Reply #2: Heavily slanted and NYT--what's with that? [View All]

(was trying to post this to the locked thread--think I had a better title too)

Nice that there appears to be movement, but let's pick apart this story a bit--it is the first coat of whitewash, you'd think it came from NYP not NYT:

improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer

--implies you can properly disclose. No.

which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally

--"Rarely used," implying that somehow disclosure of our covert CIA operatives maybe happens all the time, and we're just barely bothering pursuing this one, must be partisan motives. When in actuality it's "rarely used" because most American citizens have enough common sense and fear of prosecution to not blow the cover of our CIA agents. Maybe also it is "rarely used" because the crime of treason covers the subject pretty damn well.

It is not clear whether the renewed grand jury activity represents a concluding session or a prelude to an indictment.

--Concluding session meaning finding no wrong doing? Sounds awfully optimistic; how often do GJ's convene and say "hey, no problem."

The broadened scope is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.

Republican lawyers worried that the leak case, in the hands of an aggressive prosecutor, might grow into an unwieldy, time-consuming and politically charged inquiry, like the sprawling independent counsel inquiries of the 1990's, which distracted and damaged the Clinton administration.

-- Is that really what they feared? How about fearing criminal conduct and treason. But let's get Clinton into the mix! And hey, where's equal time? What do the democratic lawyers say? It's also a bit beyond a leak case--although that is common shorthand. Leak case is about documents usually. This is something entirely different, although the shorthand can't be blamed on just the NYT.

Democrats have accused the White House of leaking his wife's name....

--Only Democrats? How about, "Facts suggest that the White House leaked...."

It could be a crime to disclose information from such a document, although such violations are rarely prosecuted.

--How about "It is a crime...." There are actual laws, there are lawyers. NYT has access to both. No "could" about it.

it is unclear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has made any decisions about whether to go forward or drop the case.

--This is the third suggestion that it may just disappear. Magic! Unclear, but let's keep running it up the flag pole anyway.

...he may be facing a problem if he declines to prosecute.

--Make that four. It goes on to conclude suggesting twice more there may be no indictments and helpfully suggesting a legal way for Fitzpatrick not to indict anybody and save his skin.

--------

So what, these are Judith Miller's interns or something? Hard to get more biased in the librul paper of record without uttering keyword Chalabi. The reporting takes what could be a fascinating investigative story of corruption or at least a factual recount of the investigations of the White House and more or less wishes it away. No soup, oops, I mean Pulitzer for these guys.

Saving grace if you with just one ellipses added:

"Some officials spoke to F.B.I. agents ... at bars near the White House."

Fjord!