Wednesday, June 25, 2008

New York Times: Sanctimonious Hypocrites, Intellectual Dishonesty and Treason

Those of you who read this blog may wonder if I PAY the mainstream media to prive me right, or make this stuff up.  But the fact is that I could never even imagine all of the things the mainstream media does, much less make this stuff up or pay for it.

If you read this blog, of course, you know what to expect (even if even I could not imagine how obvious the mainstream media could be in proving it).  Remember Valerie Plame?  Remember the OUTRAGE of the New York Times (and the truly DESPICABLE Associated Press--an organization whose employees should ALL be ASHAMED to work for) about the "outing" of a CIA agent--supposedly putting a CIA agent in DANGER (even though Valerie Plame was an OFFICE employee at the time).?

Let me remind you.  Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, was "ssent" to Niger by the CIA (at the SUGGESTION of his wife, who was a CIA employee) to soupposedly "investigate" whether Iraq was seeking weapons grade uranium in Africa.  Wilson was not asked to sign any confidentiality agreement, and really gave no report (none was ever sent to the White House, where they knew nothing about it).  Wilson essentially did nothing, and his alleged "findings" (that Iraq was not seeking nuclear materials were communicated to no one important.  Wilson, although a former ambassador, had NO intelligence qualifications (other than the employment of his wife, who had previously done a few "secret" things as an agent for the CIA).

At the time of the Iraq War, Wilson suddenly surfaced as an opponent of the Iraq War.  He is a leftist Democrat, and former ambassadors are a dime a dozen.  WHY would Wilson have any credibility as an "expert" on Iraq?  You guessed it.  Wilson LIED.  He said he was sent, BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION,  as an "expert", to find out what Iraq was doing in Africa.  He said (a flat out lie) that he reported to the Bush Adminstration that Iraq was no threat, but was ignored.  Wilson (and hs wife) promptly became leftist celebrities.  As the Washington Post later noted, in calling this a false "scandal", Joe Wilson himself was responsible for the "outing" of his wife as a CIA agent, when he started talking about his CIA "mission" (which a real CIA agent could never do), because that inevitably focused attention on Valerie Plame (whose employment was the REASON for this strange "mission" of Wilson to Africa for the CIA). 

A LOT of "journalists" (there are NO real journalists anymore, and therefore I always put the word in quotes) wondered WHY the Bush Amdinistration had sent a CLINTON former ambassador to Africa on a CIA "mission"   Well, a media FAVORITE was willing to talk about it.  That was Richard Armitage, who was one of those relatively liberal State Department employees under Secretary of State Powell (who, you remember, made the case for invading Iraq before the U.N.).  Armitage talked to Bob Woodward.  He also talked to Robert Novak.  He did NOT "identify" Valerie Plame as a cover CIA agent.  In vact, his comments on Valerie Plame had NOTHING to do with HER activities with the CIA, or with "punishing" her for her husband's anti-war acitivites (as he USED this to become a leftist hero and MAKE MONEY--something Valerie Plame herself soon did).   Armitage merely commented that Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA seemed to be why her husband was sent to Africa.

Robert Novak went about trying to confirm the Armitage identification of Wilson's wife as a CIA employee--thous raising the question as to whether his wife really was responsible for Wilson being sent to Africa.  He called Karl Rove, amond others.  Rove merely confirmed that he had "heard" the same thing--hardly the same thing as Rove being responsible for "outing" Valerie Plame (although the DESPICALBLE Associated Press was stating as a FACT the LIE that "Armitage and Rove" "outed" her in the last few months.  Have I mentioned that you are working for an EVIL organization if you work for the depsicable AP).  Novak decided that the Armitage information had been sufficiently confirmed, and cited an "anonymous source" in his column that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA (thus possibly explaining why Wilson was "sent" to Africa). 

As I said thoroughout that manufactured "scandal", the media usually has no problem with "anonymous sources", even if those sources are committing TREASON.  For example, the New York Times and Washington Post ENABLED persons to commit TREASON (committing moral treason themselves) by revealing the secret NSA activities against terrorists (including the warrantless surveillance AND the tracing of money).  They further ENDANGERED CIA and American lives by "revelations" about the CLASSIFIED CIA "secret prison" program for holding terrorists.  This was all from anonymous sources, and the entiremedia showed no interest in those sourcs.

However, AS I SAID AT THE TIME AND THROUGHOUT THE DESPICABLE PLAME "SCANDAL", the media was willing to forget all about the "sacredness" of anonymous sources with regard to Robert Novak and other "journalists" involved in the Valerie Plame non-story, because they saw a chance to "GET" KARL ROVE.  They ultimately failed, but they tried for some FOUR YEARS.  As I again said at the time, the whole non-story was only made possible by the indefensible media use of "anonymous sources".  That is the same indefesnible "policy" that allows TRAITORS to use the "news" media to advance TREASON by protecting the sources committing the TREASON. 

IF Richard Armitage had come forward immediately, there would have been NO story (as there pretty much was not when his name was finally revealed).  He was NOT Karl Rove.  the whole Valerie Plame "scandal" was designed to "get" Karl Rove--using the "anonymous source" absurdity as a WEAPON to spread rumor and innuendo.  IF Rober Novak had revealed his source initially (IF that was not a "journalistic" crime), there would have been NO story--at least no story that lasted beyond a day.  BECAUSE of the ricidulous, EVIL, use of "anonymous sources" by "journalists", we ended up with a YEARS long "investigation" by a special prosecutor which resulted in NO charges from revealing Valerie Plame's "identity" as a CIA employee.  Sccoter Libby was NOT charged with revealing her name, but with a "crime" created by the investigation itself (AFTER Fitzgerald, the prosecutor, already KNEW that Armitage was the source of the "leak", and that no crime had been committed).

Novak had NOT revealed Valerie Plame as a COVERT CIA employee.  He had merely revealed her as an employee of the CIA.   Later, it was alleged that she was really classified as a "covert" employee, even though she was then working in the U.S. at the C.I.A. main offices.  SO WHAT (if this doubtful classification were accepted).  She was NOT refvealed as a "covert" agent.  That was not the purpose, or effect, of Novak's column, or of Armitage's oringinal "revelations". 

All of that is merely the PROLOUGE to the incredible, sanctimonious hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty, of the New York Times, the despicable AP, and all of the rest.  As I said throughout the Valerie Plame matter, these are NOT "journalists".  These are PORPAGANDISTS who could not care less about national security, revealing the names of CIA agents, or finding out who is revealing secrets to the "news" media.

THE NEW YORK TIMES HAS NOW, FOR NO REASON, REVEALED THE NAME OF THE CIA AGENT WHO INTERROGATED ONE OF THE TERRORISTS IN OUR CUSTODY (I think the famous "blind sheik").  Does lthis not ENDANGER this man's life much more than any possible danger (of which there was NONE) in revealing Valerie Plame to be a CIA agent?  Does this not endanger OTHER CIA agents engaged in sensitive matters more than the "revelation" of Valerie Plame as a mer CIA employee?  Of course it does.  Does the New York Times CARE (it was asked not to reveal this name, as it has been asked not to reveal other secret information it has revealed)?  Of course not.  It does not MATTER to the New York Times that there was NO reason to reveal the man's name (as distinguished from the case of Valerie Plame, where identifying her as Joe Wilson's wife employee of the C.I.A. was extremely relevant to his LIES). 

What does the New York Times say to this?  I really can't make this stuff up.  The New York Times "explained" that the man was not an "undercover" agent, and therefore it did not wrong, or violate the law, to reveal his name (not that the "law" applies to the media in the first place, as they assert the RIGHT to enable treason). 

You may rightly look at that and marvel.  We went through all of those YEARS of MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE over Valerie Plame, when all that needed to be said in the first place was that the people who revealed her name did not believe her to be an "undercover" agent.  Can you get any more intellectually dishonest than this, and than "news" organizations like the AP who refuse to note the sanctimonious hypocrisy involved here?  Of course you can't. 

Again, this is the very thing I said in my MULTIPLE entries over the YEARS on the stupid Valerie Plame "scandal".  It was NEVEr a story, and the media NEVER really cared that the name of a C.I.A. agent had been revealed.  It was ALWAYS all about Karl Rove and President Bush (not to mention the Iraq War).

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.  These people (New York Times, Assoiciated Press, and the rest of the mainstream media) EXPOSE themselves without clothes every day, and I expose them virtually every day.  They should be ashamed, exceptthat they have no shame.

Is it possible for the New York Times to FAIL to win the "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" for this week?  Well, leftists and the mainstream media are so bad that it is POSSIBLE.  All I can say is that "the Finger" has, for now, stopped spinning, and is pointing firmly at the New York Times.

No comments: