Well, two of the headlines from your linked website are:
"Bush’s Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides" and "The Bush-Cheney Big Lie Strategy"...
A quote from the first article:
"In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be 'God’s will' and then tells aides to 'fuck over' anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.
"'We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,' says one troubled White House aide. 'We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.'"
And the second article contains this gem:
"It is the Big Lie Strategy, now playing on a TV set near you.
It has been working wondrously for Bush-Cheney -- thanks to the help of some unwitting Bush-Cheney accomplices: Democratic challenger John Kerry and the journalists whose job is to cover politics and convey the truth to the people."
This is what is defined in psychology as the paranoid ravings of deranged minds....
That doesn't detract from a news article. I am a news junkie and read newspapers and blogs all the time with which I do not totally agree. In a newspaper -- even alternative newspapers -- a person who reports on a story is generally NOT the same person who writes the headlines and the editorials. If we went by that then we'd all have to discard most of the news we get since I bet most people who follow events don't agree with all the headlines and editorials in their local papers or newsmagazines.
Even Fox News. I might admire a reporter then disagree with Sean Hannity or Alan C. That doesn't mean that the report I saw was automatically phoney or made up.
Sorry. Nice point. But as someone who worked in the news biz freelancing from some 5 countries overseas, and working on the staff of two newspapers, it really is apples and oranges.
If this story isn't right it could be due to poor reporting, poor sourcing, bias or invention. It certainly sounds logical. When you read blogs, newspapers and watch cable see if you find an outlandish statement or something with which you disagree. Does that mean everything it runs is wrong?
Also, by my running this it doesn't mean I AGREE WITH IT. I'm always interested in what is going on in an unfolding story. At the very least, all these multiscandals indicate a White House communications group that needs...ahem...new blood.
Its only logical if Plame were some big player - or her husband was; neither of them are that...a mid-level bureaucrat's fatuous report about Saddamite uranium purchases is not worth a Presidential effort to discredit. Additionally, its not actually a news report - its editorialising; just like the two articles I quoted.
The unfortunate fact of modern life is that any accusation, regardless of how absurd, is investigated - and anyone who is the target of an official investigation needs a lawyer's advice just to navigate through the legal maze.
My overall take on your linked site is that its just run-of-the-mill Bush-bashing - a slightly re-worked take on things I've read before over at the World Socialist Web...
Well, two of the headlines from your linked website are:
"Bush’s Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides" and "The Bush-Cheney Big Lie Strategy"...
A quote from the first article:
"In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be 'God’s will' and then tells aides to 'fuck over' anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.
"'We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,' says one troubled White House aide. 'We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.'"
And the second article contains this gem:
"It is the Big Lie Strategy, now playing on a TV set near you.
It has been working wondrously for Bush-Cheney -- thanks to the help of some unwitting Bush-Cheney accomplices: Democratic challenger John Kerry and the journalists whose job is to cover politics and convey the truth to the people."
This is what is defined in psychology as the paranoid ravings of deranged minds....
Not exactly a sterling source.
That doesn't detract from a news article. I am a news junkie and read newspapers and blogs all the time with which I do not totally agree. In a newspaper -- even alternative newspapers -- a person who reports on a story is generally NOT the same person who writes the headlines and the editorials. If we went by that then we'd all have to discard most of the news we get since I bet most people who follow events don't agree with all the headlines and editorials in their local papers or newsmagazines.
Even Fox News. I might admire a reporter then disagree with Sean Hannity or Alan C. That doesn't mean that the report I saw was automatically phoney or made up.
Sorry. Nice point. But as someone who worked in the news biz freelancing from some 5 countries overseas, and working on the staff of two newspapers, it really is apples and oranges.
If this story isn't right it could be due to poor reporting, poor sourcing, bias or invention. It certainly sounds logical. When you read blogs, newspapers and watch cable see if you find an outlandish statement or something with which you disagree. Does that mean everything it runs is wrong?
Also, by my running this it doesn't mean I AGREE WITH IT. I'm always interested in what is going on in an unfolding story. At the very least, all these multiscandals indicate a White House communications group that needs...ahem...new blood.
Joe,
Its only logical if Plame were some big player - or her husband was; neither of them are that...a mid-level bureaucrat's fatuous report about Saddamite uranium purchases is not worth a Presidential effort to discredit. Additionally, its not actually a news report - its editorialising; just like the two articles I quoted.
The unfortunate fact of modern life is that any accusation, regardless of how absurd, is investigated - and anyone who is the target of an official investigation needs a lawyer's advice just to navigate through the legal maze.
My overall take on your linked site is that its just run-of-the-mill Bush-bashing - a slightly re-worked take on things I've read before over at the World Socialist Web...
None of this means anything until the grand jury finishes up.
I'd suggest everybody wait until then.
P.S. Same goes for the FBI questioning people in the Pentagon about Chalabi.