In the interests of full disclosure, the article that McGentrix posted was authored by none other than Bob Novak -- the guy responsible for "outing" Valerie Plame.
Now, he wouldn't have any personal interest in seeing Joseph Wilson discredited, would he? Hmmmm?
In the interest of fuller disclosure, it should be pointed out Novak neither is the only member of the commentariat working the current story - to say nothing of numerous more objective journalists, nor did he break this latest twist ... that honor goes to the the Senate Intelligence Inquiry committee.
So we've heard from republicans Novak and Roberts. The actual Senate Report on Intelligence, Pages 85-87 (what is not blacked out), says differently.
But in evaluating the report, it's important to remember that the committee examined only how intelligence was gathered, not the more politically explosive question of how the Bush administration used the information. That second phase of the inquiry is conveniently scheduled to be completed after the November election.
Yeah, keep your hopes up. They're about all The Opposition has any more. The deck they built their house of is increasingly short of cards.
Wilson's findings were true, but it seems he didn't pass the word about what he found out, (although, strangely enough, WE heard about it afterwards, but it was still not retracted by the administration!) and he never suggested those words be removed from the president's address, if the findings are correct. This suggests that he may have knowingly wanted the president to look the fool. I have my own objections to that, but it seems that Novak and Roberts have taken liberties with what the report actually does say. However, the senate intelligence report also mentions that the "address" should have been fact-checked before being turned over to the president. It also accuses, repeatedly, the entire intelligence community (and by inference, the admin) of group-think. Is anyone surprised?
Keep my hopes up about what?
Is it only me, or have others noticed the new tactic by the right-wing here. Copy 'n' paste an article or screed from a right-wing source, but don't reveal its origin. Add a little link at the bottom, for those who want to click and find out.
How about announcing the title and source at the outset? Or is it that you're afraid that would give the game away too soon?
Not real sure I follow your objection, D'Art ... a link is a link. Some folks do make more of a point to identify the source somewhere in the quoted material or in their own message body, but a link is a link. I suggest you take the same eye that made your most recent observation, and cast it around this thread a bit. I note a couple statements of cryptic commentary rendered as links to otherwise unidentified material, one being to a website self declared as a counter to rightwing viewpoint, and another to not an article but to what amounts to a proudly partisan blogger's commentary introducing a link to an article which appears on a blatantly partisan website. Pretty sneaky, that, if looked at it from your viewpoint, eh?
