Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Smearing Joe Wilson, Again - By Robert Parrry

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 09:00 AM
Original message
Smearing Joe Wilson, Again - By Robert Parrry
Edited on Fri Sep-01-06 09:01 AM by kpete
Smearing Joe Wilson, Again
By Robert Parry
September 1, 2006


In a world that wasn’t upside-down, the editorial page of Washington’s biggest newspaper might praise a whistleblower like former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for alerting the American people to a government deception that helped lead the country into a disastrous war that has killed 2,627 U.S. soldiers.

The editorial page http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html also might demand that every senior administration officials who sought to protect that deception by leaking the identity of a covert CIA officer (Wilson’s wife) be held accountable, at minimum stripped of their security clearances and fired from government.

But the United States, circa 2006, is an upside-down world. So the Washington Post’s editorial page instead makes excuses for the government deceivers, treats their exposure of the CIA officer as justifiable – and attacks the whistleblower by recycling the government’s false spin points against him.

If future historians wonder how the United States could have blundered so catastrophically into Iraq under false pretenses and why so few establishment figures dared to speak out, the historians might read the sorry pattern of the Post’s editorial-page attacks on those who did dissent.

more at:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/090106.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Is there more going on here than we see ?
At the very least, there was a "cover-up" of the information about Mr. Armitage. Several people seemed to know it was he but no one said anything? He appears to this untrained eye as the classical "fall guy". More questions come to mind. Is the Special Prosecutor about to come out with charges and this is meant to head it off at the pass? And who is Mr Armitage exactly covering for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Parry's telling us AGAIN the REAL PROBLEM we face - a NEWSMEDIA coopted
by the corrupt fascists.

This has been an over twenty year effort by the BFEE so that another Watergate would NEVER happen.

That IranContra, the S&Ls, and the BCCI crimes would never get fully understood by the general public.

That the next Democratic president would be impeached successfully.

That no Democratic campaign would get a fair hearing.

That the election fraud tactics they developed would go unreported to the American people.

And that the incompetence and criminality of BushInc would never be strung together in a coherent way for the avearge voter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
captcorajus Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. TREASON!
I a world that makes sense, all those who had a hand in exposing Ms Plame would be either up on charges of treason, or drummed out of public service at the very least.

In this case, they hold the whistleblower accountable. Insanity rules... the terrorists are the least of our worries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-01-06 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
4. An unattributed vicious personal attack on the editorial page of the Wapo
Edited on Fri Sep-01-06 10:32 AM by acmejack
Is past offensive. It demands attribution! Only a coward of the basest sort would hide while assassinating a man's character in this manner. It speaks volumes about the editorial integrity of the Washington Post as well, especially when taken with the weight of the past.

edit for grammar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 17th 2024, 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC