Media thinks it is not fair for Bush to defend his actions

Gateway Pundit:

After all of the dishonest accusations from Joe Wilson and the media against George W. Bush and his administration, the media is now appalled that the President has defended himself!

Just to give you a bit of the information that is not reported in the liberal media this week, here is a rehash of a few of the attacks and misperceptions from the media and the ultra-liberal and dishonest Joe Wilson....

...

But, the Left is still aghast that the president had the nerve to defend himself! Appalling! This is what the media is on the war path about this week... That Bush defended himself! Amazing!

The real scandal is that the media refuses to report that Ultra-Liberal Joe Wilson lied about his role in collecting information on Saddam's evil regime. This, of course, made it necessary for the Bush Administration to "release" information to counter his bogus claims.

...

It is a pretty comprehensive post that is well worth reading. The media reaction to the Bush administrations attempt to set the record straight reminds me of the story of a man buried by his capters up to his neck who is suppose to fight a lion that is released in to his area. As the lion attacks he ducks his head then raises up and bites the lions testacles. His captors then criticize him for not fighting fair. What really was not fair was the rogue activities of Joe Wilson and probably his wife, in trying to undermine the war effort by leaking false information then acting like a victim when accurate information is released to counter it.

Update: Rick Moran at the American Thinker has a good piece on the CIA's civil war against the Bush administration and how Wilson fit into that scheme.

...

Regardless of who pushed his name forward or even what he discovered while in Niger (which to this day is a matter of fierce dispute), it is the aftermath of Wilson’s trip that has brought us to where we are today. And the fact is that Wilson, the lefty blogs, and especially Jay Rosen have missed the biggest story of the young century in their efforts to uncover the minutia, the nuggets of selected, disjointed information that writers have leapt upon like ravenous beasts, devouring, regurgitating as “proof” of their conspiracy theories, the evil machinations of evil men who “fabricated” intelligence on our way to war.

Perhaps the biggest purveyor of these fact flakes that make up the rickety structure of conspiracy is Murray Waas, writing for the National Journal among other publications. Jay Rosen, a godfather of New Media journalism, calls Waas “our Bob Woodward” as if one more self-important, insufferably arrogant practitioner of “gotchya” journalism were necessary in Washington. Waas has become a hero to left for his uncanny ability to leap to the most outrageous conclusions when uncovering the tiniest of “facts” regarding everything from the Fitzgerald investigation to the latest illegal leak from the intelligence community. Waas has built a house of cards about White House conspiracies based on the careful accumulation of “evidence” which may or may not indicate a pattern of deceit depending just how much one wishes to see when looking into the shadows and fog surrounding most of his information.

But in concentrating on the mote in the other fellow’s eye, Waas has missed the knife sticking out of the back of the Bush Administration; a knife planted by a group of leakers – organized or not – at the CIA who, unelected though they were, took it upon themselves to first try and prevent the execution of United States policy they were sworn to carry out, and failing that, trying to destroy in the most blatantly partisan manner an Administration with which they had a policy disagreement.

...

This is just a small taste.