A closer look at the Bush record -- from
the war in Iraq to the war on the environment
take the exit ramp off the Bush presidency in November?
Colin Powell's Legend
Colin Powell's sterling reputation in Washington hides his life-long role
as water-carrier for conservative ideologues.
Recounting the controversial presidential campaign
Is the national media a danger to democracy?
The Clinton Scandals
The story behind President Clinton's impeachment
Pinochet & Other Characters
The Dark Side of Rev. Moon
Rev. Sun Myung Moon and American politics
Contra drug stories uncovered
How the American historical record has been tainted by lies and cover-ups
The October Surprise
The 1980 October Surprise scandal exposed
From free trade to the Kosovo crisis
Other Investigative Stories
More Readers' Comments
September 6, 2006
Editor's Note: Here are some
readers' comments that followed our publication of "Smearing Joe
Wilson, Again" and "How Obtuse Is the U.S. Press?"
Robert Parry's article on the facts surrounding the Plame-
Wilson attacks was much appreciated.
The next article should investigate why the largest
national newspapers in our country are deliberately
participating in a cover-up of the treasonous disclosure of
Valerie Plame's undercover CIA position.
Why are the NY Times, the Washington Post and Los
Angles Time so actively obstructing a criminal
Attorney at Law
Makawao, Maui, HI
Obtuse is hardly descriptive! Cravenly sycophantic so contemptible as
border on criminal press-whoredom. And that may be more than just a
The Skeptical Cynic So Spaketh
I beg to differ with Mr. Parry, who states that "the motives of the
Washington news media [in providing cover for the Bush administration in
the Plame leak scandal] may be ...a mystery." No mystery about it: due
to decades of consolidation under relaxed FCC rules, ownership of the
mainstream media - news and otherwise - is concentrated in the hands of
a half-dozen conservative corporate giants. More bluntly, they're simply
an arm of the Republican party.
Any efforts to maintain credibility and objectivity are token, and when
the mainstream media do allow truths inconvenient to the current power
structure to see the light of day, it's usually because they've been
shamed into it by the internet (Plame is a case in point). And make no
mistake, those same corporate giants are currently working to gain
control of that last fragment of a "free press."
The Washington news media, indeed the American news media, are not
"obtuse." Nor are they compliant, timid or cowed. They are, in a word,
Steven A. Wells
I think one plausible answer to Robert Parry's closing statement in the
artice," The motives of the Washington news media may be more of a
", has to do with the clever way that Bush bought them off early in his
occupation of the Dark House and that is with the tax cut. If the
annual salary of most of these folkss is close to a million the tax
that they have enjoyed over the last six years is enough to want you to
as to the wilson/plame matter, there's one
point no one seems to have mentioned namely the
absurdity of "a junket to Niger". "a junket to Niger"
is a phrase as devoid of meaning as "a honeymoon at
Gitmo". whenever an american travels to sub-saharan
africa, s/he must have a battery of injections called
a 'yellow book'. one has to start taking these
injections about 2 weeks prior to departure. along
with the injections comes a prophylactic round of an
anti-malarial drug called chloroquin which has nasty
side-effects. one takes the chloroquin during the time
one is 'in-country' and continues to take the drug for
a couple of weeks once one has returned to the states.
i understand that most of our congressional
solons don't have a passport (and that many of the few
who do conflate their luxury golfing in the UK with
European travel). but having lived in dc for 15 years
i would come into contact with former peace corps
volunteers and current and former foreign service
officers. those serving in africa receive 'hardship
pay' for a good reason. (in Guinea, for example, all
laundry has to be ironed since a tiny insect (fatal to
humans) will reside in the miniscule places between
stitches in the fabric of one's clothing.)
isn't it the role of the press to point out such
realities of actually going to Niger?
thank you once again for reporting the news.
san francisco, california
I sent the following message about the NYT piece on Joe Wilson to my
mailing list of 49 people (Microsoft has determined that if I try to
contact 50 or more people at the same time, it's spam.) I used to
send these comments to the NYT itself, but I have no reason to think
they read anything that comes their way.) Thank you for your work.
Anne Kass, Albuquerque, NM
Good grief! There's a huge canyon between this FACT
Richard L. Armitage,
the former deputy secretary of state,
first told the authorities in October 2003 that he had been
the primary source, and this CONJECTURE the
the identity of the leaker from his very first day in the special
counselís chair. What if
Fitzgerald, having heard Armitage's confession, suspected that
Armitage was merely falling on his sword for the rest of the
creeps. Armitage's confession might have been (and
might still be) as phony as Carr's murder confession has turned out
The NYT can't possibly know what Fitzgerald
KNEW. They can only know what information was made available to him
And their lament that that Fitzgerald's
decision to prolong the inquiry seriously embarrassed and distracted
the Bush regime for nearly two years just infuriated me. Thank
heaven their malevolent energy was somewhat diffused. And, what
about the distraction Kenneth Starr's decisions caused for the
Clinton White House--for a lot longer than 2 years--not to mention
the millions of tax dollars that jerk wasted.
Damn, the NYT people are sloppy in their
Thanks for staying on top
of the Plame Wilson stuff--we've got a link to your latest on Media
Views. The most recent View is our own take on the Post
edit--attempting to deflate the bizarre idea that because it was
Richard Armitage, that must mean nothing untoward was going on. Take
Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
Washington Post continues the proud
traditions of Pravda. "It was not
the Party that sabotaged the dissident's career, comrades--the
dissident sabotaged his own career!"
For those looking for a less party-line understanding of Armitage's
role in Plamegate, it's worth taking a look at
Where's My Subpoena? (2/7/06) by John Dickerson--the former
Time reporter's account of being
not-so-subtly pointed in Valerie Plame Wilson's direction by "two
senior administration officials" on a trip to Africa; Dickerson
doesn't quite name his sources, but he does helpfully point out that
the two senior administration officials along on the trip were
Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell.
Powell, of course, was Armitage's boss. If he was going around
telling reporters to "go ask the CIA who sent Wilson" (the message
Dickerson got from both "senior administration officials"), what are
the chances that Armitage just happened to mention the answer to that
question "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," as the
Washington Post reported (8/29/06)?
About the same odds you would have gotten the straight dope on the
Kremlin from Pravda.
Jim Naureckas, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Because your focus was to expose the
Post's manipulation, you don't spend much time on the Armitage
revelation, which in fact seems to me to be merely a pretext for
stirring up the kind of hateful article that Hiatt did indeed put
forth. In fact, what change does the Armitage revelation make at
all? None that I can see. Libby's indictment is still sound, and I
do still expect a Rove indictment to be forthcoming because his
guilt on perjury and obstruction of justice is just as apparent as
Libby's. That Armitage also spread the story to Novak--perhaps not
as vindictively as it appears to have been spread by Libby and Rove,
and not as early as spread by Libby and Rove, and evidently not as
widely as spread by Libby and Rove--has no importance whatsoever
except to support the assertion that there was a planned strategy to
spread the story to a number of journalists, starting with the most
promising, Woodward, Miller, Cooper, etc., and ending finally with
the most sleazy, Novak.
Thanks for illuminating this most
recent journalistic sleaze. It's sickening.
I laughed and laughed as I read another lame attempt by another
hysterical liberal, to present Joe Wilson as a respectable American.
At this point, pretty much anyone with a brain knows who and what
Joe Wilson and his wife are..LIARS.
Why do you consistently underestimate the intelligence of the
general public? I bet it really gripes you that you lying Liberals
are exposed at every turn now, be it the internet blogs/websites, or
As for now I (and so many others much more numerous than you libs
can get through your numbskull heads), will keep laughing at you.
The only down side of course, is that it is your ilk that will end
up getting us all blown up or beheaded because of your constant
betrayals of real America's war on terrorism.
Thanks and have another frantic day,
Christy Whitson says she is having a good laugh. I guess that's
fine because there really is little to laugh about these days.
I trust she enjoys her duped sense of euphoria while she can.
As for me, this manipulation of the media to white-wash the
Bush administration's deeds one-more-time just gives me reason to
live a little longer. I'm living to see the Bush
"leadership" impeached for their long list of crimes against
after that happens (or even if the Congress does not have the
spine to make it happen} the next event I'm living for is
their trial in the International Court.
All those people who point fingers at terrorists are right. They
should not have done those murderous deeds. Yet, it still holds
in my old-fashioned book that "two wrongs don't make a right;"
and because this administration has wronged so many people, if
anyone is laughing about it they surely are in a state of crazed
It interests me how conservatives tend to babble-on about how no
one has a brain who sees things differently. Oh, "Wilson and
Plame are liars..." vapid comments made with little substantive
evidence to support. That gives me another reason to live. I
want to live to see the day that there is real debate
in our government. Debate that is actually intent on serving the
people instead of more of that duping one-ups-man-ship that comes
from the mouths of the thoughtless. Excuse me Ms. Whitson as I
step on your wrongful, useless allegations. Let's grow up to
think and write something useful that will actually help humankind
rather than trip it up like your beloved Bushnoviks have these
past five sad years.
This is to Christy Whitson's rant: I have one question for
you...If Joe Wilson and his wife are LIARS, then prove it to the
readers(the numbskull liberals), and to the likeminded
independents who are still confused by government and press
alike? Give us the truth Christy!!
In his August 31st piece "Missing the Point on CIA Leak Case,"
Brent Budowsky is right to say that the revelation that Richard
Armitage was a source for Robert Novak's column outing Valerie
Plame should not distract us from going after all the other Bush
Administration members who were telling reporters about Plame's
job with the CIA. But he does not give the Armitage story
Budowsky assumes that Armitage was "anti-Iraq war." Armitage was
the Deputy Secretary of State in the months before we invaded Iraq
in March 2003, and he did not leave that post until early 2005. If
Armitage were truly "anti-Iraq war," would he not have spoken out
publicly against the war and/or resigned in protest of the war? He
This should come as no surprise to readers of the articles at The
Consortium. After all, Armitage's boss and bosom buddy Colin
Powell laid out the administration case for attacking Iraq on
worldwide TV at the United Nations. And as The Consortium has
pointed out in more than one article, Powell has never let
morality get in the way of his career's advancement. Armitage is
cut from the same cloth.
Budowsky mentions Armitage only in passing in "Missing the Point."
But Armitage is well worth writing about. He has been a major
shaper of the conservative movement's national security policy for
decades. He has held important posts in both the Reagan and George
W. Bush administrations. He has been particularly influential on
Asia policy, including Middle East policy. To ignore him when
discussing the Bush Administration is like writing about Truman's
"Wise Men" and ignoring John McCloy or even George Kennan.
I strongly recommend James Mann's 2004 book *Rise of the Vulcans:
The History of Bush's War Cabinet*. Mann lays out the lives and
thought of Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice,
Colin Powell, and Rich Armitage in painstaking detail. (Budowsky
calls him "Dick Armitage," but the man's friends call him "Rich":
for instance, in Powell's autobiography he is always called
To give some highlights of Armitage's career:
1) While serving in Vietnam, Armitage was almost certainly
associated with the Phoenix program of mass assassination. He
denies it, but friends and associates of his told Mann that he was
2) For most of the Reagan Administration, he was Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
Basically, Caspar Weinberger made only the biggest decisions.
Day-to-day, the Pentagon was run by Armitage, Powell, and Richard
Perle. By the way, Armitage worked extremely well with Wolfowitz,
who was at State.
3) Armitage was heavily involved in implementing the Reagan
Doctrine of providing aid to anti-communist guerrillas. He worked
particularly closely with Pakistan's notorious Interservices
Intelligence Directorate (ISI) on the Afghan mujahideen's struggle
against Soviet forces.
4) He remained skeptical about Mikhail Gorbachev long after
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan had vouched for him. In
October 1988, he wrote in *The New York Times* that Gorbachev's
proposals to freeze seapower, airpower, and nuclear weapon levels
in Northeast Asia were "a transparent attempt to get something for
nothing while driving a wedge between the free nations of the
5) He was a signer of the notorious 1998 letter to Bill Clinton
calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. That letter, from the
neoconservative Project for a New American Century, was also
signed by Don Rumsfeld and such worthies as Wolfowitz, Perle,
Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, William Kristol, and Elliott
6) Armitage (and Powell) signed off on George W. Bush's
"axis-of-evil" State of the Union address. Calling the
governments of Iraq, Iran and North Korea "evil" struck them as
unexceptionable, just as Reagan's calling the Soviet Union an
"evil empire" had.
I believe, for what it's worth, that Armitage deliberately let
slip Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak (and to Bob
Woodward). I also believe in Mann's thesis that no one in George
W. Bush's war cabinet is truly moderate. Powell and Armitage were
the most moderate. But Powell made the case for war at the UN and
Armitage treated Plame's identity just as cavalierly as Karl Rove
or Scooter Libby, so they are not moderates when compared to the
I could say a great deal more about Armitage, but this e-mail has
already gone on quite long enough. I hope you will do a piece on
him at some point. He deserves it, just as his friend Powell did.
to Home Page