No coverage from either side

AlterNet: Blogs: Peek: More on Rove — As this Karl Rove story begins to unfold we see most of the commentary in blogs and the overseas press. Has anyone actually wondered to what degree the so-called liberal media in this country has been co-opted by large corporate interests. They do not cover the Downing Street memos; they don’t cover this to any real extent. It’s as if the public has to force the media to do its job. And they wonder why circulation is slipping.

Here’s a good blog entry which asks the questions (cynically) that the media should be asking.

It’s beyond amazing to me how the so-called liberal media is failing the American public. I thnk the editors need to be lined up and shot. And I mean that in a good way. They must be in terrible pain trying to walk around with no backbones like that. It has to hurt.

Caught impeding a WMD investigation while we’re at war and he’s still got his job?

“Let’s think this through for a minute. Karl Rove allegedly outed a CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction while we are at war. Everyone is talking about him committing perjury when interviewed by the investigators. What about treason?” writes Morgaine. “He demonstrably impeded the war effort and put agents and others in harm’s way.

* Does he still have a security clearance? Is he still allowed in the White House?
* Why was a political advisor privy to classified information?
* Should a traitor have access to our pResident in a time of war? Isn’t that a breach of security?
* Valerie Plame’s contacts may have been murdered; will he be charged with causing any deaths that might have resulted?
* Ms. Plame’s training cost millions of dollars, as did setting up her cover. Is Karl planning to pay that back?
* Did the Justice Department know that Rove was the source of the leak from any of its investigation? How long have they known this and allowed him continued access to the White House?
* Why isn’t he in jail?
* Why isn’t Robert Novak in jail? If he rolled over on Rove, then, again, why isn’t he in jail?
* What did Cheney know and when did he know it?
* What did Bush know and when did he know it?

Members of the Press have apparently known this for months…Isn’t anyone doing their job?”

via Alternet



  1. Richard says:

    Shouldn’t there be a special prosecutor to look into this matter?

  2. Pat says:

    I have a feeling that this is going to drag on until after the 2006 elections.

    Is anyone else aware that Patrick Fitzgerald is the same prosecutor that went after Lynn Stewart? Lynn Stewart is a communist who was prosecuted by the Bush administration for the crime of representing her client. Although the client is a convicted terrorist, the Bushits didn’t like the way she represented him and found herself on trial. Her partner, the former Attorney General Ramsey Clark was not charged. Now, how many defense lawyers are going to feel inhibited and intimidated the next time a terrorist suspect is on trial.

    After the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, several members of the Senate motioned that the Government should not jail the two journalists, Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, who refused to speak to the Grand Jury. The motion failed because some members refused to support it. The Senators who opposed the motion refused to identify themselves on the record. Can you say hypocrisy?

    The blog raises some very good questions. Why does Robert Novak still walk the streets? Why has there been no firing, or at least suspension, of anyone in the White House if Novak had named them. If Fitzgerald has told the Supreme Court that the investigation is complete then why is he still going after Cooper and Miller.

    For some reason this is beginning to sound like a RICO offense.

  3. Pat says:

    I have a feeling that this is going to drag on until after the 2006 elections.

    Is anyone else aware that Patrick Fitzgerald is the same prosecutor that went after Lynn Stewart? Lynn Stewart is a communist who was prosecuted by the Bush administration for the crime of representing her client. Although the client is a convicted terrorist, the Bushits didn’t like the way she represented him and found herself on trial. Her partner, the former Attorney General Ramsey Clark was not charged. Now, how many defense lawyers are going to feel inhibited and intimidated the next time a terrorist suspect is on trial.

    After the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, several members of the Senate motioned that the Government should not jail the two journalists, Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, who refused to speak to the Grand Jury. The motion failed because some members refused to support it. The Senators who opposed the motion refused to identify themselves on the record. Can you say hypocrisy?

    The blog raises some very good questions. Why does Robert Novak still walk the streets? Why has there been no firing, or at least suspension, of anyone in the White House if Novak had named them. If Fitzgerald has told the Supreme Court that the investigation is complete then why is he still going after Cooper and Miller.

    For some reason this is beginning to sound like a RICO offense.

  4. Rob says:

    Hey, where is Rather and the guy from newsweek??? They can alweays make up a story to fit the facts and call it the truth.

  5. Bildo says:

    I don’t think Lawrence O’Donnell has the best track record when it comes to making predictions.

  6. Ron Snyder says:

    Get off the “so-called Liberal Media” rant.

    Bring Dan Rather back indeed -that was funny. Was Dan and his open Liberal bias only “so-called”, and wasn’t / isn’t CBS generally considered part of the Media?

    Ron

  7. Imafish says:

    “And they wonder why circulation is slipping.”

    They WANT circulation and viewership to continue slipping until “news” as we know it disappears. The same multinational corporations that own our “news” organizations would LOVE to get rid of news and replace it with infotainment.

    It’s just harder to make gobs of money when you’re giving people information that makes them feel angry, uncomfortable, or pissed off.

