This editorial could be even more annoying; although it essentially recycles the Kerry talking points (and I recycle my rebuttals), it has a brief nod towards evenhandedness - don't blink or you'll miss it!
First, the editors recycle the silliness from yesterday's news story:
The missing documents were copies of memos, which Mr. Kerry would have had access to anyway.
I'm begging them, stop - no one is worried that Kerry will take time out of his busy schedule to peer at documents in the National Archives. Kerry has a huge campaign coterie, and I doubt that they all have the proper clearances.
Of real concern is that bleeding, yet again, of politics into criminal justice. After initially claiming it knew nothing of the case, the White House has had to admit it was informed. That sort of heads-up taints both sides. It leaves the White House open to questions about whether it timed a leak to the release of the 9/11 panel's report, and it feeds cynicism about the independence of federal prosecutors.
Alternative explanations to the "dirty Republican trick" can be found here; my own horse is riding right here. And the NY Times itself quoted Beth Nolan, White House counsel under Bill Clinton, as noting that "there may be a legitimate explanation for all this", since the WH counsel and the NSC were responsible for working with the 9/11 Commission on documents. Maybe the editors didn't make it all the way to the last two paragraphs yesterday.
OK, folks, perk up, here comes the evenhandedness!
Mr. Kerry, by the way, ought to stop stoking that cynicism with groundless claims that the prosecution of Kenneth Lay was improperly delayed.
I hope that didn't hurt too much. Their Big Finish:
For its part, the White House's denials about this leak would sound more credible if it assigned some urgency to solving the C.I.A. leak case.
Apparently, the NY Times has activated the auto-rebut feature - earlier in the editorial, they told us that "The politicians should all let the Justice Department do its job.
And for their part, while on the subject of credibility enhancement, when last we looked, the Times had told us that "new reports also raised questions about one of the White House's chief critics over the issue, Joseph C. Wilson IV".
What the questions are, and what the answers might be, is not a subject the NY Times has, as yet, dared to broach with their readership. But the Wall Street Journal was not so coy - when is the Times going to explain the process that led to two fantasy columns by Nick Kristof, and one fantasy guest op-ed by Joseph Wilson?
Can this be the tipping point? Please, I can't take it anymore! It is for me. I want to gather a crowd and storm their buildings! It is insane. Please, please tell me the story hasn't degenerated into...
"What did the White House know (about breach of National Security) and When did they know it???
Would they miss an opportunity to criticize the Administration for utter incompetence if the National Security Council was totally unaware of a theft and security breach of this magnitude?
I noticed another story on the Washington Post website detailing the 9-11 Com. views of Media FAILURE of adequate reporting of MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
The Berger story tells me they haven't bothered to take the commissions recommendations.
And another thing, is anyone else perplexed when the media hype big stories on LEAKS? Just wondering, because it seems to me that LEAKS are their life blood and if say Lanny Davis leaked this, as he has gone on the record detailing the practice, why then do reporters report a democratic spin as if it is truth when they know it isn't true? Oh wait sorry, did I just ask a question about the liberal media. Silly me.
Posted by: amy | July 23, 2004 at 11:37 AM
Can this be the tipping point? Please, I can't take it anymore! It is for me. I want to gather a crowd and storm their buildings! It is insane. Please, please tell me the story hasn't degenerated into...
"What did the White House know (about breach of National Security) and When did they know it???
Would they miss an opportunity to criticize the Administration for utter incompetence if the National Security Council was totally unaware of a theft and security breach of this magnitude?
I noticed another story on the Washington Post website detailing the 9-11 Com. views of Media FAILURE of adequate reporting of MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
The Berger story tells me they haven't bothered to take the commissions recommendations.
And another thing, is anyone else perplexed when the media hype big stories on LEAKS? Just wondering, because it seems to me that LEAKS are their life blood and if say Lanny Davis leaked this, as he has gone on the record detailing the practice, why then do reporters report a democratic spin as if it is truth when they know it isn't true? Oh wait sorry, did I just ask a question about the liberal media. Silly me.
Posted by: amy | July 23, 2004 at 11:37 AM