It’s not just the New York Times which leaves out facts inconvenient to its arguments when covering “l’affiare Plame.” As I have reported repeatedly (here, here, here and here), while my hometown daily:

routinely reports the accusations that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV leveled against the Bush Administration, accusing it of ignoring his report finding that Saddam Hussein’s government had not attempted to purchase uranium from the African nation of Niger, it consistently fails to mention that a Senate Intelligence Committee discredited that Administration critic.

And this paper (read by fewer and fewer Angelenos every day) does it again today in a front-page over-the-fold article. Once again, the Times trots out Wilson’s claims without mentioning that a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report had discredited that former Kerry campaign staffer.

Reporters Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten only mention that committee when they can use it to suit their ends (not reporting the whole story, but twisting it to serve their own anti-Bush agenda), this time noting that committee Democrats were “fuming” at the White House’s rejection of one of their requests for information. Selective reporting seems a hallmark of Times‘ coverage of this kerfuffle.

Except for a few quotes from White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, the article otherwise reads like Democratic talking points. The paper reports that Ms. Plame’s

name was disclosed to journalists in what was widely viewed as an effort to taint Wilson by suggesting that his mission to Africa had been arranged as a personal junket by his wife. It is illegal to knowingly leak the name of a covert operative.

Once again, I give these guys credit. Diligent reporters they may not be, but clever wordsmiths they are. By using the passive, they don’t have to provide a subject for those who believed this was an effort to “taint” Wilson. And they also neglect to mention that after an extensive investigation of this matter, a scrupulous federal prosecutor has failed to accuse any Administration official of breaking the law by leaking the name of a covert operative. Only Democratic partisans, angry bloggers and liberal reporters believe the Administration was trying to taint Wilson. When, in reality, it was merely trying to get out the facts which clearly discredited that self-important man.

(more…)

Man, I don’t even remember what it was like to be 25!

Happy Birthday to GayPatriotWest!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Dan and I received this awesome email from a new GayPatriot reader. It is being reprinted with permission.

Stumbled across your blog from Instapundit, though I’ve read other excerpts from your posts on other blogs. But I believe this is my first visit. I’m not a homophobe, though I am homo-uncomfortable. VERY conservative religious upbringing and a total disconnect with homosexual behavior.

Having said that, read one of [Andrew] Sullivan’s essays years ago on the need for society to grant him the same freedoms and privileges in his relationships that the rest of us enjoy. Extremely lucid, compelling, and passionate argument. Made me challenge even more strongly some of my innate tendencies and attitudes. Motivated me to strive even more towards total acceptance of gays.

However, watching his intellectual contortions as he turned his back on everything he had professed to believe and support once the President came out in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment has been hugely disappointing. One more voice for government entitlements regardless of the cost to the country or the opinions of the majority. One more agitator for government by judicial fiat instead of laws supported by the electorate. A totally unprincipled support of “me-first” political action. Even at the cost of supporting the greater good. Disgusting.

You folks seem to be Americans, and country music fans, and talk show hosts, and dog owners, etc. – who happen to be gay. Andrew seems to be a gay guy who happens to live in America. Not that your sexual orientation is not important to you, or central to who you are. But it does not define the essence of all that you do. And I can appreciate what we have in common without being shut out by our differences.

Thanks for your blog. You can not imagine the impact you two are having on the straight conservatives in our precious nation. Dan’s recent post on the need for civil discourse, the free exchange of ideas, and the desire for
rational argument among competing viewpoints has again raised my respect for honest advocates of gay rights. Reading your thoughts on gay marriage vs. civil unions once again challenges me to confront my conscious and unconscious biases. Sharing so many views and beliefs with openly gay conservatives encourages me to appreciate our commonality and be even more accepting of our differences.

Proofing this letter, I’m not sure I have communicated clearly what is in my heart and mind today. Hope you can read between the lines and gain a sense of what I am trying to communicate. Perhaps a recent comparison will serve to illuminate. As Cynthia Mckinney’s recent actions have reinforced many negative racial stereotypes, so you two serve to combat stereotyping of the gay community. You two are much more convincing advocates for the gay community than Queer Nation or Dykes on Bikes. And Bruce loves Brad Paisley! A country music fan. Who’d a thunk it? Another stereotype down the tubes.

Appreciate your work. Your thoughts, arguments, and reasoning. You are helping to forge a bridge of greater understanding between the larger gay community and straight conservatives.

This email would never have been written to us by any Democrat or Gay Leftist. Nor would any Gay Secular Liberal have ever written such a compassionate and sincere note to a Christian.

That alone speaks volumes about how far our community has to go.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)