Powered by TypePad

« The NY Times Finds Time For Linda Ronstadt | Main | WSJ - The News Desk Is Pretty Good »

July 21, 2004


Tom Bowler

Alright. I confess. But I didn't actually call the man a traitor. In my speculation into his possible motives, I said "Given Ambassador Joe's track record on veracity, I'm going to rule out patriotic fervor." I suppose it's not that long a stretch to read "traitor" into that. My bad.

But on the upside, dare I hope that of the four people who regularly read my blog, Ambassador Joe is one of them?


LOL. C'mon, show us a link.

appalled moderate

Google Wilson Plame Traitor. You get:

I suspect Wilson may have done the same thing.

But mostly, you get hyperventilating blogs of the left calling Bob Novak and players to be named/indicted later "Traitors". (Roger Simon's blog alsocomes up, but that's because one of his commentators used the T -- word )


More likely, Joe is referring to a comment to John Kerry's blog... from last year.


Sort of off-topic, but I am sure this quote will come in handy - I recall Wilson playing the "I was just one small voice of truth" routine somewhere recently:

Former diplomat Joseph Wilson used to say he felt certain how his obituary would read. It went: "Joseph C. Wilson IV, who was the last American diplomat to meet Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, died . . ."

But "it seems to change", Mr Wilson said on Tuesday, smiling in his Washington office. He has kept mentally revising the obituary to keep up with the political maelstrom over Iraq policy and White House leaks, which is swirling around him. A recent version went: "Joseph C. Wilson IV, the Bush I administration political appointee who did the most damage to the Bush II Administration . . ."


Did that close the italics?

This article is great, too, where he bloviates about the danger to his family.

He does not fear the intelligence services so much as terrorists bent on finding soft but valuable targets, or just "just somebody who's a little bit paranoid and thinks somehow that the CIA is responsible for the voices he hears in his head". They are taking their own security precautions, he says, but they have had no help from the state to keep them safe.

Afraid of people hearing voices?

Hei Lun Chan

I did some Google searches and found that besides the link that a.p. found, there were a few comments on blogs, that's it. Interestingly, if you search "joe wilson is a trait-r" (or joseph; changed a letter so that your site wouldn't should up in later searches), the only links you get go to John Kerry's website.


Wilson writes, "I believe it was a malicious act meant to keep others from crossing a vindictive administration." This claim can't easily be dismissed because this would explain the toe-the-line interviews the SSCI recorded. Even Novak's early reporting suggests that Plame's role is overstated by the Senate report. This alone is enough to disqualify the report's findings from being an arbiter of the facts in this matter. The process has been tainted and the authenticity of those interviewed is unreliable.


Wilson whose credibility is shattered, makes a claim and therefore it should not be dismissed based on the possibility that it's true... Do I see some circular-esque reasoning here?


After seeing all of the Wilsonian tap-dancing, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the person who leaked Plame's identity to the media was...Joe Wilson himself. The man cannot keep his mouth shut, no matter what's falling out of it.


I'd call it cause-and-effect reasoning. The Senate report doesn't jive with the earlier reporting. Novak himself first reported that the CIA had identified Wilson, whose contacts seem highly relevant and appropriately expedient, and delegated the request to his wife. Had his wife not worked there, Wilson still could reasonably have been selected since his background was complementary to the other feedback. I'm sure Wilson's work on behalf of the US government is known. That's how the story started. Now the story's changed. There's an unidentified influence here. With so much blame being piled on, the CIA took advantage of an audience willing to hear stories of how someone else, someone already served up, is at fault. The damage had been done so benefits flow all around. The Senate report is subject to the same groupthink it purports to objectively document.

Novak's main interest in unearthing these details was to determine how anyone could not have been subjected to the Loyalty Test™ prior to getting an assignment. Partisan boosters in search of partisan explanations will sooner or later find partisan answers. Had Wilson and Plame been unrelated, it could have been chalked up as yet another example of the State Dept's and CIA's intransigence. So the partisan angle offers a partial reason for the fundamental lack of seriousness in revealing details of National Security but doesn't exclude a devious opportunism. Either way, a love letter has been sent to CIA personnel. That and a new CIA head likely to take inventory, the CIA acquiesces in deflecting some responsibility while playing nice with the administration. And the Senate investigators are only too happy not to recognize this dynamic nor their own predilection to assume it doesn't exist.

Patrick R. Sullivan

"The primary new charge from the Republicans is that I lied when I said Valerie had nothing to do with my being assigned to go to Niger. That's important to the administration because there's a criminal investigation underway, and *if she did play a role, divulging her CIA status may be defendable*."

Ooh, d'ya spose Joe reads Max Sawicky?

The comments to this entry are closed.