Sunday, April 09, 2006

Arlen Specter and Joe Wilson, On the Same Page!

The Washington Post continues with a fury to try to create another "gotcha" moment with the Valerie Plame affair; but like the Rathergate memos and Cindy Sheehan's "absolute moral authority", this one is going nowhere. Desperate for ammo, they turn to Arlen Specter, more left-wing than many Democrats, and Crazy Joe Wilson for support. First, though, this -

A lawyer knowledgeable about the case said Saturday that Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics, but he did not specifically direct that Libby be the one to disseminate the information.

Got that? "Bush Declassified"? He is the President, he can classify or de-classify anything he wants! And besides, I thought the problem was that his administration was too secretive? Anyway-

"I think it is necessary for the president and vice president to tell the American people exactly what happened," Specter told "Fox News Sunday."
"There's been enough of a showing that the president of the United States owes a specific explanation to the American people ... about exactly what he did," Specter said.

Err....Arlen? What he did? See above, genius...aren't you supposed to know this stuff?

[ Joe] Wilson said Sunday that Bush and Cheney should release transcripts of their interviews with Fitzgerald.
"It seems to me that first and foremost, the White House needs to come clean on this matter," Wilson said on ABC's "This Week." "My own view of this is that the White House owes the American people and particularly our service people who have been sent into war, an apology for having misrepresented the facts."

Since Joe Wilson's lies are well documented, and Specter's hostility to the administration well known, it seems as if there is very little here to concern the average American, if these are the best two sources the WaPost can quote on this story. Note no comment on Specter's constant battles with the administration (that would undermine his use as a 'Republican" questioning Bush) nor any mention of Joe's recent insane commentary (linked on top).

Why? Because this would harm the validity of their story. But neither the truth, nor a full telling of the tale, is exactly what the Wahington Post is after here, is it?

No comments: