Note on David Corn on Bob Dole on leak
BLOG | Posted 08/17/2005 @ 12:15am
Rove Scandal: Bob Dole Disinforms
I remain on a vacation (well-deserved, if I do say so), but I did post the below item on my personal blog at www.davidcorn.com. If you're not a regular visitor there, please become one.
The spin never ends. In a New York Times op-ed piece published on Tuesday, former Senator Bob Dole, the hapless 1996 GOP presidential nominee, backs proposed legislation that would protect (to a large degree) a reporter's confidential relationship with a source. That's all fine and well, but Dole also takes the occasion to disinform about the Rove scandal. The piece opens:
Like many Americans, I am perplexed by the federal investigation into the alleged leak of classified information that exposed Valerie Plame Wilson, the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.
Why is he perplexed? Classified information was leaked. It was not an "alleged leak." The leak did occur. No one disputes that. And the CIA has repeatedly said the information that was leaked--Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA--was classified information. The Justice Department, which initiated the investigation, presumably agrees. (Otherwise, why investigate?) And we now know that Karl Rove (at least) twice shared this classified information with reporters Bob Novak and Matt Cooper and that Scooter Libby shared it (at least) once with Cooper. Yet Dole, following the lead of conservative spinners, diminishes the matter as an "alleged leak" and writes it off as oh-so-puzzling. There's noting perplexing about special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's mission
Post:
Excellent critique, David
Like some above, I also knew immediately what was going on with Bob Dole's piece, but it requires someone with special expertise to detail the disinformation. Thanks.
Especially liked your slamming his use of "alleged" for the leak, when the entire special prosecution – grand jury process was set up to determine who did it.
But that's the way they do: skew the subject term to fit the desired predicate.
It's a kind of misrepresentation difficult to detect, but essential to pseudocons desperately seeking to avoid punishment. "Changing the subject" by using a different sign (word or picture) for what is referred to. The very intent to communicate in such a manner exposes a systemic character deficit. Not that Dole himself either wrote or understood what it said.
****
(Note on '96 Re-pube slogans: after "win one for the gipper", it was "win one for the flipper".)
Posted by JONES 08/17/2005 @ 6:14pm
Rove Scandal: Bob Dole Disinforms
I remain on a vacation (well-deserved, if I do say so), but I did post the below item on my personal blog at www.davidcorn.com. If you're not a regular visitor there, please become one.
The spin never ends. In a New York Times op-ed piece published on Tuesday, former Senator Bob Dole, the hapless 1996 GOP presidential nominee, backs proposed legislation that would protect (to a large degree) a reporter's confidential relationship with a source. That's all fine and well, but Dole also takes the occasion to disinform about the Rove scandal. The piece opens:
Like many Americans, I am perplexed by the federal investigation into the alleged leak of classified information that exposed Valerie Plame Wilson, the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.
Why is he perplexed? Classified information was leaked. It was not an "alleged leak." The leak did occur. No one disputes that. And the CIA has repeatedly said the information that was leaked--Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA--was classified information. The Justice Department, which initiated the investigation, presumably agrees. (Otherwise, why investigate?) And we now know that Karl Rove (at least) twice shared this classified information with reporters Bob Novak and Matt Cooper and that Scooter Libby shared it (at least) once with Cooper. Yet Dole, following the lead of conservative spinners, diminishes the matter as an "alleged leak" and writes it off as oh-so-puzzling. There's noting perplexing about special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's mission
Post:
Excellent critique, David
Like some above, I also knew immediately what was going on with Bob Dole's piece, but it requires someone with special expertise to detail the disinformation. Thanks.
Especially liked your slamming his use of "alleged" for the leak, when the entire special prosecution – grand jury process was set up to determine who did it.
But that's the way they do: skew the subject term to fit the desired predicate.
It's a kind of misrepresentation difficult to detect, but essential to pseudocons desperately seeking to avoid punishment. "Changing the subject" by using a different sign (word or picture) for what is referred to. The very intent to communicate in such a manner exposes a systemic character deficit. Not that Dole himself either wrote or understood what it said.
****
(Note on '96 Re-pube slogans: after "win one for the gipper", it was "win one for the flipper".)
Posted by JONES 08/17/2005 @ 6:14pm
posted by Sid Thomas | 7:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home