Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« More Fun With David Shuster | Main | The Goss Resignation »

May 05, 2006

Comments

Pofarmer

Well, that was fun, now I gotta go disinfect my keyboard.

Reality based, indeed. Quoting all the wrong actors for all the reasons those actors want to be quoted.

clarice

"Very funny," she said,trying to decide whether she was supposed to be listening to the Dixie Chicks or Colbert today.

jerry

Bush at 33% (AP), this means... 66% of Americans support what he's not doing. Oops, I committed a Colbert!

Dwilkers

Huh. Guess Greenwald is trying to build his traffic again.

Davebo

Ouch.. Apparantly the quite insightful Reynolds comparison ruffled somebody's feathers.

Patrick R. Sullivan

As far as I can tell, no one has been able to put together a coherent chain of logic from, 1. Valerie Plame's name appears in a Bob Novak column....N. The CIA can't track Iran's nuke program.

Pofarmer

"As far as I can tell, no one has been able to put together a coherent chain of logic from, 1. Valerie Plame's name appears in a Bob Novak column....N. The CIA can't track Iran's nuke program."

If they can't get from-Husband writes op-ed for NY Times, to Wifes name becomes known- I'd say your asking for a little much.

Tom Maguire

Ouch.. Apparently the quite insightful Reynolds comparison ruffled somebody's feathers.

Davebo is referring to some psychoanalysis of Glenn Reynolds and myself offered by Greenwald in his comments.

I don't agree. To me, he [Maguire] is a lot like Glenn Reynolds (who, unsurprisingly, has a great affinity for the way Maguire posts). They try very hard to work behind a veneer of passive-aggressive reasonableness, but it only masks, not alters, the irrationality.


Well, Davebo, since you are the Answerguy today - as a general rule, should I ignore drivel like that, and let some people say, gee, Greenwald is so insightful that Magure has no answer to him?

Or should I reply, so that various chirpers can say, gee, someone's feathers were ruffled?

Or maybe you would like to come out from behind Greenwald's skirts and pick a side, Davebo? Juzt a thought - try to choose between (a) Maguire is passive aggressive but fundamentally irrational; (b) Greenwald's poop psychology is BS; (c) something else. Or does "insightful" in your own comment tell us that you have made a choice already?

Well - I do appreciate the Anon Lib's effort to rise to my defense.

BlaBlaBla

Malkin's video piece over at Hotair about the Colbert "cover up" is pretty funny, tinfoil hat and all.

Florence Schmieg

For those of you obsessed with presidential approval polls, the absurdity they represent is shown here: Jerry above is quick to cite AP/Ipsos at 33. Fox, which polled the same time period and two weeks ago had him at 33, saw a 5 point rise to 38 in their poll released yesterday. The Republicans went up similarly and the Dems down. Bush's increase came mainly from...Democrats!! I think polls are a lot of hooey. Let's see true election results which so far have not shown a Republican loss.

Tom Maguire

I wanted to add Walter Pincus to the list of reporters who ought to know whether the Plame leak harmed national security. From the CJR:

Pincus believes that the Bush administration acted obnoxiously when it leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, but he has never been convinced by the argument that the leaks violated the law. “I don’t think it was a crime,” he says. “I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe” — Wilson — “by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it’s got to be investigated — never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.” The entire Plame investigation, he says, has been a distraction from a more fundamental conversation about how the White House handled evidence before the war.

Well, we are relying on a negative inference here - if he *did* think the leak harmed national security, he is being awfully quiet about it. The leak was "Obnoxious", the investigation a "distraction" (quoting the author), not a crime - is this what a man who thought national security had been compromised would say?

Or maybe he never cared to try and crack that story. Uh huh.

My guess - like a lot of others, he looked and found nothing.

Hit The Bid

I think its been made quite clear that Libby and Cheney knew exactly who Plame was and the importance of what she/they did, and for domestic political reasons, they went ahead and sacrificed her and the important national security efforts by her and those like her to insulate the president from an awful decision to go to war on false premises. Pretty simple actually.

Am I right?

topsecretk9

Ever notice the left never chide their leaders for bad behavior or really anything other than seeming to go along with any Bush policy?

I was thinking about this because almost every conservative I've read has taken issue with various aspects of the Bush Admin. almost on a continually basis.

I think the disconnect is the more far left view everything through a prism of polls and they very rarely criticize any democrat who utters the requisite Bush hate -- no matter their actions.

I mean Clinton favored policies completely antithesis to Democrat beliefs...did they tear him apart and give up support? NO...welfare reform, don't ask don't tell? No, in fact the Feminist movement took a huge hit supporting Clinton and by proxy the boorish behavior that comprised their groups mission and existence. But how could they? His approval rating was high!

Shorter Greenwald -- he's mad/frustrated that conservatives CAN and DO criticize the president, something his side is incapable of, and STILL support president.

He really wants to equate that criticism to poll numbers support in order to impeach Bush.

Tom Maguire

Am I right?

Are you right that you believe it? That depends on your commitment to the "Sheltered from reality Based Community".

As to being right that Libby and Cheney knew she was a NOC - Fitzgerald seems to have no direct evidence of that, and he did *not* indict Libby for perjury when he claimed to be unaware of Plame's classified status. Since that seems like a significant lie, one wonders why not.

Meanwhile, in the "Can't Make This Up" file:

AT least four publishers are vying for the memoir of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame - and the bidding has reached seven figures, publishing sources told Media Ink.

...The agent handling the book auction is Elyse Cheney. She did not return calls seeking comment.

http://www.nypost.com/business/63276.htm

Hit The Bid

Are you really suprised Tom? Come on...everyone gets a book deal in this culture if you are in a controversial brew ha ha on the national level. I think that is a stupid tact to take on discrediting Plame...no its a gay tact to take.

Hit The Bid

PS...my prior post was a bit of hyperbolic certainty from the left...just as outrageous as posts from the right on the sobject.

We are all absurd about it! Come on these are blogs!

Ugh

Who cares if Plame writes a book? WTF does that have to do with anything?

Hit The Bid

That is not to say that our entire "cash in" culture is not nauseating (sp?) but do we hate the player or the Plame?

topsecretk9

--Who cares if Plame writes a book?--

I don't, but excuse me if I happen to think

"I have a request. While I may engage in public discourse, my wife and my family are private people... they do not wish to be under the glare of the cameras."

falls into the "literary flair" category, yet again.

Sue

Cares? Heck fire, I can't wait for it. I want to compare it with Joe's book and public statements.

Jake - but not the one

Frankly, I enjoy Glenn's posting. Even when he takes Tom to task.

Speaking of taking to task, Tom, I hope you will write about Moussaoui, Shelby Steele and the admin's global warming study. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

Jake

Hit The Bid

Apparently Plame's book is going to be more of a pamphlet form...life as Haiku sort of thing.

Pofarmer

"they went ahead and sacrificed her and the important national security efforts by her and those like her to insulate the president from an awful decision to go to war on false premises."

You forgot to add, "caused by recieving faulty or incomplete intelligence from those same people and others in their agency."

Slam Dunk?

PeterUK

Hit the Bin.
"Am I right?" No as usual the same old illogical detritus that rattles about your brain after you have been given the day's talking point.

Plame's degree in advertising might have made her admirably suitable to analyse the IranNukeco new logo and the copy for the advertising campaign,but you have to face it kid,decorative though she may be,Plame knows even less about nuclear weapons than you do.

bandit

'Who cares if Plame writes a book? WTF does that have to do with anything? '

Well since she was Jane Bond she wouldn't be able to reveal anything in her book.....except maybe how she was devastated by her husband's world Me Me Me tour. Maybe she'll disclose his speaking fees.

PeterUK

Apparently Plame's book is title,"I had the world at my Feet(Then I married Joe)"

Joe Mealyus

Glenn Greenwald (from the linked post): "And with his characteristically substantive commentary, Tom Maguire insists that the whole thing just can't be true -- it just can't be -- because the reporter, Shuster, is a 'lying weasel' and 'an ignorant clown.'"

I think someone should note that Glenn Greenwald is suggesting to his readers that JOM is calling Shuster a lying weasel and ignorant clown in a serious - completely unironic, or Kos-like, if you will - fashion. But Greenwald surely *knows* that this is false - that JOM doesn't make comments like this in that fashion.

(One reason we know he knows this is the quote from Greenwald himself, cited above by commenter "Tom Maguire," that JOM "tries very hard to work behind a veneer of passive-aggressive reasonableness" - i.e. he doesn't go around lazily calling people "lying weasels" in the fashion Greenwald is trying to suggest).

Furthermore Greenwald is asserting to his readers, by making that "characteristically substantive" jibe, that JOM was not making a substantive rebuttal to Shuster, and only an ad hominem one, when in fact of course JOM *was*, as Greenwald knew, providing a substantive, detailed analysis as to why he wasn't going to take Shuster at his word.

If a man will lie to his own blog readers, who won't he lie to?

Ranger

Okay, lets think about this. After the Iraq war you have an agent who's cover has been blown twice. Once by AA to the Russians, and once by the CIA itself to the Cubans. So, which counterproliferation desk do you put her on?

A) Iran

B) North Korea

Well, the Russians are very chummy with the Iranians, and they know your agent's identity, so that's not good.

The North Koreans on the other hand are an international misfit that nobody likes, so little chance of intel sharing between Russia and NK. Not even sure the Cubans would want to be associated with them.

Oh, and the Cubans might just throw a bone to Iran just to make life as hard as possible for the US (or to get access to some cheap oil as a backup if things go bad for Hugo).

Not saying that the CIA wouldn't assign her to the Iran desk, but it would yet another example of really bad decision making at the Agency.

Tom Maguire

Are you really suprised Tom? Come on...everyone gets a book deal in this culture if you are in a controversial brew ha ha on the national level. I think that is a stupid tact to take on discrediting Plame...

Jiminy, I will type this more slowly for the humor-impaired on the left and drop distracting details:

Can't Make This Up

AT least four publishers are vying for the memoir of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame...

The agent handling the book auction is Elyse Cheney.

Plame, Cheney, ha ha, what are the odds? Oh, nevermind.

Frankly, I enjoy Glenn's posting. Even when he takes Tom to task.

Sure you do, just like I enjoy a hot shower and a cold beer. But I don't look for logic in either one.

If Typepad were accessible I would post my crushing comeback to Greenwald, but I can't. Instead, I'll outline it in a subsequent comment.

...hope you will write about Moussaoui, Shelby Steele and the admin's global warming study. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

I am utterly unoriginal and unimaginative on the extensively-covered Moussai story; sometimes that dissuades me from posting.

On Shelby Steele - I looked at his title and groaned, which was probably not fair. Although (I can't recall), maybe I started groaing here:

Yet no one--including, very likely, the insurgents themselves--believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to...

I have NO idea what that means, unless he wants to use nukes to turn sand to glass throughout Iraq. I mean, aren't we trying to win hearts and minds?

And the global warming story represented a time-management collapse - it clearly deserved more time to reflect than I actually had.

But those would all be good directed open thread type posts. Well, if I could post at all.

clarice

TM, maybe this is what Steele meant: http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5471

Patrick R. Sullivan

'I think that is a stupid tact to take on discrediting Plame...no its a gay tact to take.'

We don't have to worry about you suffering a smart attack, HTB.

PeterUK

It might be worth pointing out, that whilst Val was preventing WMD proliferation,North Korea, Pakistan and the enterprising Dr Khan all managed to acquire nuclear weapons,whilst Iran was developing them openly and Lybia clandestinely.
"I sorry Ms Plame,but you haven't met your performance targets,we will have to out you".

Patrick R. Sullivan

'Not saying that the CIA wouldn't assign her to the Iran desk, but it would yet another example of really bad decision making at the Agency.'

What difference would it make? 1. How would anyone outside the agency know what desk she was on? 2. Even if the CIA had called a press conference and announced that former covert operative Valerie Plame was now working as an analyst on Iran's nuke program, how is that a problem for a desk jockey?

AB

As one who is regularly subject to your abuse here, and who has been consistently astonished at the deaf ears of the Bush-loving holdouts, it doesn't surprise me to see how cleanly you all managed to miss Greenwald's main thrust.

He isn't himself accepting the truth or falsity of Shuster's assertions, just noting how effortlessly the right wing shrugs them off, without actual knowledge of their truth or falsity, and using (in this case) only the assertions of other tv reporters to do so. I noticed it the first second TM posted it, but being just about completely inured to the process by now, didn't even bat an eye about it.

Strangely enough, what originally attracted me to this site was that TM, almost alone among rightwing bloggers, did attempt to back up his assertions with fact, even (occasionally) contradictory evidence - so long as he had a quick way to shoot it down and minimize it. He did it first with the execrable Swifties, never ever bothering to print the accounts of distinguished veterans who WERE THERE at various events and exposed the Swifty lies (And God, please don't let's revisit that revolting episode in smear politics - I know those were your glory days.) On the Plame affair, he's been a fountain of information, and a great deal more openminded, always confronting the unpleasant contradictions, if only to invite rebuttal from his reliable regulars.

This unwillingness to listen to unpleasant facts is a fault that all political partisans tend to, right or left. The difference in this case is the right is not accepting the mantle of responsibility and accountability that comes from defending policies that have had dramatic, often disastrous consequences. As such, they are aiding and abetting a kind of new anti-Americanism that should be profoundly disturbing to anyone who loves this country.

I have found right wing bloggers do not CARE if Bush's policies are making us safer. They only want to declare uncategorically that they are. As an example, when I mentioned once that residents of port cities were rightfully unsettled by the fact that hardly any ships entering their ports were inspected for chemical, biological or nuclear elements, I received instantaneous responses along the lines of Shut up, moonbat. You know nothing. It isn't even possible to monitor all the tankers. ...generally followed by a torrent of links and numbers proving it was impossible, therefore (apparently) irrelevant. It was pretty shocking, as I'd never associated the right with so much apathy about a matter they claim to be the world's master on - US National Security.

I've been shocked by the right wing's acquiescence to imperial executive power, by their failure to believe in America's ability to innnovate and solve problems, and - most of all - by their lack of interest in holding this administration accountable in any degree for any transgression. They excuse it because they see themselves as soldiers in the army against ISLAMOFASCISM, as if printing that word (followed by streams of insults to lefties /socialist /commie /Marxists) exempted them from ever having to understand whether or not anyone is actually fighting that fight in a way that makes real sense.

If we're going to SOLVE any of our problems as a country, there has to be discussion. Yet any discussion on any topic, from energy to immigration to national security to the economy, is immediately immobilized by the fact that more than hating any outside enemy, each side now more fervently hates each other .

Thanks, Mr. Uniter-not-Divider, for being so much more interested in your political capital than in the patriotic capital you had in such abundance after 9/11. That's leadership for you.

Tom Maguire

From Joe M:

Furthermore Greenwald is asserting to his readers, by making that "characteristically substantive" jibe, that JOM was not making a substantive rebuttal to Shuster, and only an ad hominem one, when in fact of course JOM *was*, as Greenwald knew, providing a substantive, detailed analysis as to why he wasn't going to take Shuster at his word.

Based on my traffic stats, not many of Greenwald's readers are making the trek over to see for themselves. So much for the "Sheltered From Reality" community.

Anyway, I may try to smite back by highlighting this from Greenwald:

MSNBC reporter David Schuster reported yesterday that at the time the Bush administration disclosed her employment with the CIA, Valerie Plame was working on a project "tracking the proliferation of nuclear weapons material into Iran." Schuster also reported that intelligence sources of his claimed that her disclosure forced her to cease this work and that it disrupted and harmed the efforts of the United States to obtain intelligence relating to Iran's weapons activities.

For obvious reasons, these facts, if true, reflect very poorly on the administration...

...I honestly don't know how much impact the disclosure of Plame's CIA employment had on our intelligence efforts, if any. And neither do Bush defenders. But they don't care if it did or didn't.

He doesn't know, but he knows that the folks who venture an opinion contrary to Shuster are wrong (well, also angry, irrational, passive-aggressive, and the rest).

Can we ask him for a timetable on his evaluation of Shuster's credibility? (Or anyone here from the left can take that up).

Can he tell me why I should prefer Shuster to Woodward, Mitchell, Priest, and Pincus?

Can he reconcile the apparent gap between Ms. Plame's covert status and the dismal tradecraft protecting it?

Can he respond to Somerby's point that Shuster was quite vague about the extent of the damage?

Can he address the fact that disgruntled present and former intel agents, as quoted by Shuster, are thick on the ground - should we believe a report that may have originatedg from Ray McGovern and been seconded by Larry Johnson?

Does he have any timetable for reaching an opinion on this?

Bah.

Cecil Turner

I loved Greenwald's comment (a little ways down the thread):

Let me emphasize this again. I have no position on whether or not Shuster's story is true - particularly the part about the disclosure of Plame's identity harming our intelligence gathering efforts. I am not assuming that the Shuster story is true . . .[snip 2 paras] . . . It was about how Bush supporters automatically deny all facts which reflect poorly on the President.
So, in a mere three paragraphs, we've gone from an empty assertion (from an admittedly unreliable source) to a "fact"? Or is it merely an inapposite example? (And when did the burden of proof shift from the person making the positive assertion?) Spock would be quietly raising an eyebrow 'bout now, which I think is probably the best response.

We don't have to worry about you suffering a smart attack, HTB.

[Groan.] I'm not sure what's worse . . . the fuzzy thinking from the pseudonymous, or the reflexive punnery from the regulars.

markg8

AB

"As one who is regularly subject to your abuse here, and who has been consistently astonished at the deaf ears of the Bush-loving holdouts, it doesn't surprise me to see how cleanly you all managed to miss Greenwald's main thrust".

My God a whinge and an insult all in one sentence

"He did it first with the execrable Swifties, never ever bothering to print the accounts of distinguished veterans who WERE THERE at various events and exposed the Swifty lies (And God, please don't let's revisit that revolting episode in smear politics - I know those were your glory days.)"

Thats it AB,get your smear in first then try and stifle any further discussion.

The rest is your standard boiler plate,

"I mentioned once that residents of port cities were rightfully unsettled by the fact that hardly any ships entering their ports were inspected for chemical, biological or nuclear elements,"
If they get into port it is too late,that is why checking is done on embarkation.
Then off you go with your standard left wing knocking copy,finishing up with your little signature anti-Bush flourish.

Do you know why you get no respect AB? It is because you are so insultingly transparent

sad

Drudge just posted that Porter Goss is resigning.

larwyn

cnn & fnc confirms,

statement upcomming

NOW ON

The Unbeliever

As one who is regularly subject to your abuse here...

In the spirit of healing the woeful partisan divide, I'll offer this advice: logic and rational arguments do not tend to invite abuse. But over-reliance on stereotypes, endless ad hominems, and automatic dismissals of anyone who disagrees with you often receive the same in return.

Examine your results set, and rethink what you present to the board if you desire to avoid "regular abuse".

AB

Not looking for respect here, mark. I understand the psychology intimately by this point, and realize that's impossible. However, unlike you, I DO read all around the web, I digest rightwing opinion and justifications, I engage in discussion as best I can. I'm not as thinskinned as the average rightwing blogger, who apparently - even on his safe, protected home turf, where he knows all his buddies have his back - can't bear to confront an oppositional viewpoint and must reflexively attack. (Another curiousity about the "tough" rightwing - the tenderness and fragility of their egos, even shielded by Internet anonymity. It's been an education coming here, let me tell you.)

AB

Unbeliever, to that all I can say is Physician, heal thyself. You are definitely no example to follow.

AB

Goss resigning? Very interesting. Wonder if the suspicions of him being one of the members of Cunningham's prostitution ring are true then...Or if it's just the incompetence he admitted to even before his appointment just finally had to be acknowledged.

markg8

"It's been an education coming here, let me tell you.)

Obviously not enough of one.

