Sunday, April 16, 2006

Times says 'bad leak,' Post said 'good'

From my Raw Story article, NY Times calls it 'a bad leak' while Post said 'good':

What the Washington Post editorial page called 'a good leak,' the New York Times calls 'bad,' RAW STORY has found.

"President Bush was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons," began the Post's editorial, "A Good Leak," last Sunday.

In contrast, Sunday's Times editorial, "A Bad Leak," begins with "President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist."

"This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record," continues the Times editorial.


Since the Times directly cited the Post in its editorial many readers (and especially liberal bloggers and media critics) are likely to assume that its title was deliberate.

From my R.S. article Retired colonel claims U.S. military operations are already 'underway' in Iran:

During an interview on CNN Friday night, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner claimed that U.S. military operations are already 'underway' inside Iran, RAW STORY has found. "I would say -- and this may shock some -- I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way," Col. Gardiner told CNN International anchor Jim Clancy (as noted by Digby at the blog Hullabaloo).

(Crooks and Liars has a video clip of the interview)


Last Thursday, Raw Story's Larisa Alexandrovna reported (On Cheney, Rumsfeld order, US outsourcing special ops, intelligence to Iraq terror group, intelligence officials say) that, according to former and current intelligence officials, the Pentagon has been using a right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) as an operational asset "to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack."

"[I]nstead of securing a known terrorist organization, which has been responsible for acts of terror against Iranian targets and individuals all over the world – including US civilian and military casualties – Rumsfeld under instructions from Cheney, began using the group on special ops missions into Iran to pave the way for a potential Iran strike," Larisa reported.

And this is a comment I left at Jay Rosen's PressThink regarding Saturday's Washington Post article written by David Finkel, The Left, Online and Outraged:

I love Maryscott O'Connor. She's brilliant, hysterical, poetic and not afraid to get right in your face.

She also has the brass to write about topice that most bigger bloggers on the left wouldn't dare. Case in point: Darfur in the Post (hell...this might be the first time a liberal's thoughts about what's happening there ever appeared in the mainstream press).

Is she angry? Yes. But it's a compassionate anger. A deep felt anger. An emotional anger. Unlike any anger coming from anywhere on the right...or the left for that matter.

As for the argument - I guess - that she doesn't represent the online left. Bullshit. There's a little bit of Maryscott in nearly every single bigger blogger on the left (but mostly just the rage part).

Now I completely agree that this article was most probably revenge by the Post on the liberal bloggers...but it could have been worse...instead of profiling someone whose every word lives and breathes with humanity...they could have just gone to the biggest blogs on the left in any given week and used stuff from the posts without having to go into the comments.

Does anyone care what Maryscott thinks of the article about her?

A reader at My Left Wing writes, "I'm scared to read it. Please, someone, tell me it's okay."

Maryscott replies, "It's better than okay. It's real."



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?