being misled into war.

Then, the body of the article works to prove the issue.

Excellent piece!!! :bounce:

[Peace Patriot]

31. Well, it was Daniel Schorr who got me to turn off NPR forever--

something he said in the middle of the invasion; can't even remember what it was now; sickening, smarmy, Bush-ass-kissing. Good-bye. I will never trust the man again, nor that station. (They had told a lot of Iraq war lies before the Schorr thing.)

I also canceled by subscription to the Christian Science Monitor, because what I read there was a sort of liberal Rovian "framing." They were like the Democrats who voted for the war, and the New York Times. They very much wanted the war, but they wanted Bush and the Repubs to take the rap for the deaths and the cost. Total hypocrisy.

I also caught them at the damnedest journalistic kind of lying about Spain, the train bombings and the election there. I couldn't stand it any more.

CSM has gone corporate, as has NPR. A bit cleverer and more cultchud than Faux news; same war propaganda and corruption.

I would suggest being very wary of anything Schorr, NPR or CSM tells you; read between the lines; be especially alert for what they leave out, and also for what "experts" they cite, whose interests they are serving, and for evidence that they are following a party line--such as the Democrats' "not enough election fraud to change the result," the DLC's benefits of globalization, and the liberal faction of the War Party's "now that we're in Iraq, we can't just leave..." .

I am so sick of this crap. (I used to be a liberal, and now I am...I don't know what--a TOTALLY OUTRAGED CITIZEN!)