Link uno: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.rove.ap/index.html
Link dos: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/14/225202.shtml
Link tres: http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120007
Link quatro: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/11/national/w172934D43.DTL
The mainstream media have officially run out of cred. They're a joke, they're sensationalist, damaging, incompetent, and liberal. I just spent an hour wading around the frosty waters of the internet, and what I found made my balls shrivel.
Link uno has some additional new information, which is summarized nicely by this quote: “Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source.” It's also worth noting that Novak's column ran just 6 days after Rove talked to Matt Cooper, which is where the media is spearheading its assault on Rove.
So, Rove heard from Novak. This points the blame back to Novak, away from Rove. Hussain hates Novak in all this, and has been demanding he be the target of all this scrutiny all along. He also thinks Novak's source is Wilson himself, which I fully believe, knowing what a lying, idiot, selective rememberer Wilson is. From there, Hussain thinks that the media are protecting Novak (”one of their own”), which is where he loses me. I don't think they'd protect Novak, he's a conservative. This issue highlights where Hussain and I diverge. Hussain thinks that the media are sensationalists who protect their own. Hence, go for the sensational story of Rove leaking, and protect Novak at the same time. I think the media are liberal hacks. Hence, go after Rove because he's closer to the President, and protect Novak, because you don't want to waste any of your slingin' mud on anybody but Rove.
That brings us to link dos, which may not work, in which case, go to link tres. Like any good partisan, I know that when you're trying to make a point, you kick John Kerry in the balls. He is truly one of the worst, most embarassing people in the entire Democratic party, and an endless font of discredation to their line. I was listening to Tony Snow, who has replaced Hugh Hewitt (to Munk's dismay) on KCOL. He mentioned that Kerry leaked a CIA agent's name in a hearing a while back. Now, it goes without saying that Kerry's public demands for Rove's firing (and Hillary's nodding approval), become somewhat insane if Kerry did indeed leak an undercover agent's name. So I googled this...
Link dos is a NewsMax article about how Kerry leaked the name of Fulton Armstrong, a CIA agent, during the hearings for UN Ambassadorial appointee, John Bolton. This seemed like a pretty big story, and since it gave the agent's name, Fulton Armstrong, I figured I could now google the news for it, and find plenty of references on CNN, NBC, etc., so I wouldn't have to use NewsMax, since they're conservatives.
This is where Hussain's version of things gets a little shaky. See, a former Democratic Presidential candidate leaking the name of an undercover CIA agent is a pretty sensational story. But there were very, very few legitimate hits on google. Lots of conservative blogs, liberal blogs yelling at the conservative blogs, NewsMax, and that's about it. A news search turned up nothing, besides a brief mention in an article written by whom? Robert Fucking Novak. So, one has to wonder where all the coverage on that little event is. It's pretty much limited to conservative fringe publications like NewsMax, and liberal fringe publications like MediaMatters.
But, I don't need much to make this Kerry bash work. I'll use MediaMatters' own, sad, infantile version of things. What's great about it, is it's basically an attack piece on Matt Drudge. Way to place yourself in the food chain, MediaMatters. Drudge is barely-legitimate, and you're nipping at his heels. In any case, MediaMatters wants to point out two key points, which they think exhonorate Kerry, and show what a mean jerkface Druge is. First off, Armstrong wasn't really undercover. Second, Dick Lugar (R) also said the name, so Kerry isn't alone.
The problem here, is that Plame wasn't undercover at all, and even if you're only Bonnie in Bonnie and Clyde, you still broke the law. So where does that leave us? Rove outed a CIA agent of dubious undercover status. Kerry outed a CIA agent of dubious undercover status. Rove wasn't alone. Kerry wasn't alone. Only difference is Rove didn't actually out the agent, and he also refrained from getting up in front of a microphone, and demanding John Kerry's firing. The fact that this contrast isn't being mentioned by the mainstream media is pretty good support for the notion that their agenda is more liberal than sensationalist.
All in all, I have to compliment the Republicans, once again, on letting the Democrats do their work for them. All Republicans have to do, is sit there quietly, and some Democrat or another will say something idiotic. John Kerry and Hillary, and Harry Reid, and all of them are just SURE that Rove needs to be fired. And the facts come out... And they all look like the retards they are... And the media dilligently sweep it under the rug so that searches don't turn up metion of Kerry's gaffe... And on we go...