WSJ Attacks Fitzgerald

[kpete]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Fitzgerald, Scooter and Us
The special prosecutor wants to use our editorial as evidence. Sorry.

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

"One of the mysteries of the recent yellowcake uranium flap is why the White House has been so defensive about an intelligence judgment that we don't yet know is false, and that the British still insist is true. Our puzzlement is even greater now that we've learned what last October's national intelligence estimate really said."

Those words appeared in this column on July 17, 2003, under the headline "Yellowcake Remix." Three years later they show we were right about Joe Wilson and his false allegation that President Bush lied in that year's State of Union address about Iraq seeking nuclear materials in Africa.

So imagine our surprise when Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald declared his intention last month to use that editorial as part of his perjury and obstruction case against former Vice Presidential aide Scooter Libby, who had also questioned Mr. Wilson's claims. It suggests that his case is a lot weaker than his media spin.

Mr. Libby wasn't a source for our editorial, which quoted from the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate concerning the Africa-uranium issue. But Mr. Fitzgerald alleges in a court filing that Mr. Libby played a role in our getting the information, which in turn shows that "notwithstanding other pressing government business, was heavily focused on shaping media coverage of the controversy concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger."

more at:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008476

[Scout1071]

1. I expected nothing less. nt

[stop the bleeding]

2. and Wilson - the WSJ

World's Stupidest Journal

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. At this point I'm inclined to believe that anybody who is against

Fitzgerald has something to hide. Oh, hell. I'll raise the ante. Anybody who is against Fitzgerald is unAmerican.

[emulatorloo]

3. Then he must be doing something right!

If the wingnits at WSJ opinion page are attacking him, that's like a commendation!

I love how they claim that "we were right about Joe Wilson and his false allegation that President Bush lied in that year's State of Union address about Iraq seeking nuclear materials in Africa."

Repeat the lie enough times and it becomes truth.

---

ON EDIT: WSJ news team is terrific. WSJ opinion is cookoo. How they are in the same org I'll never understand.

[warrens]

6. They're not the same org

The editorial department is a little nest of political extremists with no journalism background. If the rest of the paper used their standards of truth and accuracy, it would have been out of business a couple of weeks after it started.

[emulatorloo]

10. my impression is that serious WSJ readers ignore the opinion pages

Because they want to base their decisions on real news, not deranged mouth-frothing.

[leveymg]

11. Oh, no. It's like the cartoon section at the WaPo.

Love the funnies. Only the Washington Post has cartoons at the editorial page and inside.:evilgrin:

[emulatorloo]

27. Good one, And here's the lead comic bumbling fool:

:toast:

[xchrom]

4. wsj = world's stupidest journaling.

[meow2u3]

7. WSJ sides with criminals

because Libby, Rove, and Bushco are their own. Not so great minds think alike.

[Spazito]

8. LOL, they are so dumb it is pathetic....

They are saying "played a role" is the same as being THE source, roflmao! This op/ed is more pathetic than their usual ones, it is beyond lame, imo.

And this little goodie:

"It suggests that his case is a lot weaker than his media spin."

Ummm, hasn't anyone told them the difference between a media report and a legal filing???? I guess not, lol.


Anyone smell desperation on the part of the Wall Street Journal? I sure do.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. WSJ credibility is ZERO. nt.

[Peace Patriot]

12. WSJ op-ed is the laughingstock of the world. "Talking points" straight

from Rove's desk to your eyes.

You'd think they would want to appear less ridiculous.

Also, I'd guess Fitz has the goods on them. They strike out and try to pre-empt just like Rove. An odd rag. They do pretty much confine the smeary, bleary, impressionistic illusion creation--the "Matrix" of the corporate news monopoly--to op-ed, and try to give capitalists more accurate information (essential to investment strategies) in the news section, unlike, say, the NYT, WaPo, and AP, which severely prejudice content with editorial dictation. But then WSJ goes off the deep end, in the op-ed section. They are about to be exposed, I think.

[Blue_Tires]

26. exactly n/t

13. I notice this editorial does not have an author attached to it.

It is just "our" editorial. These people have an agenda. So many things in this article are wrong. "False allegation that Bush lied about Iraq seeking uranium". That is not a false allegation.

[peacetalksforall]

14. A WSJ editorial is the last thing I would waste my time on, but waste it

I did because few newspapers are attacking Fitzgerald. Methinks they are defending THEMSELVES too much. Consider the source for disparaging Fitzgerald.

It seems to me that it indicates what we already know = these people were so sure of themselves - they were arrogant and pompous in what they believed they were entitled to, what they could get away with, and what they thought they could repair and keep in check. They believed they were unstoppable and could do anything to anyone. Especially with help from their partners in purpose.

[TacticalPeek]

15. "Joe Wilson and his false allegation that President Bush lied"

Here's Wilson's op-ed, "What I Didn't Find in Africa":

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm


Nowhere in it does he say that President AWOL lied, which makes the WSJ editorialists a bunch of liars since it is their allegation that is the lie.

Asswipes.

[Marie26]

16. How dare they?

No one attacks Fitz! :mad: Is it just me, or did that article make no sense at all?

"we were right about Joe Wilson and his false allegation that President Bush lied... And (Fitzgerald's) mention of our editorial suggests he's now trying to invent a motive out of Mr. Libby's attempt to defend the White House from Mr. Wilson's manifestly false allegations..."

Oh, so Iraq did buy uranium from Niger? So why has the White House, CIA & world community completely retracted that claim?

Why are they quoting a 2002 NIE report that was later debunked by the CIA & Joe Wilson himself?

"To the extent Mr. Libby helped the actual contents of the 2002 NIE find their way into the public debate--as opposed to Mr. Wilson's fantasy version--he performed a public service."

It was a public service when Libby leaked the old NIE report, even though Wilson had already written a report finding no such transactions? It's OK to mislead the public to support a false allegation? The CIA had already reported that the Niger connection was dubious, but that didn't stop Libby from spreading the 2002 NIE all over the media. That NIE report later became the basis of a WSJ column in 2003 - where they said "We're reliably told that that now famous NIE, which is meant to be the best summary judgment of the intelligence community, isn't nearly as full of doubt about that yellowcake story as the critics assert." "Regarding the supposedly discredited Niger story...That foreign government service is of course the British, who still stand by their intelligence. On mystery is why the White House has been so defensive about an intelligence judgment that we don't yet know is false."

:eyes: The WSJ position seemed to be that the Niger story still might be true, based on the old debunked 2002 NIE report. So when Wilson found out the Niger story wasn't true, he was of course lying. When he later said Bush was repeating false allegations, he was of course lying. I guess this means the CIA was lying as well when they first took the Niger claim out of the SOTU speech because it was so dubious? The WSJ seems to still think that the Niger uranium claim was true - or at least it wants its readers to think that.

Libby leaked the 2002 NIE report to the media to help apologists defend the Niger story & spoke to a series of reporters over one month. But it's wrong for Fitz to say that shows "(Libby) was heavily focused on shaping media coverage of the controversy concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Niger." :crazy: That article has the most twisted logic ever. The WSJ has officially become Fox News.

[foreverdem]

21. I thought the same thing

"we were right about Joe Wilson and his false allegation that President Bush lied... And (Fitzgerald's) mention of our editorial suggests he's now trying to invent a motive out of Mr. Libby's attempt to defend the White House from Mr. Wilson's manifestly false allegations..."

This line made absolutely no sense at all and I had to read it a few times before I understood what they were saying. I'd say as Fitz's case gets stronger, the more scared WSJ gets. Fitz must have the goods on them as well. If I were them, I'd be scared as well.:scared:

[Catrina]

24. They need to read the actual charges against Libby. A highschool

student could have written a better attempt to cloud the issues ~

And (Fitzgerald's) mention of our editorial suggests he's now trying to invent a motive out of Mr. Libby's attempt to defend the White House from Mr. Wilson's manifestly false allegations..."

