How much more blatant can you get?
Robert Novak says today that he learned Valerie Plame's identity from a source he refuses to name and from Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who.
He called a number of people in Washington to confirm it, amonth them Karl Rove and an official at CIA. Both confirmed the information. (Presumably, if the identity was secret, the CIA contact would have said, "no comment.")
But look at the AP headline: Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame
Not "Novak: I got Plame's name from Who's Who" or "Novak confirms Rove was not Plame leaker" or even "Novak: Rove, CIA confirmed Plame's identity".
How can you trust people who spin so blatantly and transparently?
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hi Corrie,
Perhaps a headline reading "Novak: Rove was a confiming source" would be most accurate. Obviously, the headline was written in a way that would trigger people's interest in reading the article. Technically, I do not think it is incorrect. "A source" means "one of many sources". So the headline is essentially saying that Rove was one of many sources Novak used to learn Plame's identity. The second paragraph says that Rove was a confirming source so I do not think anyone who reads the article will get the wrong idea.
As you know, most newspaper headlines are written in a way that will get people to read an article even if it is bland. As teachers, it is important to teach students to always read the fine print of the news before jumping to any conclusions. If teachers in the US are doing their job, then I do not think anyone will misunderstand the article.
Tim, I don't know what your point is. Do you have one? Your claim that I don't think about issues, that I just react, is laughable. I think a lot, I just think differently than you do. Somehow that makes me some kind of evil hypocrite in your mind. Isn't diversity of thought allowed in your world? Are persons entitled to have their own opinions? Is it a crime if my opinions happen to be similar to those of other people?
I understand other viewpoints just fine. The radical Islamists say that they want you and me dead. You liberal appeasers do not believe them. You seem to think that if we just give them what they want and say, "nice doggy", they'll go away. I tend to take people at their word.
A person carrying a sign reading, "Cut off the heads of blasphemers" I assume is not engaging in metaphor. Not when I know that Christian schoolgirls have had their heads sliced off.
Now, perhaps your viewpoint is that the proper Christian response to Islamist terrorists is to line up for the blade. IIRC Rev 13 that says that those who are to die by sword will die by the sword; this calls for perseverance on the part of the saints. Maybe Rev 20; I'd have to check.
I disagree. It's one thing to walk two miles carrying another's burden or to turn the other cheek when insulted. It's another thing entirely to volunteer for the knife.
And IMHO, liberal appeasers are doing exactly that. Because they don't understand the viewpoint of the jihadis. They think that everyone thinks just like them - that we can all link arms on the hilltop and have a Coke in peace and harmony.
News flash for you, sunshine - Hezbollah and Hamas DON'T WANT peace and harmony. Not if there are any live Jews in the Middle East.
Now please excuse me, I have work to do.
JH, let me respond to you, since you were actually on topic.
The purpose of a headline is to summarize the article, so you don't have to read it. The lede paragraph has the job of drawing the reader in. Many people just skim headlines.
This headline was misleading, and IMO deliberately so.
An AP headline is indeed a gnat - who questions the liberal bias of the media anymore? - but what camel am I swallowing, Tim?
Do I wish things were going better in Iraq? Of course. In some respects, we won too quickly. The Baathist dead-enders who now make up a large chunk of the Sunni insurgency survived to fight another day. Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle are real ugly places. It's not a park filled with children chasing butterflies.
But then, it never was, Michael Moore's apologist propaganda notwithstanding. Uday and Qusay's torture chambers were real places, and now they are gone forever.
For all its many problems, Iraq is a better place, and moving toward a better place, than it was four years ago. Maybe history will prove me wrong. Maybe those people really are incapable of setting aside their religious and tribal differences and forging a modern nation without a dictator at the helm. That could be. We'll have to wait and see. I'm an optimist.
As to my glee at the prospect of Zarkawi in hell, I'm just getting a head start on eternity. You do realize, don't you, that once we are in God's presence we will ALL rejoice at the eternal torture of the damned, even our loved ones? Because then we will see just how great God's glory is, and just how awful sin really is, and we will rejoice at God's triumphant justice.
You say you want to see the jihadis dealt with effectively, but you don't propose any plans. Do you suggest giving them what they want? What they want is all Jews dead, and everyone else on the planet a Muslim or a dhimmi. Is that what you want? I don't. They don't negotiate. There's nothing to discuss.
We have our own religious nutjobs who can't be negotiated with, but they live in dirt-floor shacks in the Idaho wilderness. We can ignore them and leave them to their fantasies. They're not a threat.
The jihadis ARE a threat.
Read Revelation, especially chapters 14, 15, and 19. It's pretty clear that the saved rejoice at the fate of the condemned.
I'd really like to believe that Hell is not forever, or that salvation is universal. I just can't find much support for that in the text.
That leaves me with the picture of a God who is far holier than I can possibly comprehend, if I'm promised that I will rejoice at the justice of what to my human mind seems horribly unjust.
Anyone calling for "let's just work through our differences" with the headchoppers is either an apologist or a blind fool IMO. That's the way I see it. There is no negotiation possible, because they have said so themselves. And making excuses for their behavior, as folks on the left do, is by defninition being an apologist.
You still haven't offered any solutions.
If Clinton had dealt with Osama when he had the chance, we probably would not be in Iraq, because 9/11 would not have happened. (And NO, I'm not claiming that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. But it's clear he had contacts with AQ, and it's clear he was continuiing work on WMD. Post-9/11, that situation was a real and growing - if not yet imminent - threat.)
Back to work.
Unbelievable. Or maybe all too believable. You have just equated conservative Christian religious broadcasters with Osama bin Laden and al-Zarkawi.
Pat Roberston (I've never heard of the other guys; I evidently don't get out much) has never to my knowedge advocated, much less approved of, much less PLANNED AND CARRIED OUT the violent murder of thousands of innocents.
You, sir, are off the deep end. The sad thing is, you don't even realize it.
Of course you made the comparison. All "religious nut jobs" are created equal, right? They're all dangerous, right?
Except theirs advocate the violent overthrow of elected governments and the murder of innocents, and ours tell people to send money and vote GOP. It's all the same, right?
(For the record, I'm no fan of Robertson. But he's no Osama, and you DID set them up as equivalent.)
McVeigh was not a Christian and was not motivated by religious ideology - he was an anti-government zealot. Why he keeps getting trotted out, I don't understand. The clinic bombers have damaged some property (they don't attack during busines hours, unlike the falafel-stand bombers and wedding-party bombers), and have killed a couple of abortionists.
And IIRC, Christian religious leaders - including the "nutjobs" you cite - have pretty unanimously condemned them. As do I.
Bottom line - Your examples don't examp. As they say down South, that dog won't hunt.
Thanks for bewing willing to listen to reason, Tim. We all have to be careful not to toss the baby out with the bathwater. "Sure they're crazy - but what if they're right?"
Only a fool does not tremble at the thought of a God who is in fact perfectly, infinitely holy and perfectly, infinitely just.
Our only hope is in his perfect, infinite love and mercy, poured out at the foot of the Cross.
I am an unapologetic Manichean - there is Good, and there is Evil. I want to be on the side of Good. I believe that as a Christian, I am. I've read the Book and I know how the story ends.
I know that Evangelicals never get any credit from the Peace and Social Justice crowd. But we do a LOT of social work - we just do it behind the scenes, colunteering in soup kitchens, rehabbing houses, etc.
We also believe that this modern American culture - despite the fact that it gives us the freedom to assemble and worship - contains some seriously unsavory elements. Having read the ending of the Book, I know it's going to get a LOT worse before it gets better. But that doesn't mean I can't fight against it. "Do not go gently into that dark night," the poet wrote.
God bless you, Tim, and I mean that sincerely.
That's a very interesting point of view, tim. You make a good point. Of course, the same could be said of the founder of every non-Christian religion and worldview. There are some - fundamentalists mostly - who come right out and say that every non-Christian worldview is Satanic.
And honestly, I have a hard time diagreeing with them, philosophically. If Jesus is indeed the only way to heaven (as I believe Scripture clearly teaches), then a lot of people are in for a very nasty surprise at the end. But tactically, in the realm of human conversation, it just doesn't cut a lot of wood to say to someone, "Not only are you going to hell, but you secretly worship Satan."
Honey and vinegar.
There's another aspect, too. Spiritual battles can only be fought with spiritual weapons. And the only effective spiritual weapons we have are prayer and the Word.
But some people are so spiritual that they're no earthly good. We're called to be IN the world.
Tim, have you considered getting your own blog?
Post a Comment