Former aide blames Bush for leak deceit

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative. Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Jack Dinkmeyer
4.0
by Jack Dinkmeyer - Oct. 1, 2008

A good teaser for the forthcoming release of McClellen's book. If experience is any indication, this is only the first of a spate of 'exposes' from the point of view of this is how THEY did it. Forget the writers were ever involved.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.5
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 1, 2008

Straight forward AP reporting. McClellan's teaser did it's job of getting the media excited without giving the public much information.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Mike LaBonte
4.2
by Mike LaBonte - Oct. 1, 2008

Fairly good retelling of the story, without the detail of giving all names involved. Has Democrat Congressional viewpoint but not Republican. Totally fair.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Beth Jones
3.2
by Beth Jones - Oct. 1, 2008

Typical of such churned-out stories by AP/UPI, it throws out a lot of content and one gains more context by the simple act of reading the next paragraph(s). While it's not exactly rousing reading, in today's politicized – ahem – *fair and balanced* news circus, this is actually a good thing. The "bad" thing is - given the content *and* the context – WHY has this information been given such ho-hum coverage? To quote the title of a related piece: Treason is Not Old News!

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Dwight Rousu
4.0
by Dwight Rousu - Oct. 1, 2008

The story is a good revelation, despite its possible objective of selling books. It shows the administration top levels as liars and traitors. The implication is that they deserve another term, ... in prison.

See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.0

Good
from 12 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
4.0
Facts
3.4
Fairness
4.3
Information
4.0
Sourcing
4.3
Style
3.6
Accuracy
3.7
Balance
3.6
Context
4.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
4.2
Credibility
4.1
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!