International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Wikipedia’

Wikipedia on Labour

Wikipedia articles on Clark and Cullen are terrible, they read like they’re written by the party, with just enough given to keep them within acceptable wikipedia practice. Cullen’s looks like it’s about 5 years old when people thought he’s be ok for business, and makes no reference at all to give tax cuts.

Clark’s has all of two sentences on recent scandals, buried in the middle of the ” Controversies” section – it should go in the end and be a lot longer.
I was expecting more from the article on the election scandals. It’s not better, it’s terrible. At least the other are polished, abiet professionally written by Labour hacks. It reads a whole lot like it was written by Labour – I mean, the EB are hardly so important to be right at the top?

Plamegate implodes

Remember how Rove was going to be indited?

Indeed – to quote Instapundit (who gets the hat tip for this one)

Far from being part of an orchestrated plot or a vast White House conspiracy, Plame’s unmasking was simply the handiwork of that Washington, D.C., staple, an insider with a big mouth. The culprit was gossip, not political gunslinging.

Let’s see if we can get this straight:

1. George Bush give speech claiming that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Nigeria (or some such place)

2. Claim arises that this is incorrect, and that the president was told it was incorrect.

3. This claim is traced back to an American diplomat.

4. His source turns out to be his wife, a CIA agent who may have been undercover.

5. Investigation starts as to who outed the CIA agent

6. VP’s Chief of Staff is indicted as the guy who originally spilt the beans, he claims he just confirmed what was already known.

7. Left makes this a big conspiracy, constant reports Rove himself is about to be indicted. He never was.

8. Turns out that said CIA agent’s code name was listed in “Who’s Who”. Oops.

9. Then turns out that some idiot who’s not really in the Bush inner circle and no longer works for the White house blurted out the name accidentally.

10. Media suddenly decides the whole thing is actually too complicated and stops reporting.

That’s my understanding anyway. Wikipedia has an article for the so inclined. Maybe I’ll read it sometime.

Tag Cloud