David Broder Is A Rapist
Posted by Phoenix Woman on June 9, 2007
Is he? Literally? Probably not.
But he has the moral vacuity, and the cognitive dissonance, of a serial rapist. Just examine his latest piece of amoral tripe, “Judge Walton’s Lesson“.
The money quote from Broder:
This whole controversy is a sideshow — engineered partly by the publicity-seeking former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife and heightened by the hunger in parts of Washington to “get” Rove for something or other.
Like other special prosecutors before him, Fitzgerald got caught up in the excitement of the case and pursued Libby relentlessly, well beyond the time that was reasonable.
Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you:
What sort of amorality does it take to ignore the fact that:
1) Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame in a fit of pique over her husband’s column “What I Didn’t Find In Niger”, and:
2) Outing Valerie Plame not only destroyed her career, but obliterated the far-flung network of Middle Eastern and Iraqi field operatives and contacts she had spent years – decades – nurturing? And does anyone think that the field operatives in Iraq, once Cheney made sure the whole world knew that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent, escaped the notice of the local Sunni insurgents?
David Broder willfully ignores not just common sense, but the reporting in his own newspaper. To quote the WaPo’s Carol D. Leonnig:
Libby wasn’t charged with the crime of knowingly leaking classified information about Plame; he was charged with lying to investigators. But the overwhelming weight of the evidence at the trial — including reporters’ notes of their interviews with Libby — showed that Libby had indeed leaked classified information about Plame’s identity, even though that wasn’t what put him in the dock. The jury agreed that Libby lied when he said that he’d been telling reporters only what other reporters had told him about Plame’s role at the CIA.What is unclear is whether Libby knew she was a covert CIA agent at the time he discussed her with reporters — a key point in determining whether this was an illegal leak. But Walton said that Libby “had a unique and special obligation” to keep such secrets, well, secret.
Glenn Greenwald has more on the amorality of Broder’s running buddies, Bush and the PNAC Platoon, and the things they condone, such as the “disappearing” of four-year-old children. Hell, at least most rapists don’t kill little kids.
21 Responses to “David Broder Is A Rapist”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Gale Crooks said
What a frightening mind David Broders has!! How can he not perceive the arrogant, personally and ideologically aggrandizing behaviors of Libby, Cheney and the whole crew on the Bush ship? Is his screwy assessment of the Plame Affair deliberate in some way? Or is it astoundingly ignorant? I lean toward your term “amoral” for certain…
Charles said
I think it’s pretty obvious that David Broder is a Republican operative.
Midland said
No, he’s not an operative. That would at least make rational sense. He’s an aristocrat, self-appointed, and does not apply the same rules to his fellow Beltway aristocrats as he does to the peasantry outside–and beneath–his social class. The British finally subdued their aristocracy by bankrupting and humiliating them, while most other European and Asian countries gradually allowed them to become corrupt, rich, and useless. The Chinese put them in labor camps and the Russians shot most of theirs. The French lined them up in front of the guillotine so elites around world could see them disposed of and learn a lesson thereof.
We’ve got a difficult task ahead of us, getting rid of this bunch.
Charles said
Well, I hope we can talk them out of doing wrong, Midland. That’s the only way that works in the long-term.
I suspect that Broder is a Republican operative for this reason: he was the journalist who started the story that Muskie cried in the New Hampshire primary. Knocking Muskie out of the race was, coincidentally, a top priority of the Nixon White House.
I am not a big believer in coincidence.
Over the years, Broder has reliably done what the Republican Party wanted, all the while presenting himself as a kindly, rational, liberal sort of man.
Chris said
Scooter Libby believes that there is an underlying crime.
He’s so strongly convinced that there is an underlying crime that he’s willing to eat a 33-month jail term for obstruction and lying, rather than admit the truth to investigators.
Phoenix Woman said
You got it, Chris.
Top Posts « WordPress.com said
[...] David Broder Is A Rapist [image] Is he? Literally? Probably not. But he has the moral vacuity, and the cognitive dissonance, of a serial […] [...]
shrimplate said
Did the readers of Soviet-era Pravda have to put up with similar crap?
Charles said
Shrimplate, you might want to read this article;. To comprehend the Soviet media, one need only imagine Rupert Murdoch as a communist.
The Soviet press was famous for publishing half the news. If there were riots in Detroit and riots in Poland, the Soviet press would accurately report the riots in Detroit and explain to their readers that this signaled a society sick with racism and deep in decay. Readers had to guess about what was going on in Poland.
Broder is acting as an opinion columnist, not a reporter in this case, so the standards are looser. I still think that, at least post-Stalin, a Soviet OpEd writer would have trouble writing something as flagrantly dishonest as “Despite the absence of an underlying crime….” That’s a lie. Broder knows it and he knows we know he knows it.
trifecta said
Why do I read Krauthammer, David Iglasias, George Will, David Broder, Robert Novak, Fred Hiatt in the Washington Post and keep being told it’s a liberal media out there?
Charles said
Shrimplate, check out this article. It compares Time and Pravda.
A classic example is Episode 20, “Soldiers of God,” in which Pravda states that the USSR has not invaded Afghanistan. This was true for a whole 24 hours. The Pravda piece was on 12/23/79. Wikipedia says the invasion was 12/24/79.
THAT’S Pravda.
MEC said
It’s finally occurred to me that the phrase “no underlying crime” is Very Interesting. I’m thinking it doesn’t just apply to the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The Usual Suspects can continue to use it if somebody is charged with the crime of outing a covert agent, by the simple expedient of repeating the corollary lies that Valerie Plame wasn’t really covert and besides everybody knew she was a covert agent so it wasn’t revealing a secret to say she worked for the CIA. But the real “reason” there’s “no underlying crime” is that Joe Wilson is an Enemy of the State (l’état, c’est Bush), and therefore anything done to punish him for his dissent is justifiable and the laws don’t apply. What the “no underlying crime” parrots are saying is that it isn’t a crime to punish Bush’s enemies.
Phoenix Woman said
MEC: Yup. And as I’ve noted, Broder’s not just ignoring common sense, but the reporting in his own newspaper: Libby didn’t just help protect Cheney from the consequences of outing a CIA NOC and trashing her network, he actively helped Cheney in the outing.
Charles said
And this brings us back to the question: “Exactly who is David Broder and who does he work for?”
Pablo said
Ah, the liberty of being batshit insane.
Phoenix Woman said
Tell us how it feels, Pablo.
Bill B said
Ah. A good old Google bomb. No doubt set up in the hope anybody doing a Google search for David Broder will find this post or this one. You did a lousy job at trying to come up with a way to make his offense (as far as you’re concerned) analogous to rape, but who cares, right?
Charles said
So, let’s see, fellas.
Setting aside Phoenix Woman’s tactics in getting your attention, where do you stand on the Administration outing covert agents (yes, it did, too, as the Leonnig article makes clear)?
And where do you stand on Broder saying as fact something that his own paper shows is a total lie?
I must say, it’s very touching to have you defending David Broder’s virginal honor.
Bill B said
Setting aside Phoenix Woman’s tactics in getting your attention…I must say, it’s very touching to have you defending David Broder’s virginal honor.
You certainly don’t see my defending what Broder said in his column. My comment relates to titling the post in that way. If you don’t know what a Google bomb is look here.
How do I know that’s what this is about? First, there’s no logical analogy to his disagreeing with you or the author of the piece and rape. This writer could have just as easily written a piece commenting on his article over at Firedoglake or someone else there could have as well. Funny thing… nobody did, but there’s a hyperlink to this post there and also at MEJ post referenced above. It’s a tactic that smacks of moral vacuity and cognitive dissonance.
Phoenix Woman said
Dear Bill B.:
If this post was intended to be a Google Bomb (it wasn’t, but nothing I say or do will convince you otherwise), then right-wingers like you have been the most assiduous at propagating it: Most of the visits I’ve received have been from right-wing sites like Protein Wisdom and Ace of Spades.
Love,
Phoenix Woman
(P.S.: Thanks for the clicks! Darth Michael Moore and Emperor Sorostine will be most pleased.)
(P.P.S.: Google Bombs don’t work as easily as they once did. But thanks to right-wingers like you, who are so eager to spread the links, I don’t need to actually make a Google Bomb anyway: You’ll do all the heavy lifting for me! How sweet of you.)
(P.P.P.S.: Thanks also for the willful and knowing misrepresentation of what I actually said. But hey, if right-wingers had to be strictly truthful at all times, you’d all shrivel up and die. Truth in context to you is like garlic in marinara sauce to a vampire.)
Charles said
Bill says, “It’s a tactic that smacks of moral vacuity and cognitive dissonance.”
::chuckle::
Any lamer and you’d have to take the bus.
Moral vacuity is getting incensed about venal sins, while remaining blind to mortal ones. In this case, the venal sin being namecalling by an individual and the mortal sins being betrayal of trust and dishonesty by national leaders.
Interesting to me, you never answered the question of whether you approve of the Administration’s outing of spies or of Broder printing lies.
I asked the question to see if you had any sense of perspective.
Thanks for answering it by your silence.