NPR: Plan to Fire All 93 USAt.s was Rove's

The report says that it was Rove's plan to fire all 93 "as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of."


NPR now has new information about that plan. According to someone who's had conversations with White House officials, the plan to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys originated with political adviser Karl Rove. It was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of. Documents show the plan was eventually dismissed as impractical.

Note that it doesn't say that it was Rove's plan to fire the "small number" of U.S. attorneys, but it was his to plan to "provide cover" for the plan. So it still leaves him a tiny out on that. But still. It shows him in the inner workings of the plan. And - it's a pretty nefarious plan, no matter what way you look at it.

Now we just ot get the - our - emails about it.

EMail to MSNBC and Norah O'Donnell

Regarding this travesty of reporting. (Contact info here.)

Dear MSNBC

What an appalling performance by Norah O'Donnell with Sen. Leahy. Is the job of your Chief Washington Correspondent to parrot the White House's press secretary? O'Donnell said, and I quote: "Tony Snow said today that 'you guys want the truth, and in this interview you're going to get the truth from Karl Rove.' What's wrong with that?"

That is shocking. As a viewer I can only take from this that O'Donnell agrees with Tony Snow. While that's obviously her right as a person, as a reporter isn't it her job to give viewers unbiased information? I can picture her saying, "Tony Snow said today that 'you guys want the truth, and in this interview you're going to get the truth from Karl Rove.' How do you respond to that?" Then we get the White House's side and Leahy's side. That's fair reporting. For O'Donnell to inject herself into the story - I don't know what to say. It's just shocking. Aside from all the reasons that many of us viewers might not believe that we're "going to get the truth from Karl Rove" under the White House's proposal - it's just awful reporting.

A short time later O'Donnell said: "...and Tony Snow said today 'I thought this was a fact-finding mission, not a ratings-finding mission' - that you're trying to create a courtroom atmosphere."

That's just unbelievable. Again, aside from parroting - in a tone and in the wording of agreement - the WH press secretary, which you have to admit is just flatly wrong for a reporter to do, O'Donnell here does worse. A reporter could and should with Snow's statement point out the glaringly obvious without a bit of bias: that a "courtroom atmosphere" is, when you think about it for about a millisecond, a pretty darn good place for a "fact-finding mission." What exactly about speaking under oath goes against finding facts? Doesn't it actually improve the chances that you're going to get the truth? It of course does.

Again: appalling. Terrible, and appaling. [Note to self: That's "appalling," dumbass]

Video of the clip here.