About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

WSJ editorial falsely claimed "Senate Intelligence Committee found" that Wilson "had lied" about Niger trip and that his report "produced no information of any intelligence value"

March 31, 2008 3:59 pm ET

SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal editorial falsely asserted that "the Senate Intelligence Committee found" former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV "had lied in claiming his wife [former CIA agent Valerie Plame] had played no role in sending him to Niger." In fact, the full committee did not conclude that Plame had suggested the mission. Further, multiple news reports have quoted unnamed intelligence officials who refuted the notion that Plame authorized, or even suggested, Wilson's trip.

39 Comments

The Wall Street Journal falsely asserted in a March 28 editorial that "the Senate Intelligence Committee found" former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV "had lied in claiming his wife [former CIA agent Valerie Plame] had played no role in sending him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam [Hussein] was seeking to acquire uranium yellowcake." In fact, while the committee's report stated that "interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicated that his [Wilson's] wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Divison] employee, suggested his name for the trip," the full committee did not conclude that Plame had suggested the mission. In a partisan addendum to the report, committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), joined by Sens. Christopher S. Bond (R-MO) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), wrote that Democrats had specifically opposed including the conclusion, "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee," in the full committee's report. Further, multiple news reports have quoted unnamed intelligence officials who refuted the notion that Plame authorized, or even suggested, Wilson's trip.

Additionally, the Journal claimed that "[t]he same bipartisan report found that Mr. Wilson's trip, which he had advertised in a splashy New York Times op-ed, had produced no information of any intelligence value." In fact, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, "The CIA's DO [Directorate of Operations] gave the former ambassador's information a grade of 'good,' which means that it added to the IC's [Intelligence Community] body of understanding on the issue, (REDACTED). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective." The committee's report also stated: "The reports officer said that a 'good' grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information." As Media Matters has documented, the committee concluded that "[f]or most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq."

Wilson was sent to Niger in 2002 by the CIA to investigate whether Iraq had purchased yellowcake uranium from the African country. Wilson's investigation, which was prompted by questions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, turned up no evidence that any sale had taken place and found that "it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq." After President Bush referred to Iraq's purported attempt to obtain uranium from Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address as justification for invading Iraq (the notorious "16 words"), Wilson detailed the findings of his trip in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed. Eight days later, in his July 14, 2003, column, Robert D. Novak identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" and wrote: "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger."

The Los Angeles Times reported on July 15, 2004, that an unnamed CIA official confirmed that Plame was not responsible for the CIA's decision to send Wilson to Niger, saying: "Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going. ... They asked her if he'd be willing to go, and she said yes." And a July 22, 2003, Newsday article reported that an unidentified senior intelligence official "said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment," and quoted the official making the following assertion: "They [the officers asking Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she [Plame] was married to, which is not surprising. ... There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason."

In her memoir, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House (Simon & Schuster, 2007), Plame provided the following account of her role in Wilson's trip to Niger:

However, in February 2002, I was still blissfully ignorant of any special visits or pressure from the administration vis a vis Iraq. I just wanted to get some answers. Thinking through the options available, the first and most obvious choice would be to contact our [REDACTED] office in Niger and ask them to investigate these allegations using local sources available on the ground. Unfortunately, the severe budget cuts of the mid-1990s had been particularly devastating for the Africa Division and many of our offices on the continent were closed, including the one in Niamey, Niger. [REDACTED]. Where else to go and who could do it for us? A midlevel reports officer who had joined the discussion in the hallway enthusiastically suggested: "What about talking to Joe about it?" He knew of Joe's history and role in the first Gulf War, his extensive history in Africa, and also that in 1999 the CIA had sent Joe on a sensitive mission to Africa on uranium issues. Of course, none of us imagined the firestorm the sincere suggestion would ignite. At that moment, the only thought that flashed through my mind was that if Joe were out of the country for an extended period of time I would be left to wrestle two squirmy toddlers into bed each evening. Joe and I had often said it was best not to be outnumbered by the twins. So I was far from keen on the idea, but we needed to respond to the vice president's office with something other than a lame and obviously unacceptable, "We don't know, sorry." The reports officer and I walked over to the office of the [REDACTED] Chief to discuss our available plans of action. Bob, our boss, listened carefully and then suggested we put together a meeting with Joe and the appropriate Agency and State officers. He finished with, "When you see Joe tonight could you please ask him if he would be willing to come into Headquarters next week to figure out what we're going to do? Oh, and send a Lotus note to Scott [our acting Division Chief] and let him know what we're thinking." I hurried back to my desk and drafted a quick e-mail to Scott to explain the situation and added that "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." Although the acting Division Chief had actually been in CPD - in another senior position - when Joe had gone to Africa in 1999, I was gently reminding him of Joe's credentials to support why my boss thought he should come into Headquarters in the first place. Months later, those words would be ripped out of that e-mail and cited as proof that I had recommended Joe for the trip. But at the time, I simply hit the "send" button and moved on to the other tasks that were demanding my attention.

