Lol. Yeah. There's those words hidden in there that most folks don't read. Then there's the words that people do hear. Like Dean's comments *about* the "leak":
Quote:
The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified information for political gain and put interests of his political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no longer be trusted to keep America safe
Hmm... Are you seriously trying to argue he isn't trying to get folks to assume the leak was about Plame? What "political gain" is he talking about? Rebutting a false allegation about the president may fall under the heading of "political gain" in some people's books, but in mine it's called "countering with the truth".
Read the freaking title of the smokinggun article Joph.
I know you're going to use the standard "But the news doesn't technically say that" argument. I'm going to counter with the same thing I always do. Look at the posts about the topic on this page. Clearly, many who posted her did/do indeed assume that the leak in question was Plame's identity.
Shall I list them?
bodhisattva wrote:
Message 4:The guy you are charging it for can't be charge because he technically was authorized to leak said information by Bush himself
He's charged with leaking Valerie Plame's identity. No question that Bhodi (the topic started) thought the classified intelligence referred to in this testimony included Plame's identity.
Omegavegeta wrote:
I don't know how one goes about declassifying the name of an undercover CIA op, if there's paper work involved, or if the President just has to verbally say it can be leaked. However, legally, Libby didn't do anything wrong if the President declassified it.
Omega's defending (kinda) the president here, but he's also assuming the intelligence the president authorized was Plame's identity.
Kelvyquayo wrote:
They are going to hear that Bush just lied again wehn he said that wehn they find the person who leaked that they would be fired.... wehn the entire time.. it is himself who authorized the whole thing
Despite the fact that it is in his power to do so, the simple fact is that once again, he flat out lied to the public and jeopordized national security for the sole purpose of discrediting a person who tried to bring to light the fact that the Bush administration has done nothing but lie and mislead the public on some pretty serious issues from day 1.
Two references by Kelvy here. The comment about firing someone was specific to the Plame leak. Not the stuff about Wilson's trip. And I'm pretty sure the whole "jeopordized national security for the sole purpose of discrediting a person..." bit referse to her CIA employment as well, right?
Is that enough? Or do I need to bother quoting shadow?
It's not about what is said. It's about how it's said. While every news report I've *read* (ok. most of them) have included the statement that Plame's identity wasn't among the things leaked by Libby at the request of the President. But every single news broadcast has made a big point of putting Libby's name, the fact that he's charged with revealing Plame's identity, and the fact that Bush authorized him to leak classified documents in the opening bits of their coverage of the issue. The news advertisements alone imply a meaning far in conflict with the actual facts. All you hear is those things. Most people form their opinions on a subject based on that first view. The news folks know this.
Heh. And you know darn well that Howard Dean knows this. There are two things that are amazing to me about this specific topic. First, that Dean managed to put out a big press statement first thing. And secondly, the degree of coverage that consisted of repreating Dean's allegations about the testimony instead of covering the testimony itself. That didn't come about until a day or two later (after that first view had already been firmly put into people's minds).
It's just irritating to me that there's "the truth", and "the common belief", and you've got one side of politics consistently working purely to manipulate what people believe to be true instead of what's actually true. Heck. In an odd sort of full circle karma, that's exactly what started this whole thing. Wilson's Op Ed was pure strawman, with a logic hole a mile wide. But not *one* news agency pointed it out. And even today, after I've pointed out the flaw a dozen times over the last year, most people on this forum *still* don't get it.
I'll repeat it again. Bush didn't lie about the Iraq attempt to purchase uranium. Wilson just wrote an Op Ed piece intended to make people think he did. And it worked. And what's scary is even when the facts are released, do people go "ooooh. Wilson was BSing us". Nope. They spin that into some sort of abuse of power. The "truth" is that Bush said that Iraq
attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. Wilson countered that by stating that Iraq never
succeeded in purchasing uranium from Niger. If you don't see the strawman, then there's really no hope for you...