Eh, no, he's not interested in Libby's attempt to 'defend the WH'. He's interested in the lies Libby told the Grand Jury in an attempt to obstruct justice.

Libby's MOTIVES are irrelevant and would not be an excuse for lying to the GJ anyway. Libby's team are trying to make it about something else, as is this anonymous editorial. Fitz. is strictly interested in the lies and obstruction charges (which came from the GJ, btw, not from Fitz), which are the charges against him and which Judge Walton has pointed out numerous times.

No wonder there's no name attached to that piece of garbage ~ it's almost laughable, and either filled with deliberate lies, or 'Anonymous' hasn't been following the case.

Not to mention that no one, not even the morons in this administration, are attempting to claim anymore, that Wilson's allegations were false.

The MSM outdoes itself once again ~

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. The notoriously partisan John Fund attempts to wield his sword

Can't stand that guy. Someone should look into whether he's been given some financial incentives for the propaganda like this that he promotes.

[Catherine Vincent]

18. Oh no they didn't!

[Missy Vixen]

19. The PFEB announces an official boycott of the Wall Street Journal

:mad:

Ladies, I'm shocked, I tell you -- shocked.

Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[Catherine Vincent]

22. As a member of the PFEB, hear hear!!

Rat bastards!

[yodermon]

20. lol

i love the smell of gibbering rightwing neocon panic in the morning, don't you?

:donut:

[Peace Patriot]

32. Yeah, that's what I'm getting from it, too--they're either scared pissless

or they're so tangled up in their web of lies that all they can think to do is lie some more, to the point of blithering incoherence. I sensed this in an article I read in, I think it was the London Times, recently, about Hugo Chavez. It was hilarious and nearly incoherent--to the point of gibberish--in its mad purpose of dissing Chavez in every way they could think of--totally oblivious to the facts, in a purported "news" article. Are the fascists going off the deep end? Has their Jesus at War dichotomy driven them off the cliff? Or is it just that there is NO counter-balance, no check on them, no one to say, "Hey, that's a bit much." Perhaps this is what comes from their close association with the Bushites, who are beholden to Diebold and ES&S for their power, and not to the people. Truth doesn't matter any more. Spin is all.

[bleever]

23. Mr. Fitzgerald does not practice "media spin", as the WSJ puts it.

How sad they can't say the same for themselves.

[Gregorian]

25. This is a prime example of why Americans are at war with each other.

This article will be the talking point on the lips of arrogant assholes all around America. I have had a friend who was a solid liberal in college, until he started his own business, at which point he did an about face. From global warming to things like this, these clowns get their "facts" from articles such as this one. So now the water cooler discussions around this country will be filled with time wasting arguments that revolve around yet more lies. Thanks Wall Street Bullshit.

PS- He subscribes to the WSJ. And gets a smug feeling when he passes on his knowledge with what is nearly photographic memory. My friend is almost Karl Rove in his ability to pump up his credibility to people. Except I'm not fooled. I have a bullshit detector that goes all the way to "DU".

[dave123williams]

28. "Mr. Libby wasn't a source for our editorial"

Well, then, I'm sure they'll have no trouble letting America know who, in fact, their sources were for the editorial. Right?

[Me.]

29. Blatant Attempt At Dis-info

National Review has one up today that says Fitzgerald needs to be replaced. Not happy with Walton's rulings. They've been kicking this for about three-four weeks now.

*shadow government*

[dogday]

30. Got to ask why now? Why this article

about PF? Is there some reason they are publishing it now? :shrug:

[ihelpu2see]

31. Just exceptional BS. Even the Italians who handed the info to the Brits.

admit that one of their intel guys made up the story.... So how Fu**** up is this story??

[Synnical]

33. This is one of the most insane things I've ever read

It just makes no sense at all - it's blatantly, patently false. And I've read it three times - how could they print this drivel?

Contrast this with the Vanity Fair piece by Craig Unger:

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02

The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful "black propaganda" campaign with links to the White House

Discussion here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1367378&mesg_id=1367378

[H2O Man]

34. That's funny.

I didn't realize that old moldie Dick Cheney was writing editorials these days.