That night, between cleaning up dinner dishes, picking up toys off the floor, and corralling our twins into the bath, I told Joe that my office had received a report from a foreign intelligence service, which I did not name. [REDACTED] I said that we were working on getting the vice president's office some answers as quickly as possible and passed on the request from my boss that he come into Headquarters to discuss the matter further. "Of course," Joe said without hesitation. So, the next week, I showed Joe into my cramped little office and introduced him some of my colleagues and escorted him into the scheduled meeting with Iraq/Niger experts from CPD, the DI, and State. We entered the windowless conference room and I introduced Joe to the ten or so participants. I was secretly proud that Joe might be able to assist in the Agency's work. After a minute or so, I went back to my desk to attend to what seemed like a hundred other operational crises. When the meeting broke, Joe poked his head in my office to say that the group had asked him to consider going to Niger to discuss the report. "Okay, sure. When do you go?" It looked like I would be outnumbered by the twins after all. [Pages 109-111]

From the March 28 Journal editorial:

Everyone else in the media is pounding Hillary Clinton for her tale, now shown to be fanciful, of dodging bullets on a Bosnian tarmac as first lady. But if you're looking for the best recent example of the lengths Mrs. Clinton will go to win the Democratic Presidential nod, consider that last week in Philadelphia she used Joe and Valerie Wilson as campaign props.

Was George Galloway not available?

Mr. Wilson and his wife are darlings of the antiwar crowd for their roles as self-styled martyrs in the CIA "leak" fiasco. The former ambassador is still cashing in on his claim that President Bush lied us into war, and the glam couple has had to endure Vanity Fair photo shoots, book tours and the other slings and arrows of outrageous modern celebrity.

[...]

This is the same Senator Clinton who spoke extensively of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his WMD, who endorsed the invasion as a way to remove that threat, whose husband endorsed the invasion, and who supported the war for years afterward until it began to jeopardize her chances of winning the Democratic nomination. (See our February 8, 2007 editorial, "Hillary on Iraq1.")

As for Mr. Wilson, he was last seen campaigning for a Democratic Presidential hopeful for a brief period in 2004. John Kerry's campaign dumped him as a spokesman that summer after the Senate Intelligence Committee found Mr. Wilson had lied in claiming his wife had played no role in sending him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam was seeking to acquire uranium yellowcake. The same bipartisan report found that Mr. Wilson's trip, which he had advertised in a splashy New York Times op-ed, had produced no information of any intelligence value.

So in order to blunt Mr. Obama's attacks over Iraq, Mrs. Clinton has resorted to relying on the word of someone whose antiwar inventions were too embarrassing even for the Kerry campaign. Desperate times require desperate measures, and Mrs. Clinton is meeting the moment.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wzwriter (March 31, 2008 4:00 pm ET)
         
      When did the WSJ start using Sean Hannity as a source?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by snoopy (March 31, 2008 4:03 pm ET)
         

      WATBTUA?

      (why are they bringing this up again?)

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (March 31, 2008 4:07 pm ET)
           

        WATBTUA?

        (why are they bringing this up again?)

        Maybe a story is about to break about Karl Rove's love child, or something else that they need to deflect attention away from.....

        Report Abuse
        • Author by princeofwheels (March 31, 2008 4:37 pm ET)
             

          Maybe that place called IRAQ is ready to explode....

          Haven't heard the words "the SURGE is working"..in quite a while.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (March 31, 2008 4:20 pm ET)
         

      Well there is Mr Seigalman, soon to be testifying to congress, which will likely bring up Karl a few times.

      Maybe the Wilson's civil suit is at some important juncture.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (March 31, 2008 4:24 pm ET)
         
      Hi ya'll ! Looks like the obfuscation Machine is at it with statements that have nothing to do with contemporary history. Sounds like the 24/7 media coverage of this event did nothing to resolve the issue when it was happening, rendering the media coverage irrelevant. save the old s*** for the history classes.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (March 31, 2008 4:29 pm ET)
         

      What if? I say, what if Valeria Plame actually DID suggest that her husband go to Niger to check these claims out? It actually wouldn't be a big deal. Why? Mostly because Mr. Wilson was an expert and had good contacts in Niger and could do the work. But, she didn't do that anyway, and even if she did, it shouldn't be a big deal. Why?