  8. site admin says:

    What’s your point Ron? SO you think it’s a good thing that the Office of the President might be involved in revealing the names of our own CIA operatives as political payback? That’s cool with you?

  9. Teyecoon says:

    The state or our “news” organizations is a complete travesty. They all are full of bias and opinion and they don’t effectively cover any real important issues. They have become nothing more than shills and mouthpieces for the corporations that gloss over anything that doesn’t provide entertainment. What good is a “free press” if it doesn’t force the government to remain accountable to the people? What is worse, a communist press that can’t stand against the government or a democratic press that won’t stand up? There is no effective difference for sure. We need to return to the days of Walter Kronkite where the news was unbiased, unfiltered and informative and was treated as a service to the country rather than a profit center for some corporation.

  10. AB CD says:

    So far it’s not clear that Rove has done anything illegal. David Corn at The Nation has an excellent article on this. One possibility is that someone else mentions that Plame works for the CIA and got her husband the job, and then Rove passed it along not knowing she’s an undercover agent. Also, if what Rove has done is a crime, then why souldn’t the reporters be thrown in jail? They are helping to coverup treason in that case. A prosecutor tasked with finding the source of the leak needs to know for sure who said what, and the main stories all referred to multiple sources.

  11. AB CD says:

    You’re looking silly claiming the Downing Street memo wasn’t covered. Lots of newspapers have covered it, including front page treatment, but overall there wasn’t an issue for them to cover there.

  12. site admin says:

    I’ve been noticing a LOT or recent spin on what Rove did or did not do and whether he’s guilty of anything at all since he never had any sort of top secret clearance and may have been doing nothing more than passing along a rumor. This ignores the political payback aspect of this onerous action. There was motive and this was no ‘accident.” It will be funny to watch him wrangle himself off the hook yet again. He’s like Lucy and the football.

  13. Pat says:

    AB CD

    Once again you show that you haven’t read the article or the news. The point is Rove is accused of revealing a CIA operative’s name. The columnist, Robert Novak, who wrote the story and the suspected leaker are walking the streets. The reporter that wrote a story used comments from Novak’s column and the second reporter, Judith Miller, did not even write a story and has no notes. Judith Miller is now being held in jail until she either reveals the source or the Grand Jury expires, in four months.

    The Downing Street Memos are not being covered in the U.S. A casual reference on page 31 is not coverage. Bush lied to Congress and then the American people, willfully and knowingly. His Secretary of State presented false information to the United Nations. The decision to Invade Iraq was made and the reason was fabricated later. The American press is ignoring this story. And every day more American soldiers are killer and severely injured.

    If you are going to reference an article, then paste a link to that article with your post. I am not aware of who David Corn is and I don’t read the Nation.

  14. Deep Throat says:

    Writing and reporting is a tough business. I think blogging will help the press do a better job. Perhaps it will force them to do a better job.
    I read that “Russia sees the arrest of Judith Miller as a restrain on journalists’ rights in the U.S.”, so I guess there is a concern internationally about compelling testimony by incarceration. That’s how I read it anyways. It seems to me that the information is more important than the source. You should consider the source, but if something criminal is done then investigators should be able to verify facts without knowing sources.

    Journalists verify facts based on shakey sources. A reporter could have many sources, including other journalists who share information with them. If a reporters source was another reporter, it would seem professional not to reveal the source. And smart too! In the case of Ms. Miller, the whole thing sounds like a case of guilt by association. There is a huge budget for fake news, so maybe your source could turn out to be fake, so you still need to stick with the facts. Somebody being jailed for protecting a source of information who may be a colleague will anger many people. The government has sources of information that they don’t have to reveal, because doing so could put the sources in danger or compromise an investigation. If I send you hard to get information and say don’t quote me on that, you shouldn’t quote me. As a journalist, you should verify the information and possibly expand on it. I may be the source of your story and not be mentioned in the story. I am a source, but by not revealing who I am you have not misled your readers or editors. I could of been Ms. Millers source, but I’ll let the facts tell the rest of the story. My sources can’t be verified, they are dead. Those are the breaks in the news business. The facts never die. Ms. Miller is in jail, the sources may be dead and the truth goes marching on. Maybe she is protecting the innocent or being jailed for being innocent. If the sources are dead, you won’t be able to verify much anyways, so the sources don’t make the story. I can’t see why the investigators are so interested in the sources a writer uses. I could be dead by the time this information spreads around the globe, so don’t quote me! Live free or die.

  15. AB CD says:

    The political payback aspect is troublesome especially when used against CIA agents in any capacity. My understanding of Novak’s article was that the revelationw as to explain how Wilson got the job in the first place. I have no problem with payback against Wilson, since his original column was a lie, attempting to take away Bush’s job. I say it’s a lie instead of false because at the time he wrote the article, Wilson had already submitted a followup report about attempted uranium purchases from Niger which formed part of the basis for the State of the Union claim. The report was about contact from a senior Nigerian(Nigeran?) official saying they had been contacted by Iraq about purchases.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 13843 access attempts in the last 7 days.