Bush supporters' aftermath thread

MADRID, Spain - Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan led a small protest Saturday outside the U.S. Embassy to denounce the war in Iraq.

About 100 protesters carried banners criticizing President Bush.

Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, called Bush a war criminal and said, "Iraq is worse than Vietnam."

The protest also was called in memory of Jose Couso, a Spanish television cameraman killed on April 8, 2003, in Baghdad when a U.S. tank fired at a hotel where many foreign correspondents were staying. Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian, also was killed in that incident
SOURCE

The past year has seen a spate of shocking statements revealing hatred and contempt for President Bush and his supporters on the part of important media figures who claim objectivity and sneer at conservatives unafraid to characterize themselves as such. Regrettably, we cannot credit a sudden outbreak of honesty for this phenomenon, and thereby anticipate improved news coverage from these folks. A pathology is at work . . . . .

. . . .But important media figures as are Wallace and his former CBS colleague Dan ""fake but accurate"" Rather, no position in the American media can rival the influence of the editor-in-chief of the New York Times. Broadcast networks, wire services, and lesser newspapers take their news agenda and spin from the Grey Lady. So when the man who ran the Times for years lets the mask slip, it is worth some attention, for he has been shaping American public opinion as nobody else in the media could. . . .

. . . .Howell Raines edited the New York Times until a cascade of publicly visible incompetence forced his separation from what regrettably remains the nation''s most prestigious newspaper. , , ,

, , , ,Howell Raines no longer determines what Americans read and hear about important national and global news. But the attitude he represents is far from extinct among his former colleagues throughout the most prestigious media institutions. The decline and fall of the broadcast networks and newspaper industries, all but irredeemably populated by variants of the hateful Raines, cannot be completed too soon.

Good question from Cliff May on the Corner:

"Will any MSM editorial page demand an investigation of this leak? Or is it the belief of the MSM that the truthful revelation that CIA operative Valerie Plame got her partisan retired husband assigned an African boondoggle more significant than actual breaches of national security in wartime?"

How soon we forget: Should we now play nice with terror?

The Times now reports that President Bush signed an executive order to allow the NSA to move immediately in some cases to listen in on suspected terrorists in order to foil their plots. We suspect the average American's reaction to this news was: For goodness sake, we HOPE that is what the authorities have been doing!

Why do those on the "right" think that the Plame leak was ok but that this one isn't?

I don't recall seeing any condemnation of the Plame leak by the right. To the contrary, there were a lot of "she wasn't covert" arguments.

While I could be pursuaded that both leaks were of equal harm, I'm personally very glad that I know what this latest leak has revealed. My gut tells me that the Plame leak was worse because it appeared to be for political reasons while this one appears to have been motivated by concern for the legality of the action. But, like I said, I could be pursuaded otherwise.

I don't think she was covert -- it certainly hasn't been shown that she was.

Whatever the motivation of the leak, one should look at the effect. Revealing a tool of the government to combat terrorism impedes National Security interests, and is far worse

I don't think she was covert -- it certainly hasn't been shown that she was.

Whatever the motivation of the leak, one should look at the effect. Revealing a tool of the government to combat terrorism impedes National Security interests, and is far worse than letting the world know that Wilson's wife works for the CIA and that's why he got the Niger gig. Minimal negative effect, if any. One possible effect is the CIA might push for stronger laws to protect the identity of persons they conceive to be "classified."

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't recall seeing any condemnation of the Plame leak by the right. To the contrary, there were a lot of "she wasn't covert" arguments.

While I could be pursuaded that both leaks were of equal harm, I'm personally very glad that I know what this latest leak has revealed. My gut tells me that the Plame leak was worse because it appeared to be for political reasons while this one appears to have been motivated by concern for the legality of the action. But, like I said, I could be pursuaded otherwise.

I don't think she was covert -- it certainly hasn't been shown that she was.

Whatever the motivation of the leak, one should look at the effect. Revealing a tool of the government to combat terrorism impedes National Security interests, and is far worse than letting the world know that Wilson's wife works for the CIA and that's why he got the Niger gig. Minimal negative effect, if any. One possible effect is the CIA might push for stronger laws to protect the identity of persons they conceive to be "classified."