Leftardation via Daily Kos

I told you the Liberals would meltdown. Witness their lack of reading comprehension here. Apparently that goes for Joe Wilson, too.

The world awakened this morning to a puzzle of ridiculousness: a Washington Post op/ed that can only be described as a hit piece on Joseph Wilson's "absurdly over-examined visit" (the editorial's words, certainly not mine) to Niger, in which the editorial staff claims there was no effort at the White House to discredit Mr. Wilson ...

Emphasis mine. That's an important ellipsis. Here's what they leave out in crying over a WaPo editorial too objective for them to understand.

Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame,

Emphasis mine. The Left needs to move the goal post here, seemingly forgetting this is supposed to be all about Plame's name being leaked. But that is the root cause of the entire Fitzgerald investigation. And just as the WaPo editorial states, no evidence of that has emerged in over two years.

The editorial is correct, the news story quoted at Kos is the more sloppy journalism in the sense that it could lend to one drawing an inference that the White house may have leaked the name. It wouldn't do that if it was mindful of reporting only the facts. It's a fine point, perhaps too fine a one to make. But poking a stick in the eye of a Sunday morning cartoon character like the poster at Kos is simply too much fun to resist.

As for Wilson and Kos Kid Susan, basically, they're just full of ... an important ellipsis.

Comments

[Sven]

What are you talking about? The ellipsis you're referring to indicates a pause for effect, not an omission of text. And the sentence you pull from the editorial is also quoted in the blog post.

[Dan]

The ellipsis you're referring to indicates a pause for effect, not an omission of text.

No kidding. But what it represents is an omission of fact. Plame was the issue in the editorial and their point stands in thatregard. Get it? There is no evidence of Cheney or Bush outting Plame as payback for Wilson. That's all the editorial claimed. Leaving out that fact (Plame) altered the context of the response. If you are going to debate a point, you cant start by shifting the grounds for the point you are attacking. That's common sense.