Well, the media in general, and the Washington Post in particular, are being more than generous to the President right now. You're right about that.

4/11/2006 3:38:59 PM

and it continues

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html

4/12/2006 2:59:24 PM

Quote :

"Democratic and Republican congressional leaders view both scenarios as remote possibilities. Still, more than four in 10 Americans -- 45 percent -- favor censuring or formally reprimanding Bush for authorizing wiretaps of telephone calls and e-mails of terrorism suspects without court permission. Two-thirds of Democrats and half of all independents, but only one in six Republicans, support censuring Bush, the poll found. Last month, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) introduced a resolution in the Senate to censure Bush. A majority of Americans, 56 percent, said his move was driven more by politics than by principle. Calls to impeach Bush are not resonating beyond Democratic partisans. One-third of Americans, including a majority of Democrats (55 percent), favor impeaching Bush and removing him from office. But more than nine in 10 Republicans and two-thirds of independents oppose impeachment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/10/AR2006041000259_2.html

4/12/2006 3:12:34 PM

So the Post finally owns up to the lack of validity to the White House's claim that Iraq had mobile weapons labs, and then the White House demands a public apology for the report.

Quote :

"You know, I saw some reporting talking about how this latest revelation — which is not something that is new; this is all old information that’s being rehashed — was an embarrassment for the White House. No, it’s an embarrassment for the media that is out there reporting this. I brought up with some of you earlier today some of the reporting that was based of this Washington Post report. And I talked to one of network about it…they expressed their apologies to the White House. I hope they will go and publicly apologize on the air about the statements that were made, because I think it is important given that they had made those statements in front of all their viewers. So we look forward to that happening as well."

Let me get this straight.

1. Bush says, "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." in 2003, after a Pentagon field report directly contradicted the claim.
2. The Post reports the truth, albeit belatedly, waiting over 3 years to do so.
3. The Post should apologize?

Why shouldn't the Bush administration publicly apologize for lying or at least ignoring the truth?

4/12/2006 4:30:51 PM

There’s always a way to technically spin it with the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law as something other than a lie. Perhaps admitting a lie damages his personal view of his absolute correctness (or atleast damages the Absolute view of himself he’s trying to portray to his Christian conservative base)?

4/12/2006 4:35:55 PM

gamecat. you need to stop questioning the president during a time of war. YOU ARE GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO OUR ENEMIES!!!!! TERRORIST!!!!!!11111ONEONEONE

4/12/2006 10:00:15 PM

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604120015

if we are gonna attack the president can we avoid lying and discrediting every thing we ever say. I HATE CNN.

4/12/2006 10:29:23 PM

i have two big issues with this leak. one is that Bush put this agents life at risk and all for political gain. second, and this is the kicker, when the leak came out in the media, Bush was all Like "we are going to find who leaked this info and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law" and how this was treason and this and that ALL THE WHILE HE WAS THE GUILTY PERSON!! HOW UNETHICAL CAN YOU GET!!! the when the fingers pointed at him he downplays the whole thing. what a fucking terd sandwich!!

4/13/2006 11:24:08 AM

its funny that some people say the president leaked information.... believe it or not ANY president of the united states can declassify any information he feels needs to be declassified. you cant call something a "presidential leak"...

although i do wish they would declassify the aliens they've captured... that'd be somethign to talk about.

4/13/2006 11:24:10 AM

that point is actually up for debate.
i know there is a whole process they undergo for declassifying info, but i dont know the law for just saying something.
but having an aid give out classified information you know is false isnt really declassifying it in my opinion. if it was why would bush not just say, "i told him to, let him go free" ?

4/13/2006 11:37:31 AM

^^ Even if the President can declassify information at will (and I'm not going to argue he can't), it still constitutes leaking if it's done through the press in the manner that this was done.

And when it comes to leaking, make sure you remember the rules:

1. Leaking the secret identity of a CIA agent and endangering not only her life, but the viability of every undercover operation she's ever worked in for political leverage: Good.

2. Leaking the accurate information about secret foreign prisons operated by the CIA without oversight and the flights going to them: Bad.

3. Leaking dubious intelligence about the possible "weapons of mass destruction-related programs" to bolster the case for a war: Good.

4. Leaking accurate information about a secret domestic spying program that allows the warrantless wiretaps of US citizens: Bad.

I hope you understand the distinction.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ...]

4/13/2006 2:28:07 PM