      Has anyone read his report and his editorial? What did he say in there that was ever proven incorrect, or mis-leading, or just flat out wrong? Yeah, I thought so. Nothing! Joe Wilson was right, and he got attacked (not his report) and his wife was attacked because they dared to go against what Bush and his buddies had been saying.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (March 31, 2008 4:51 pm ET)
           

        Mags,

        Yeah, I read it. (Or parts of it.)   Wilson lied that Plame played no role. The report itself says she recommended him.  Just because that  fact  did not show up in the conclusion, (which was influenced by  political agendas,) does not mean it did not exist. 

        he former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf                                          . The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region                                . Because the former ambassador did not uncover any information about DELETED during this visit to Niger, CPD did not distribute an intelligence report on the visit.

        I got this from the link provided by MMFA in the first paragraph below the synopsis where it says, "stated".

        ------------------------ 

        It also says his report did not add anything to their knowledge. If it did, it was of so little value that it didn't merit distribution. 

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (March 31, 2008 4:55 pm ET)
             

          Why did they attack Wilson and his wife then? What was the point of exposing an agent of the CIA who was covert? Why didn't they just say, "Hey we knew this already and here's the information." What you're forgetting is that we were told that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Niger. Remember? Yellow cake? It was in, oh, what was it? Oh yeah, the STATE OF THE UNION address. Just a little speech that nobody pays attention to and all. Bush and his buddies never came out and said, we were wrong about that, so Wilson did.

          Again, what was incorrect in his report? You are saying that they had this information already, and didn't contribute anything, so why did they let Bush LIE about Saddam trying to obtain uranium, and mushroom clouds over American cities and things like that?

          In Plame's own book, she said her bosses asked her to set up the meeting, she did, she didn't attend, they asked him to go, he did.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (March 31, 2008 5:07 pm ET)
               
            This was a classic Karl Rove slime job. Wilson's report cast doubt on the phony bluster they were using to justify their Oil War, so they tried to discredit the messenger. Classic Rove. They keep tossing out this "Wilson Lied" bullsh*t, trying to keep him and Plame on the defensive, and to keep the braindead GOP base looking the other way.

            These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For...

            Why is this coming up again? Maybe so the public will be distracted from the ever more apparent fact that the "success" attributed to the Surge was just an uneasy truce bought with millions of our tax dollars and who-the-hell-knows what kind of back room deals.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (March 31, 2008 5:04 pm ET)
             
          don't we all know plame "got him the job"?  where was the benefit in any of this to wilson or plame?  was this a two week junket in tahiti?  no, it was three days of sitting around a hotel in some dusty central african capital.  to me, it sounds like something i would rather not be doing. 
          Report Abuse
        • Author by funnymanpants (March 31, 2008 5:13 pm ET)
             

          AA wrat:

          >>he former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf                                          . The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was

          Please read more closely, AA. You almost always post links that don't support your argument. The 1999 trip is different from the trip in 2002. Further, the so-called fact that Plame recommended her husband is partisan--not the other way around. If you have a bi-partisan committee, than both parties have to agree on the conclusion. That is how bi-partisan committees work. The Dems would not agree. The Rupubs, who had an axe to grind, wanted info against Wilson in the report. Nor did you address the other salient points, that other CIA officials denied that Plame had any role in Wilson's being chosen.  

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (March 31, 2008 10:11 pm ET)
               

            Funny,

            I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing out that reference I posted referred to the 1999 trip. 

            I carelessly cut and pasted the second paragraph as I thought it more sussinct. What I should have cut and pasted was the preceding paragraph which I am posting below:

            Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

            As for Wilson, he says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, as demonstrated by the quote above the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her.

            Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

            That my friends is a liar caught lying.

            The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

            "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

            I don't know how you can argue these facts. Wilson mispoke? Clearly Wilson was caught lying.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by mefirst (April 01, 2008 9:02 am ET)
                 
              aa, what did either plame or wilson gain out of him going?  that's what i'm trying to figure out, since that seems to be the underlying theme of their critics. 
              Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (March 31, 2008 6:14 pm ET)
             
          NO he did not lie when he said she played no role in selecting him. She didnt. In the selection process itself she left the room. Also the report relied on a memo she wrote to say she suggested him. What they DIDNT know and we DO is that the CIA SAID that her boss ASKED her if he would be a good choice and when she said she thought he would she was INSTRUCTED to write a memo saying so. This has been gone over a few DOZEN times. You are wrong.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (March 31, 2008 10:28 pm ET)
               

            Solon,

            Can you provide a link proving her boss instructed her to write the memo?

