American Thinker: I Call for Justice

"Sordid the episode is, but not because of anything Libby did. And "a troubling picture" of Washington it is-but not of this Administration. The Bush crowd is guilty only of terminal naiveté and the foolish idea that high standards of probity will ever beat the opposition's utter unscrupulousness and willingness to misuse the legal system to their own partisan ends, even if it means the ruination of an innocent and capable man and enormous hardship to his family."

Good luck in calling for justice from the mainstream media. After all they are "unbiased" right? That word seems to have a different meaning in their lexicon though. Even mentioning that there might be another angle to a story seems to qualify.

I even found nuggets of truth in the Washington Post, but I had to look real hard:

washingtonpost.com

"Fitzgerald was overzealous," Zelnick says, and "the effect is serious and adverse. It's going to take a long time for reporters and their sources to figure out how to deal with each other in a way that doesn't risk contempt citations and imprisonment."

and...

blog.washingtonpost.com

"The reality that Armitage was the original leaker doesn't change the fact that Libby subsequently dined and whined with reporters to push the bosses' agenda. But Armitage is not a Cheney guy, and his revealed role does question the presumption of White House conspiracy and Cheney guilt.

The truth is that everyone at the top gossips. I hate to say leak for that suggests a piece of information of greater importance. Gossip fuels Washington, and the relationship between the top reporters and the top officials shape the news and fuels the ship of state.

Saying everyone gossips also isn't meant to excuse Libby or the government cesspool: My attitude is always that it is a great day for America when a government official is led away in handcuffs. These people are not above the law.

But they are above it all. "

An editorial gets it right. How did THIS slip through:

washingtonpost.com

"Mr. Libby's conviction should send a message to this and future administrations about the dangers of attempting to block official investigations.

The fall of this skilled and long-respected public servant is particularly sobering because it arose from a Washington scandal remarkable for its lack of substance."

But then, when you think about previous administrations, this is small potatoes. We can't be sure what goes on in other people's minds, only what they actually do. This man will go to jail for what hist intentions MIGHT have been, while others will get book deals and speaking engagements even though we KNOW they did wrong. How is this a good thing again? Because it will warn future administrations not to get caught?

From the same editorial:

"Mr. Wilson's case has besmirched nearly everyone it touched. The former ambassador will be remembered as a blowhard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in their handling of classified information. Mr. Libby's subsequent false statements were reprehensible. And Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing a Washington political case to a federal special prosecutor is a prescription for excess.

Mr. Fitzgerald was, at least, right about one thing: The Wilson-Plame case, and Mr. Libby's conviction, tell us nothing about the war in Iraq."

Much less difficult to get this other angle from bloggers:

powerlineblog.com

"The whole Libby affair remains something of a mystery. President Bush ordered all executive branch personnel to cooperate with the Fitzgerald investigation. Other people, apparently including Dick Cheney, told investigators that they had discussed Wilson and Plame with Libby. It's hard to understand why Libby's testimony was so out of step with that of the other Executive Branch witnesses. At the end of the day, imperfect memory seemed as good an explanation as any. But the jury didn't see it that way."

The Left, Glad to be Hoodwinked

Honesty is not just therapeutic. Fiscal honesty is a practical necessity. A New Direction for America rightly denounces the staggering fiscal irresponsibility of Republican leaders and duly promises "pay-as-you-go" spending. But in the entire document there is not one explicit revenue raiser to balance the many new spending programmes and tax credits.

Michael Kinsley is glad he voted before he found out the Dems have no fiscal plan. Now we know what sort of thing we are dealing with in the mainstream media: "Don't confuse us with the facts."

But it has been pointed out that the Left has no plan for months, years. No plan for Iraq either, by the way. With the attention span of MTV junkies, our country, like Nicaragua, will swing left again and hope to somehow eliminate poverty and disease overnight. Good luck.

It is our continued good fortune to watch Europe and parts of South America try socialist experiments over and over again and fail. In their case, that, coupled with the fact that their "Mexicans" are also Jihadists is going to be an irreversible disaster. Maybe someday, only after much of western civilization is wiped from the history books, someone will learn from these experiments. It doesn't look like it will be us though, or if so, not soon.

If there were a rocket ship to go to some desolate planet to get away from you loonies, I most certainly would be booking passage.

A Party Without Principles

"If Democrats cared about poor women and minorities, they would be clamoring to reform Social Security. But instead they get a childish gratification out of stamping their feet and refusing to discuss the subject. They can't muster the courage to block the suspension of habeas corpus. But when it comes to blocking entitlement reform, the Democrats ride out to battle."

Even lifelong liberals get it every now and then.

Funny thing, the article started with the phrase: "After years of single-party government, " and the first thing that popped into my mind was the period from 1952 to 2000. For most of that time the Repubs were a minority, at times very much so. They continued to work for their ideals and worked to block things they were against without simply rejecting anything that the Dems came up with. For the most part, the Republicans are STILL making concession after concession to the Democrats as if they (the Republicans) were still the minority.

And let's not forget the left still controls the media via which most of you are being brainwashed without even knowing it. The trick is not slanted coverage (although there is plenty of that too) but mostly a slant in picking what to cover. The news you never see is what the left is all about. Why else would they be so concerned about the occasional exception such as Fox News? For their slant to work, they need exclusivity. Not a foreign notion after all, as any Socialist will tell you, their system works best when the Capitalists have no place to escape to.

THE ASSOCIATED (WITH TERRORISTS) PRESS

"Let me repeat that: An Associated (with terrorists) Press journalist gets caught with an alleged al Qaeda leader and tests positive for bomb-making materials. That. Is. News. How does a news organization explain away its decision to sit on it for five months? Like this: "The AP has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach."

The best approach to journalism? No. The best approach to suppressing a damning connection to terrorists.

The mainstream media enjoys mocking bloggers as journalistic wannabes who don't do any "real" reporting and have no concern for the "public interest." But as in the case of the Reuters photo-faking debacle this summer, it is bloggers in their little home offices -- not the professionals on the ground thousands of miles away -- who smoked out a war story with profound national security implications."

Media Clowns

"One of the biggest media figures boycotting the Plame story has been MSNBC host Chris Matthews who has yet to mention the scandal at all since the Armitage report broke, a dramatic contrast to the 27 times he mentioned the "scandal" in the five months leading up to it."