Lew Clark

Throughout this whole thing I have wondered why her supporters didn't address "Valerie's job". The Larry Johnson, VIPs, Joe Wilson cabal. Since she was already “outed”, she could no longer be covert. The damage was already done! So why didn't they publish, in detail (knowing they don't give a damn about national security and state secrets) what she was involved in for the last few years. What super secret spying she was doing, and how damaging her exposure was. That would give such support to their trial by media, and would bolster Fitzgerald's case based on "damage to national security". The reason it didn't happen, I believe, is they didn't want to publish how unimportant her job really was. And if they made something up, there would be a push back from Goss, etc. that it was a lie.
So now, in desperation, because they're losing, they divulged what her "desk job" at Langley really entailed, and are trying to twist it into something really big (kind of like, she worked for CIA so she must be covert, replaced by she worked in a division that employees some covert agents, so I bet she was covert, both of which they have had to abandon). She had no background or education about Iran. She really had no background in WMDs. It was just a place to park an agent ( who lost her covert status in the early nineties)until she got eligible for retirement. There are "experts" working on Iran. Iranian citizens that fled after the Shah was overthrown. They know the country, the culture, the language. Those are the valuable ones. There are also individuals that that have been "watching" Iran for their entire career. Those are the valuable ones. They are probably happy Val is not taking up space and sending her idiot husband on junkets.
And they call us the "brainwashed drones". As long as they push the "They outed Valerie and America spiraled into chaos" meme, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I think we know who marches to the drummer with mindless devotion, and it ain't us!

sad

Speculation revolves around turf issues with Negroponte

Seixon

Thanks for linking me Tom. Greenwald bugs the hell out of me, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone listens to the guy.

Although I'm surprised that my post on Rumsfeld isn't picking up more steam. You'd think that showing that Rumsfeld wasn't lying back in March 2003 would interest some.

Very strange that Goss is resigning... perhaps he was implicated in the Cunningham prostitute game after all? Either that or the Bush White House wanted to clean up any allegations that they had a partisan stooge running the CIA. One thing's for sure, Larry Johnson is jumping for joy today.

clarice

It will be interesting to see who will replace him and how that person can make it thru the shark and VIPers infested Senate.

Hey--Make it Bolton!

Tom Maguire

My God a whinge and an insult all in one sentence..

I hate to break it to AB/Katrina/JayDee, but the Most Tedious Commenter" this week went to Mario G Nitrini 111.

But next week we start again, and I am gloomily resigned to AB et al's presence.

Lew Clark

Come on Tom. We need a new thread on the Goss resignation.

sad

Clarice

That would be fun!!

windansea

Ballon Juice takes a shot at TM as well

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=6978#comments

Sara (Squiggler)

"He did it first with the execrable Swifties, never ever bothering to print the accounts of distinguished veterans who WERE THERE at various events and exposed the Swifty lies

Now you've managed to p!ss me off. My husband reported to me in January 1969 about the cowardly LT of Swift Boat fame. You see he WAS THERE and he WAS one of those decorated and distinguished VETS and he had no reason to lie in 1969 or in 2004. We were divorced after 32 years in 2002, but came together again to support the Swift Boaters because they were and continue to tell the truth. John Kerry was a coward in 1968 and he was a slimeball in 1971 with his "Winter Soldiers" and he is an even bigger slimeball today.

We lived the nightmare he and his unwashed cowardly anti-war group foisted on this country. He should be in federal prison for treason and for behavior unbecoming an officer, and for perjury and for just breathing the same air as honorable and distinguished veterans.

larwyn

Stanfield Turner, Carter's CIA director IIRC.

ENVY!!!!

In a typical small mind - Goss retired because he was passed over.

He is taking his ball and going home to .........book deals? 60 minutes segments ......SMALL MINDS WANT IT TO BE.