            I only found where some other CIA person repeated Plame and Wilson's claim that she was instructed to do so. I cannot find any direct quotes from this boss. (I do not even know who it is?)

            Thanks,

            Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (March 31, 2008 11:48 pm ET)
                 

              Do I really have to look that up for you. MMFA covered it HERE. http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140001

              The Los Angeles Times reported on July 15, 2004, that an unnamed CIA official confirmed that Plame was not responsible for the CIA's decision to send Wilson to Niger, saying: "Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going. ... They asked her if he'd be willing to go, and she said yes."

              http://mediamatters.org/items/200510280009

              I have talked to very high intelligence officials who say that just isn't true. That it was senior officers above her who had the idea of sending Ambassador Wilson, knowing that he'd been in Niger before and was an experienced hand in Africa, a former ambassador on that continent. And they thought he'd be good. They then went to her and said, "Well, what do you think?" She responded with an email that said, "Yes, he'd be good for the following reasons." That was in response to higher-ups at the CIA who suggested that Joe Wilson be sent.

               

              This response is the memo they were talking about in the Senate committee.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (April 01, 2008 12:48 am ET)
                   

                Sorry Solon,

                Using unnamed witnesses and hearsay evidence does not prove your point. Having a memo written by Plame is proof thatg Plame recommended her husband. It is irrefutable.  Simply someone saying someone told her to write it, is no proof at all.

                ps. That is why I asked you to provide proof.  I couldn't find any direct proof other than various unnamed people claiming she was put up to it. It is a convenient excuse by Plame and Wilson, but claiming unnamed people as your source is about as weak as it gets.  

                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (April 01, 2008 2:02 am ET)
                     

                  NO that is NOT proof. Not when there is an believable alternate explanation. That the memo came in answer to a question by her superior. One that BOTH the LATimes and David Ensor are reporting. The CIA rarely goes on the record about ANYTHING. You believe this because you WANT to but calling it PROOF is ludicrous. You guys have been pushing nonsense about Plame from day one. She isnt covert, until it was PROVEN she was. She didnt leave the country for five years undercover until it was PROVE she did. Why would the LATimes or Ensor make this up? Ya got nothing. This might not rise to the level of PROOF, but its evidence. The memo is NOT proof of anything when it is quite possible AND BEING REPORTED that it was a response to her boss. The burden of proof is on YOU making the claim that Wilson is lying and you havent come within a MILE of meeting that burden.

                  Report Abuse
        • Author by byoung3rd (April 02, 2008 4:51 pm ET)
             
          Where do they find these guys....is there a rent-a-neocon agency that provides spokespersons to defend the good name of Karl Rove and Friends whenever they are attacked?  Note how he wraps himself in the American flag with his sobriquet!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by edrossinoelwein9669 (March 31, 2008 5:02 pm ET)
         

      Why bring it up? here's the quote:

      "But if you're looking for the best recent example of the lengths Mrs. Clinton will go to win the Democratic Presidential nod, consider that last week in Philadelphia she used Joe and Valerie Wilson as campaign props."

          MMFA has to defend Wilson, liar that he is, to maintain the leftist disinformation that pretends Mrs. Clinton has any credibility. HRC is so desperate for 'props' that she brought it up.

          Good-bye and good riddance to the Clintons.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (March 31, 2008 5:06 pm ET)
           
        i really hope you're not going to contend this is the first time mmfa has had an article like this defending wilson and plame?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (March 31, 2008 5:11 pm ET)
           
        Yeeeesssssssssss, masterrrrrr. Wilson contradicted President Numbnutssssss...... Wilson must be a liarrrrrrrrrr........Yessssssssss....... Saddam planned 9/11...... Yesssssss........ We really did find WMDzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (March 31, 2008 6:17 pm ET)
           
        You are stupid Ed. Wilson didnt lie. Wilson was right. Bush is a liar. All these are WELL KNOWN FACTS. Your baseless assertions do nothing except expose you as an assimilated, brainwashed member of the Limborg hivemind. Ya got nothin.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ufleirx (March 31, 2008 8:12 pm ET)
         
      I know it is the WSJ but even they should be ashamed to print such a completely discredited account of events. WSJ is the laughing stock of "credible media" only kept out of the bottom eschelons by the absolute crap quality of the MSM 24/7 news services.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by oscar the grouch (April 01, 2008 12:08 am ET)
         

      I found the following from above interesting, to say the least.

      "Thinking through the options available, the first and most obvious choice would be to contact our [REDACTED] office in Niger and ask them to investigate these allegations using local sources available on the ground. Unfortunately, the severe budget cuts of the mid-1990s had been particularly devastating for the Africa Division and many of our offices on the continent were closed, including the one in Niamey, Niger."

      The question I have is "What other intelligence sources did we lose through those severe budget cuts and what effect did that have on what happened leading up to 9/11?"

      Of course, we can blame it all on Congress (or can we?) 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (April 01, 2008 2:09 am ET)
           
        I can blame it on my favorite gripe about the intelligence community. They fell in LOVE with technology and backed away from that age old on the ground agent driven syping and intelligence gathering. Niger was no threat to sell ANYONE uranium. Their uranium trade is controlled by an international consortium from mining through shipping. If we DID need to know however and a satellite or easedropping equipment coudnt tell us we would never know.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (April 01, 2008 7:54 am ET)
           
        oscar, the fact is that we had intelligence that some spectacular attack was going to occur.  as the 9-11 commission put it:  "threat reports surged in june and july [2001], reaching an even higher peak of urgency".  and there was the aug. 6 pdb "bin ladin determined to strike in u.s.", which the commission noted brought no response from bush.  had bush been paying as much attention as clinton did, the july 2001 "phoenix memo" about the flight school students might have been enough to unravel the plot.  bush did not care and he paid no attention.  that is the documented record.  it's the old you can lead a horse to water theory.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by oscar the grouch (April 01, 2008 7:39 pm ET)
             
          I was also thinking about Tanzania, Kenya, USS Cole as well as WTC 1 & 2. Appears that, for whatever reason(s), our intelligence was badly screwed up through the 90s and the early 00s.  And it appears that much of that can be traced to a lack of "feet on the ground."  Blame it on Congress for budget cuts? CIA leadership for loss of focus? or???
          Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (April 01, 2008 10:57 am ET)
         
      No surprise - Dave Ross had the best take on Sen. Clinton's discussion of her Bosnian visit.  She should have said when her husband was President we could visit a Muslim nation and not have to sneak in unannounced.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RazeHell (April 01, 2008 12:01 pm ET)
         

      As a relative newcomer to this site, I'm amazed by what I have learned so far.  I did not realize that according to Media Matters and most of the posters, virtually all news media, whether in print, radio or TV, cannot be believed.  They are ALL, I repeat ALL, spreading misinformation about the Democrats and the current administration.  And they ALL fail to find any fault with McCain.  I didn't realize that except for readers and posters of this site,  there is this vast conspiracy at work.  Amazing.

      Another American (and a couple others) - although your posts are factual, don't you just want to say 'enough' and quit writing?  After all, most of the responses to your comments fall under the category of "Don't try to confuse me with the facts - my mind is already made up."

      I'm SO glad I found this fair and balanced site.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (April 01, 2008 2:27 pm ET)
           
        fell free to jump in with something other than just some general opinion.  why don't you go up and answer my post about bush and 9-11.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mefirst (April 01, 2008 2:35 pm ET)
             
          and i think another american is more than welcome here.  we need all sides.   
          Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (April 01, 2008 12:08 pm ET)
         
      Well it didn't take long for Murdoch's influence to be felt accross the WSJ, did it?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RazeHell (April 01, 2008 2:08 pm ET)
         

      As a relative newcomer to this site, I'm amazed by what I have learned so far.  I did not realize that according to Media Matters and most of the posters, virtually all news media, whether in print, radio or TV, cannot be believed.  They are ALL, I repeat ALL, spreading misinformation about the Democrats and the current administration.  And they ALL fail to find any fault with McCain.  I didn't realize that except for readers and posters of this site,  there is this vast conspiracy at work.  Amazing.

      Another American (and a couple others) - although your posts are factual, don't you just want to say 'enough' and quit writing?  After all, most of the responses to your comments fall under the category of "Don't try to confuse me with the facts - my mind is already made up."

      I'm SO glad I found this fair and balanced site.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (April 01, 2008 6:02 pm ET)
           

        And you seem to be repeating yourself repeating yourself repeating yourself.

        All this anti-Plame stuff was debunked long ago.  You aren't razinghell, not even a molehill.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by RazeHell (April 01, 2008 11:58 pm ET)
         

      Lighten up Mary59.

      I only posted once, and that was subject to host review.  The site host must have plugged it in twice.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.