Kudos to Paul Reynolds
TAE guest and occassional commentator Paul Reynolds of the BBC has posted his new Q&A on the Libby/Plame/Wilson/Novak/Niger/Uranium/Rove (maybe)/CIA/SOTU affair to the BBC's website. It is, by far, the most detailed summary that I have seen to date on the BBC, and my first reaction is that it is both fair and accurate.
Kudos to Mr. Reynolds for taking the time to finally set out the many details of this tangled affair in one place on the BBC's website.
I'd like to think that TAE played some small part in shaping the way in which Reynolds approached his piece this time. But regardless, I recommend it.
Kudos to Mr. Reynolds for taking the time to finally set out the many details of this tangled affair in one place on the BBC's website.
I'd like to think that TAE played some small part in shaping the way in which Reynolds approached his piece this time. But regardless, I recommend it.
11 Comments:
Way to go, Scott! And good for you, Mr Reynolds.
What a HUGE improvement for Mr. Reynolds!
I take issue with the Q and A on one area though. The 16 words on the British report of Iraq seeking uranium from Niger included in Bush's speech were at the time of the speech and are still to this day, true. Reynolds admits that but then goes on to say that simply being true was not enough.
Well, why not? Why isn't it enough to simply tell the truth?
I thank Scott Callahan for his recommendation and acknowledge that his comments on this issue did speed up and expand the Q&A I have now writtten.
The existing Q&A on the grand jury inquiry was already out of date and had to be updated but it is the case that this site's activity prompted me to do it sooner rather than later and in a much fuller version that we normally do.
Paul Reynolds
PS as for the last criticism in this column above, I quoted Tenet as saying that the sixteen words were "factually correct" though someone could challenge that because what Bush actually said was that the "British government has learned..." which is an assertion not a proven statement.
It's not an assertion (on Bush's part) as long as the British government is still saying it. It was then and still is factually correct. If you can somehow prove that the British government had not said that it learned or had information on the subject, then you might have a point. You have to be really careful with words, Mr. Reynolds.
Your reporting has become much more accurate since Scott's critique began. I congratulate you on your progress.
Thank you, Mr Reynolds. You have improved my opinion of journalists.
The whole case against Libby has been called into question by Bob Woodward. He heard Plame's name at least a month before Libby is alleged to have mentioned her. This raises serious doubts about the whole case.
Mr Reynolds needs to add this to his Q and A. Indeed, why hasn't the BBC reported this already ? - it has been headline news in the US for 2 days.
Also, the Q and A should include reference to the serious doubts about whether Plame was ever a covert agent after the mid-1990s and therefore covered by the law. All the signs are that she was merely an analyst at the CIA, and that her husband freqently told people. Like General Vallely, for example again, a big story last week but of course no mention by the BBC
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1875445,00.html
I have fond Mr reynolds' stuff on all this to be relatively shallow, given the amount of time he has watched it.
I suggest he goes to one of the key bloggers on this whole affair, Tom Maguire. There is more info in this one thread, let alone the earlier ones, than all the stuff written by the BBC:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/mr_fitzgerald_n.html
The US media are describing the Woodward revelations as a "bombshell". But nothing reported by the BBC ?
And still virtually nothing by the BBC on all the "Setting the Record Straight" stuff from the White House this past week. There hs been story after story, quote after quote, showing the senior Dems have lied through their teeth about waht they said from 1998 onwards about Iraq. Complete with TV footage. All ignored by Justin Webb and Matt Frei, the biased nd blind BBC US reporters. Let alone John Simpson, the World Affairs editor.
Scrapplefce sums it all up :
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2072
A load of tosh, going nowhere. It is the US press, some people at the CIA and the Wilson couple that will end up looking stupid and malevolent.
anon,
Reynolds has updated his Q&A to include a section on the Woodward revelations. He says:
Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has now testifed that he was told about Ms Plame a month before she was named in a newspaper column. He did not name the official who told him but said it was not Libby. This means that Libby was probably not the first official who unmasked her, despite what Fitzgerald said.
Woodward also said he had spoken to Libby twice in June 2003 about the Iraq war but Libby had not mentioned Plame. This was at a time when Libby was allegedly active in campaigning against her husband.
I think this is good. He specifically points out that Fitzgerald was wrong about Libby, and, without explicitly saying so, he establishes a reason for doubting the charge that Libby was engaged in some kind of campaign against Wilson....which is one of the primary implications of Woodwards testimony.
Having said that, it would be nice to see a more expansive treatment of the Woodward revelations. But Reynolds should be credited when credit is due, which it is here, I think.
Your point about the silence of the Beeb's main correspondents in the US on the exposure of the clear hypocrisy of the Dems is well taken, and is something that I have been planning on taking up on the main page. The real question is this: Why is it up to the Bush White House to expose this hypocrisy? Why hasn't the media been all over this already?
SC
scott
I agree - well done Mr Reynolds for latching on quickly to the Bob Woodward revelations.
I look forward to your piece on the "Setting the Record Straight" campaign. The Political Teen has some of the video on this - arguably the most importaant current US political news.
Today there has been yet another speech by Bush attacking Dems by name over their Iraq hypocrisy, the third in a week :
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175847,00.html
Yet the BBC can't see the wood for the trees. (Can't or won't ? It cuts right cross their swllowing of the meme "Bush/Blair lied")
Like the BBC is now pushing the fact that an elderly and nknown US Congressman is calling for withdrawal from Iraq. But ignoring a strong speech by John McCain who may well try again for President in 2008.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31358.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home