I'm no fan of Robert Novak, but there's a very important line in his recent broadside directed towards Richard Armitage
Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me improbably into the president's lapdog.
In order for the "Karl Rove tried to destroy my wife to get at me" scenario to be true, it would have helped if the columnist (or reporter) who was fed the information to have been on board with the President's intention to invade Iraq. But Novak, a realist - or shill for Saudi Arabia if I'm not being charitable - was hardly an advocate for the war. He was against it from the start.
It doesn't mean that Novak couldn't have been a part of a Rovian attack, it just means that it wasn't likely.
So I donít know what the Washington Post editorial page is about. My conclusion about their editorial was that the editorial board cannot be bothered to read the news pages of its own newspaper -- so why, then, should I subscribe to the newspaper? I cancelled my subscription. Iíll get my news from somewhere else, and I would encourage others to do so.That's after claiming that the Senate Select Subcommittee on Intelligence backed up his claim.
Um. Not exactly.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
And where was that reported? Why the Washington Post. I think that perhaps it was Amb. Wilson who didn't do a very good job of reading the news there.Posted by SoccerDad at September 15, 2006 2:19 PM