Gossip-Mongering Masquerading as Reporting
Carl Bernstein's hit piece
in this week's Vanity Fair is filled with worthless, irrelevant information. It doesn't take him long to start using pushpolling 'results' to 'validate' his points.
Furthermore, Bernstein doesn't bother challenging Joe Wilson's incredible string of lies, which is why people think Bush lied us into war. Wilson's credibility was demolished by respectable journalists who cared about the truth. You'd think that that'd stop Bernstein from advancing this bogus storyline. Doing that would require integrity, something that Bernstein seems to be in short supply of.
It's worth remembering that Dean was preaching impeachment long before the NSA story broke. He started preaching that after the 'outing' of Valerie Wilson but that wasn't a crime. Even Patrick Fitzgerald says that. And Joe Wilson's lies were easily discredited. So what's the fuss about?
It's my belief that history will note that John Dean is a bitter, parasitic man who carried a grudge far too long.
The other thing it sounds like is Bernstein whining that this Administration hates leaks. That puts them at odds with reporters, who thrive on information leaks.
I've recommended that readers read entire articles before. I won't do that with this one. In fact, I'm recommending that you not read Bernstein's article for more than a page or two. It's that worthless.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:53 PM
No comments.
Leaders of both parties are acutely aware of the vehemence of anti-Bush sentiment in the country, expressed especially in the increasing number of Americans, nearing 50 percent in some polls, who say they would favor impeachment if the president were proved to have deliberately lied to justify going to war in Iraq.How sweet of Bernstein to throw that BS into the article. He'd rather cite a poll that's based on a false premise than inform people that documentation released a month ago showing the validity of Bush's claims about WMD's. The poll results are useless because the President didn't lie about WMD's.
Furthermore, Bernstein doesn't bother challenging Joe Wilson's incredible string of lies, which is why people think Bush lied us into war. Wilson's credibility was demolished by respectable journalists who cared about the truth. You'd think that that'd stop Bernstein from advancing this bogus storyline. Doing that would require integrity, something that Bernstein seems to be in short supply of.
John Dean, the Watergate conspirator who ultimately shattered the Watergate conspiracy, rendered his precipitous (or perhaps prescient) impeachment verdict on Bush two years ago in the affirmative , without so much as a question mark in choosing the title of his book Worse than Watergate.Why was Dean talking impeachment two years ago? This excerpt from Worse than Watergate tells the story:
George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate, and it bodes even more serious consequences. Their secrecy is extremeâ€â€not merely unjustified and excessive but obsessive. It has created a White House that hides its president's weaknesses as well as its vice president's strengths.Dean thinks that Bush's administration is worse than Nixon's because they're too secretive for his likings. Who cares? The implication of the book's title is that the Bush administration is involved in illegal activities. He doesn't even bother offering proof of any illegalities. Being upset with the flow of information from an administration is a valid criticism but it's hardly illegal.
It's worth remembering that Dean was preaching impeachment long before the NSA story broke. He started preaching that after the 'outing' of Valerie Wilson but that wasn't a crime. Even Patrick Fitzgerald says that. And Joe Wilson's lies were easily discredited. So what's the fuss about?
It's my belief that history will note that John Dean is a bitter, parasitic man who carried a grudge far too long.
How much evidence is there to justify such action? Certainly enough to form a consensus around a national imperative: to learn what this president and his vice president knew and when they knew it; to determine what the Bush administration has done under the guise of national security; and to find out who did what, whether legal or illegal, unconstitutional or merely under the wire, in ignorance or incompetence or with good reason, while the administration barricaded itself behind the most Draconian secrecy and disingenuous information policies of the modern presidential era.This sounds more like a fishing expedition that Bernstein wants so he can relive his Watergate glory days than anything else. Why else would he give such a prominent place to John Dean's whining drivel? It isn't like Dean's 'contribution' is worthwhile or substantive.
The other thing it sounds like is Bernstein whining that this Administration hates leaks. That puts them at odds with reporters, who thrive on information leaks.
I've recommended that readers read entire articles before. I won't do that with this one. In fact, I'm recommending that you not read Bernstein's article for more than a page or two. It's that worthless.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:53 PM
No comments.
