Jesus. How many times does Hiatt manage to contradict and circumvent himself in those two intrductory paragraphs of sheer foolishness? Look, this was a game of political pushback, pure and simple. The Bushies, smug in their secure knowledge that they had cherry-picked the available intel to get the war they wanted, were very upset about Wilson stepping forward to flesh out the whole story, and laying waste to Bush's patently false assertions.
That they decided to push back is not necessarily the problem, in and of itself. The problem, as Hiatt and the rest of kneepad squad at Pravda know all too well, is that Chimpco used a CIA agent's identity as political currency, and didn't even have the balls to own up to it. They ham-handedly filtered out the info through Libby and his chickenhead, and then sanctimoniously lectured us all on how leakers would be punished by the administration. Which, three years and a hell of a lot of revelations later, still has yet to happen.
This is a group of people that took pains to impress upon the proles how much more "character" they had than the evil Clintonistas. Is it too much to ask that the "free press" does its job and afflicts the comfortable for once? There are a million ways a journamalist can eviscerate this administration's mealy-mouthed defenses and endless litany of dog-ate-my-homework excuses for very serious policy errors and official mendacity. And yet this dipshit Hiatt sees fit to engage in logical contortions that should qualify him for the Cirque du Soleil.
I can't help but wonder if Rove doesn't have something on Hiatt. Short of photos of compromising positions with unfortunate ruminants, what the hell could make someone such a mewling toady for a preznit that two out of three Americans do not like?
More importantly, you'd think that at least Hiatt might actually read his own paper once in a while, but apparently not, or he might have thought twice before sharpening his electronic crayon and inflicting his shameless boobism on us.
So contrary to Hiatt's idiotic assertion, Fitzgerald does have the goods on these guys. Somebody's full of shit here, and so far Fitz has dotted every "i" and crossed every "t", where Hiatt has become notorious for playing fast and loose with the facts, to squeeze them into his prefab nonsense.
That may actually be the reason for all these circumlocutions from the Pravda editorial staff. It seems ludicrous that they'd all fall all over themselves to sacrifice their collective credibility for a hack like Woodward, but stranger things have happened.
Perhaps a blogger ethics panel is in order.
A lot of this hinges on whether Chimpco's "error" can be considered a "good faith" situation, an honest mistake based on a desire to do the right thing. Almost since the very beginning of the invasion, evidence -- actual, documented evidence -- has steadily come out that counters that good faith argument. Indeed, given the lies and political games these guys were all too happy to indulge in, an excellent case of bad faith can and should be made. A responsible journalist would connect the dots and set about making such a case, because his job is to provide information to the people, not cover for those in power and conduct himself like a shill for the Republican party.
I read the Post's daily online political discussions, and I note the consistency with which all the reporters, when asked about these lapses in their judgment by irritated readers, retreat to their fallback positions that they're doing their best, they care about getting the facts, and maybe they're just a bit wowed or intimidated by the prestige of the office.
Well, bullshit. Get over it, and quit acting like a bunch off goo-goo eyed farm girls that just got off the Greyhound at Hollywood and Vine. This is fucking serious. These people are literally preparing to hit Iran with nuclear strikes, with simultaneous debacles going on in two adjacent countries. They are incompetent and corrupt, and they have misused their power to attack every person who had the nerve to sensibly point out that they were full of it.
And all these chumps can do is softsoap the whole charade, and whinge at all those mean bloggers for doing their research for them, and expecting them to report factual information.
Editor & Publisher sums up WaPo's dilemma quite nicely:
Amen. These people -- and all journalists who hope to remain "legitimate" and "credible" -- had better get with the program. The paradigm is shifting anyway, thanks to technology, but the majority of of these guys seem to be in on their own demise. They are part of the problem, because their currency is access, and they'll do anything to get it. They'd rather go to off-the-record meetings to schmooze with Bush than grow spines and remind him that their job is to report. They'd rather posture under the guise of "objectivity" than concentrate on the facts of the story. They seem intent on being the engineers of their own undoing.