MSM Still Protecting Joe Wilson
Despite the fact that the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings that Joe Wilson lied and exagerrated his entire story about Bush's pre-war intelligence after his wife sent him to Niger to drink green tea, the Washington Post continues to defend him. Instead of repeating the Senate's report that Wilson's information was false and refuted with other intelligence from the CIA, the Post still believes his credibility entirely dependent on whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
Notice how the article goes through great pains not to use the term "lie" when referring to Wilson:
Further, the Post, contrary to the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings, actually defends Wilson.
The Post has trouble with truthfulness (or plain logic) itself. The Post thinks that because a pile of uranium was not found in Iraq, that validates Wilson's claim that Saddam was never seeking to purchase uranium? Dana Milbank needs a course in common sense.
One final point: is it really necessary for the Post to insert the term "conservative" in front of the "Wall Street Journal editorial page?" Do they describe the NY Times' or their own editorial pages as "liberal" as a point of clarification? No.
In summary: Wilson's wife sends him to Niger. Wilson makes up a false story about the entire trip, including who sent him. The Senate Intelligence Committee confirms that Wilson's story was false, he lied about who sent him and that the original intelligence that the U.S. used was actually confirmed by several sources. And the MSM still believes there is some debate about this guy...
Notice how the article goes through great pains not to use the term "lie" when referring to Wilson:
"To his critics, he is a partisan who spouts unreliable information,"
"Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair,"
"Wilson had to admit he had misspoken."
Further, the Post, contrary to the Senate Intelligence Committee's findings, actually defends Wilson.
"Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent."
The Post has trouble with truthfulness (or plain logic) itself. The Post thinks that because a pile of uranium was not found in Iraq, that validates Wilson's claim that Saddam was never seeking to purchase uranium? Dana Milbank needs a course in common sense.
One final point: is it really necessary for the Post to insert the term "conservative" in front of the "Wall Street Journal editorial page?" Do they describe the NY Times' or their own editorial pages as "liberal" as a point of clarification? No.
In summary: Wilson's wife sends him to Niger. Wilson makes up a false story about the entire trip, including who sent him. The Senate Intelligence Committee confirms that Wilson's story was false, he lied about who sent him and that the original intelligence that the U.S. used was actually confirmed by several sources. And the MSM still believes there is some debate about this guy...
<< HOME