iOS app Android app

Brad Friedman

Brad Friedman

Posted: November 7, 2005 01:47 AM

Bush Did Plenty 'Wrong'! There, Now 'Someone' Has 'Suggested' It, NYTimes!


The New York Times continues its years-long apology/cover-up/facilitation of the Bush Administration agenda. With a "Liberal Media" like this, who needs Fox "News"?

While the lead role of enabler at the once-great paper was previously held by the now-discredited Judith Miller and her editors, the work continues today. This morning, it was Richard W. Stevenson's turn to carry Administration water.

In a not-so-subtle declaration from "the paper of record" Stevenson leads one graf in his article today on the "White House" attempt to "Keep Distance from Leak Case" with this unambiguous statement:

While there has been no suggestion that Mr. Bush did anything wrong...

As Rush would say..."Stop the tape!"

Really?!! There's been "no suggestion that Mr. Bush did anything wrong?!" What are you people smoking out there on Planet GreyLady? The same stuff that kept you from mentioning more than a word about all of this mess for the past two years, and during an election cycle for which the actual reporting then of what was already known to those of us paying attention might have made all the difference in the world to millions of American voters?

Later in today's article, as if to underscore his own fallacious premise, Stevenson quotes Republican Consultant Rich Galen as saying, "No one has ever hinted that President Bush was involved in this or was even aware of it."

Huh?! Seriously, don't bogart the crack-pipe, guys!

Okay, then. Let me be the first (as far as Stevenson is apparently concerned) to both "suggest" and "hint" that not only did Bush do something wrong, he was also both "involved" and "aware" of it. For if he was neither involved nor aware of it, despite the myriad top White House officials named as "aware of it" in Fitzgerald's indictment, than Bush "did something wrong" simply by running a White House over which he apparently had no clue what was going on!

Though such a notion is difficult to fathom, even for the vaccuous Mr. Bush, at this point that may be the only self-defense left for him. Hey, it worked for Reagan during Iran-Contra! And so far so good on that account for Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzalez, Ashcroft and Bush himself on those pesky torture allegations. (Darn those bad-apples!)

Furthermore, Stevenson goes on to unblinkingly aver that "People involved in the case have confirmed that Mr. Rove told Mr. Bush and other White House colleagues in September 2003 that he had no involvement."

"People involved in the case?" -- Now who would those be, Mr. Stevenson? Any reason why they might "suggest" exactly that to you in hopes that you would pass it on? Got Aluminum Tubes?

Apparently then, the precise opposite of what Davidson passes on to the American People -- the report (suggestion, hint) by Thomas M. DeFrank in the New York Daily News two weeks ago that Rove conceded to Bush in September of 2003 that "he had talked to the press about the Plame leak" -- must never happened. Or atleast nobody either suggested or hinted to Stevenson that he read that article.

DeFrank, who, Josh Marshall pointed out, co-wrote the diplomatic autobiography of Bush Family Crony James A. Baker III, presumably has fairly decent sources who are likely intimately familiar and "involved with the case" in some way, wouldn't ya think?

You can, of course, also add David Gergen, advisor to three Republican presidents, to the scores of folks that Davidson must have missed "hinting" and "suggesting" at same, months ago back when the Times was busy whistling past the graveyard until their ignominy more recently became untenable.

Either way, whether Rove told Bush in September of 2003 that he was involved, or didn't tell Bush in September of 2003 that he was involved, Bush did something wrong!

If Bush was told by Rove, then he should have fired him on the spot since Bush pledged to the American People in 2000 (as Davidson helpful points out) that he would "hold his administration to the highest ethical standards, 'not only what is legal but what is right, not just what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves.'" In that case, it was "wrong" not to fire Rove immediately.

If Bush wasn't told by Rove, then in the 25 ensuing months since September 2003 when it has been become abundently clear that Rove -- and at least half a dozen others in the Administration -- were "involved in" the leaking of classified information, he should fire him now. An act which Bush once stated would result in their firing. In that case, it is "wrong" that Bush hasn't fired him or anybody else who we now know was "involved in" the leaking of classified information.

While I'd be more than happy to make an endless list of other "suggestions" as to what Bush did "wrong," I'll give Davidson and the apparently brain-dead editors at the Times the benefit of the doubt. If by "wrong," what Davidson actually meant to say was "illegal," then allow me to be the first (as far as Davidson and Galen are aware of apparently) to both suggest and hint that faciliating the cover-up of the leaking of classified information in any way (whether 25 months ago, or today), lying to Congress about the reasons for going to war, and -- while we're at it -- condoning and covering-up for systematic torture policies around the world in violation of both the Geneva Convention and Human Decency are both wrong and illegal.

There. It's now been both suggested and hinted at, Mr. Davidson. Could you now please go out and report to the American People what did happen as opposed to what the White House and their lackies would appreciate you suggesting and hinting didn't happen?

Last time you guys passed on such "suggestions" and "hints" it resulted in helping to ensure that America would wind end up entrenched in an intractable war for no good reason.

It's a good thing nobody has ever suggested or hinted that the New York Times is America's "Paper of Record." Jesus.