|
At least that brings a much needed answer as to where the memo came from and who wrote it. However, another question pops up, as the Post explains how it got into Democratic hands: First, I don't buy Martinez's explanation. The idea that he just so happened to hand Harken the memo without knowing what he was giving him is not a reasonable excuse. Once Martinez was given the memo he should have: (1). Thrown it away and given Darling a reprimand. (2). Kept it away from the Senate floor and made sure there weren't any other copies. I don't see how hard it was for Martinez to do this. Maybe he somehow considered Harkin to be an ally (Harkin supported the Schiavo bill, but can hardly be considered a tweener) and didn't think he would spread the memo around. Regardless, I think he knew what was on that paper. With this article another piece has been added to the puzzle. Of course, some would think the puzzle is complete, but that isn't the case. You see, all of the Republican senators have been placed on record as saying they hadn't seen the memo. Now this could go two ways. Either there were some senators that were lying, as Martinez obviously was, and indeed saw the memo, or Martinez didn't pass it to anyone but Harken, who went to his party colleagues and smeared the Republicans with it. My intuition tells me that a little bit of both happened. I don't think Harken was the only one that Martinez showed the memo to, but I think once Democrats got a hold of it, they were determined to make some political fortune out of it, which of course is how the Washington Post, New York Times, and ABC News got a hold of the story. Having said that, I doubt if this story will be investigated any further than it already has, but it would be interesting to find out how it was truly distributed. Finally, Hindrocket over at Powerline makes the case for retractions and corrections to be made by ABC News and the Washington Post: I bet I can guess what the Post and ABC News did: they simply took the word of Harkin and the Democratic staffers at face value. That's pretty much how it went down. I'll be surprised if the fact that they still haven't concocted proof that this memo was distributed on the Senate floor isn't swept under the rug. UPDATE: Malkin has responded to the Post article here and here. There are a couple of points that I want to address. First, did Mike Allen, the WP reporter who broke yesterday's Martinez story, try to set Malkin up? Judge for yourself. Here's the email he sent Malkin: From: "Mike Allen"Is it possible that by the time Allen emailed Malkin he knew about Martinez and Darling's role in the Schiavo memo? If he did, that would mean he was trying to do a hatchet job to Malkin and possibly other conservative bloggers (he emailed Hindrocket too, but to the best of my knowledge only to relay the article to him, as that's the only correspondence Hindrocket mentioned). I'm not saying they wouldn't have deserved it if they gave him the soundbites he wanted, but still; I think he tried to pull a "gotcha". Also, I think Malkin went a bit too far with this statement: That's stretching the truth, as Claybourn retracted the story four days after Malkin and others questioned Claybourn's sources. Others might call that quickly, but I wouldn't. It's true that Malkin was on top of the matter in the middle of the night and wrote a critique questioning the validity of Claybourn's sources. But Claybourn only retracted his story once he could no longer rely on his sources. That's not a knock on Claybourn either; he took credit for the errant story and did so responsibly. As far as Claybourn's link to Martinez's office, it will be interesting to see how Claybourn moves forward with this information. But I'm starting to wonder whether he can actually confirm that the two sources that claimed to work for Martinez actually does. Claybourn's already responded to the WP article here, but didn't mention his connections with the Martinez office. Maybe Malkin's right. There is a lot more of this story to be told. |
| Leave a Comment: |