You've heard of "Moral Relevancy"? Well, with this "leak" deal we now have liberals performing "Journalistic Relevancy" all over the MSM.
For example, Timothy Noah's column over at Slate exhibits the equivalent of "Journalistic Relevancy" while "trying" to squeeze a point for the President to fire Karl Rove. Even though there is NO reason to do so.
Mr. Noah....
"We now know, courtesy of Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, what Karl Rove told Time's Matt Cooper. On July 11, 2003, —three days before a Robert Novak column outed Bush administration critic Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee —Rove outed Plame to Cooper. Rove did not mention Plame by name, but that hardly matters (except possibly in a narrow legalistic sense, and I have serious doubts even about that). Merely saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was enough to blow Valerie Plame's cover.
It's possible, even likely, that Rove didn't know Plame was undercover. But that distinction is relevant only to the question of whether Patrick Fitzgerald should prosecute Rove under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which requires that a covert agent be exposed "intentionally." For a White House official to be so reckless as to reveal, even unknowingly, the identity of an undercover CIA employee is a firing offense. Period. That Rove did so for the purpose of smearing a political enemy makes the whole episode even more distasteful. He's outta there."
Notice the statement of facts: "Rove didn't mention her name" (That's the end of the story). Not withstanding that liberals REFUSE to mention the name "Wilson" with "Proven Liar", instead choosing "Administration Critic"....please!
But......Noah continues...
"but that hardly matters (except possibly in a narrow legalistic sense, and I have serious doubts even about that). Merely saying that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA was enough to blow Valerie Plame's cover." (Really? Well then half of Washington is guilty!)
See the pattern here? "Again, "It's possible, even likely, that Rove didn't know Plame was undercover."
(more likely a fact),
"But that distinction is relevant only to the question of whether Patrick Fitzgerald should prosecute Rove under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which requires that a covert agent be exposed "intentionally."
Eh, putz=-bucket, it's pretty well established that she was not a "covert agent"....
"For a White House official to be so reckless as to reveal, even unknowingly, the identity of an undercover CIA employee is a firing offense. Period."
Now he flips! Must be a Democratic trait! Mr. Noah, It's not "CIA employee" under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The scope of that law specifically refers to outing a covert agent.
The hairdresser at the CIA and the receptionist don't count.
Can you see the "Well it may be true that..." Followed by the "But that doesn't matter!! Rove sucks, He's gone, it's over!!" mentality here?
Ah...."Don't Confuse me with facts! My mind is made up!"
Turd!....get a clue!
Subscribe by Email
Follow Updates Articles from This Blog via Email
No Comments