This flows into Seixions post and
this:VITAL READ Generals/Rumsfeld explained...so elegantly and sensibly
Another Perspective Rumsfeld and the Generals


Lifson recommended this. It's the best I have read to date:
What the Powell Doctrine really means and what the revolting Generals are saying and standing for.
"If the Army didn't want to do something--as in the Balkans in the 1990s--it would simply overstate the force requirements: "The answer is 350,000 soldiers. What's the question?"
Elegantly and sensibly explained, the Generals,
the Powell Doctrine and the Sainted Gen Skinsecki
look rather small.
Thomas Lifson recommends "A must-read from Lawrence Henry".
Don't miss this one.

larwyn

Bob Barr backed up Turner on CNN and added the Cunningham connection.

DANA PRIEST was the go to on MSNBC!
AND I MISSED IT!

MSNBC also going with Goss's downsizing -----the Envious like to project!!

Foo Bar

More from that "traitor" Dana Priest in yesterday's chat:


Valley Forge, Pa.: Hi Dana,

Thanks for doing these chats.

Now we are reading that Valerie Plame was involved with tracking nuclear proliferation/capabilities in Iran. Isn't this old news? (I seem to remember reading this same thing quite a while ago in the MSM - I don't generally read blogs)

From what you hear, was Ms. Plame working on Iran, how important was she to the tracking efforts, and how much has her "outing" really set us back?

Dana Priest: It was reported before that she worked on proliferation issues for the CIA. The leap in this new round of information is that her outing significantly impacted our current intel on Iran. I don't buy it. First, no one person who quit clandestine work four years ago is going to make that big of a dent in current knowledge. But also, nothing like this came up at the time of her outing and I believe it would have. Think we need some actual details. At present it just doesn't smell right.

I look forward to being dismissed once again as hopelessly closeminded in future JustOneMinute debates.

In general, it seems to me the WaPo online chats with reporters are a bit underutilized as raw material for bloggers, particularly bloggers interested in criticism of the mainstream media.

PeterUK

Tom,
Just institute the draft and these boys be gone.

noah

It was widely reported that Kerry backed away from claiming that his first purple heart was the result of enemy fire...but I could not find an on the record confirmation. Why? Because Kerry chose the cowardly way of responding...that is by off-the-record deniable background assertions or by transparently partisan surrogates.

And BTW why has he still not released his military records?

larwyn

MSNBC think this is time for Bush to appoint a DEM to position!!!

WE NEED MORE FOXES!

Jake - but not the one

Oh, and Tom, you can add Porter Goss' resignation to things I like to hear you talk about.

Jake

sad

I'm predicting the left will call for Fitz to be the replacement for Porter Goss.

larwyn

MacRanger at http://macsmind.blogspot.com/
writes on Goss:

Friday, May 05, 2006
Mission Accomplished

No matter what you hear, Goss came, he saw, he conquered. This isn't a "staff change", it has nothing to do with Rove. It was understood when he came in what he was coming in for. He did what he came to do.

He swept, now others will collect the dust.

If the rogues thought Goss was a ball buster, they haven't seen anything yet, as the CIA will most likely now come directly under the DNI, John Negroponte.

Let the fun begin.

windansea

hmmm...no replacement ready to go...this looks like maybe because of his deputy being invovlved with hookergate...or maybe he just got tired...I heard it took him 5 hours a day just to prepare for daily brief to the Prez

Goss was also cleaning house vigorously..10-12 top officials have resigned or been fired since he took over

larwyn

GOSS for THE SENATE!!!!

Republicans really do not want Katherine Harris to be the challenger to Nelson in FLORIDA!

Now wouldn't that be interesting.!

Sara (Squiggler)

I have no other reason to think this other than maybe women's intuition or some such, but I would not be surprised to learn that Valerie was outed or an excuse was found to out her to get rid of her by the CIA because of her descent into depression. PPD can be very debilitating and apparently was for her enough to get involved with PPD support groups. The CIA does not look kindly on any mental disorders, it is far too dangerous to have spys running around on anti-depressants or prone to irrational behavior. Something in my gut tells me that Plame's leaving the CIA has absolutely nothing to do with leaking or outing and everything to do with her psych eval.

I'm sure there are those here who have experienced PPD, either themselves or a friend or family member up close. I saw it with a cousin about the same time as that woman in Texas who killed her five children. We had a period of months where we kept her under 24 hour surveillance because her behavior was so irrational and we truly thought her newborn was at risk. