Howard Kurtz - Democratic Toady Today

Howard needs to re-learn what has been happening for the past two years...Is this MORE evidence that the media is liberally biased or was Howard just being lazy?

After recognizing that Rove probably committed no crime...here is the toady at work:

"But politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't "name" her. ( The defense: It all depends on the meaning of the word "leak?") He was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?"

Now I could care less about Karl Rove.  I'm sure he isn't all that important a player now that the re-election is over, but isn't Howard missing some important facts here?  First off...Wilson, contrary to what he said and contrary to what Howard writes here...DID find evidence that Saddam was seeking Uranium in Niger.  Howard only has to research his own paper's archives to find that fact.

Question:  What is Howard doing here?  Answer:  Deliberately misleading his readers and writing down Democratic Party talking points.

This shameful display of either ignorance, laziness or deliberate bias should not go unanswered.  Sadly none of the more active blogs have either the desire or ambition to respond to this type blather from a member of the mainstream media.  Maybe these bloggers are just tired of the constant inaccuracies and poorly written material, but it is frustrating to see this continuous crap spouted by folks who are supposed to be professionals and have no audience to counter it with the truth.

If people have to rely only on the mainstream media for their news, they have got to be completely ignorant.

UPDATE:

WMD has the link from the Washington Post that I reference above:

"Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

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.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him."

Compare this news report containing actual facts to Kurtz's opinion piece containing his made up facts:

"But politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't "name" her. ( The defense: It all depends on the meaning of the word "leak?") He was attempting to undercut Wilson when he told Cooper that wifey had helped set up Wilson's fact-finding trip to Niger (where Wilson didn't find the facts the administration wanted on Saddam seeking uranium) and that the uranium business could still be true (it wasn't). And didn't the White House promise to fire anyone involved in the leak?"

Today Howard Kurtz (or his editor) tried to roll back his error in an article rather than correct it:

"So the response is that 1) the Dems are playing politics (and Rove wasn't, in dragging in Mrs. Joe Wilson?). And 2) Rove was just performing a public service by steering a reporter away from a false story. (Actually, Wilson was right about the bogus Niger uranium tale, and the White House was wrong, although his credibility did take a hit from a critical Senate intelligence committee report.)"

Compare this version of Howard Kurtz with the version of the same column on his blog:

"So the response is that 1) the Dems are playing politics (and Rove wasn't, in dragging in Mrs. Joe Wilson?). And 2) Rove was just performing a public service by steering a reporter away from a false story (actually, Wilson was right about the bogus Niger uranium tale, and the White House was wrong)."

So readers of Howards blog, would get one version of facts and the readers of his column which uses the exact same words...except for the missing qualifier regarding the Senate Intelligence Committee Report...they get a totally different set of facts.

How is this possible?  Perhaps Howard has more editing for one column and we get him more raw and unfiltered for another.  Either way this is very damaging to the credibility of a journalist...at the very least you should be researching facts from your own paper.

I am embarassed for him.

Comments

[Carol]

This is apparently one of those times when the lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth. Here is Fox News’ version of the Karl Rove leak story:

“Rove is on the hot seat after his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed this weekend that in July 2003 Rove spoke to Time magazine's Matt Cooper (search) about former Ambassador Joe Wilson's (search) trip to Niger to investigate intelligence claims that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium, used for making nuclear weapons, from that African nation. Wilson returned without such evidence, and subsequently wrote an op-ed in The New York Times criticizing the administration for manipulating intelligence to justify an invasion of Iraq.”