Who's Really To Blame

This is an old story. But I'm going to do this one for the pure catharsis of it. The media is terrible. And I'm going to use this Reuters story as exhibit A. Regarding the Libby-get-out-of-jail-free story:

Bush, who angered Democrats but reassured conservatives by saving Libby from serving a 2-1/2 year prison sentence, told reporters who asked about an eventual full pardon for Libby: "As to the future I rule nothing in and nothing out."

So, "Democrats" (emphasis on rat) were angered, but "conservatives", not Republicans, were reassured. And just how many actually people wanted Libby to walk? Polls have shown it to be around 20%. Do you see that context in this paragraph at all? No. It's pretty much implied that it's the usual partisan bickering, with 50% of Americans for Libby walking and 50% against it.

Bush's move to spare Libby -- while leaving intact a $250,000 fine and two-year probation -- was seen in Washington as an act of loyalty by an unpopular president attempting to repair ties with disaffected conservatives who had pressed him to keep Libby out of jail.

"Was seen in Washington". By who? And it was a issue of "loyalty"? How about that "O" word, like some context of how Bush was likely covering his and Cheney's butt? Oh, I'm sorry, that wouldn't be polite to talk about the elephant in the Washington weenie groups living room. Besides, don't you know it was highly courageous for a "unpopular President" to remain loyal to his felonies buddies?

The decision was also likened to then-President Bill Clinton's 11th-hour pardon in 2001 of financier Marc Rich from tax-evasion charges.

This paragraph is right out of the GOP talking points play book ..... again .... still. Once again, it's Ok if Clinton did it. And besides that, there is absolutely no comparison between outing a CIA covert operative and then lying about it and Rich's crime of (OH NO!) tax evasion.

"It closes one chapter of the sort of life-draining issue of George W. Bush and Iraq," presidential historian Stephen Hess said of Monday's action. "It's totally in keeping with everything he's done up to now, including his sense of loyalty to his people."

Again, no quote from anyone even suggesting a cover-up, obstruction of justice or any possible motivation for the commutation beyond Bush commendable trait of "loyalty". No. Bushie-boy did it because he's like your ordinary household pet, loyal to the end.

Many at the White House found criticism from New York Sen. Hillary Clinton particularly ironic. Aside from the Rich pardon, her husband's former national security adviser, Sandy Berger, reached a plea deal in 2005 and avoided a jail sentence for illegally removing classified documents from the National Archives and destroying some of them.

Another GOP talking point, and right out of the White House. Yep, Sandy Berger sticking a few archives in his pants is the same as a treasonous act of outing a covert op agent. Besides, what does Sandy Berger's action in 2005 have to do with either Clinton? I guess they're guilty because they know each other.

The White House said Bush acted without input from the Justice Department, sparing further criticism of his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales.

They don't get to this until the second to last graf. And notice the context, "sparing further criticism" for Abu, not that Bush did an extraordinary thing of commuting a sentence without input from DOJ, which is unheard of. No. Bush was being a really nice guy and "sparing" his other buddy, Abu. Jesus H. Christ.

Is it any wonder that most people don't know what's going on? Is it any wonder that Bush has to virtually take a lighter to the Constitution on the steps of the Supreme Court building before anyone notices? This kind of lazy ass, biased reporting is pure bullshit.