NYT Gets it wrong. Rove's cover-up of Bush's sixteen words is working!

[gulliver]

Here is what the New York Times had to say today.

"The White House went on the defensive today amid a barrage of questions from Democrats and reporters about the presidential adviser Karl Rove and whether he had disclosed the name of a covert intelligence operative in retaliation for criticism of the administration's Iraq policy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/11cnd-rove.html?hp&ex=1121140800&en=5040c3f3cc9a86d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

That is plain wrong. The retaliation against Wilson wasn't "for criticism of the administration's Iraq policy." The retaliation was because Wilson's article in the NY Times (how soon they forget!) forced the Administration to retract the scary war claim Bush had so soberly and ominously made in the State of the Union. Namely, the sixteen words that should live in infamy but which have been forgotten:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Has any president ever uttered false words (that he was forced to retract) about nuclear weapons in a matter of war in the State of the Union -- before Bush?

Let's not forget it! It ties in to the DSM, but let's not forget the sixteen words! No one ever asked Bush who insisted on putting those false words in the State of the Union. Very few people even remember the depth of the disgrace Bush deserves to suffer over them.

The administration outed Plame, and that may have helped stifle the justified furor over Bush's sixteen words.

Here is the timeline. Remember July 7-14, 2003.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline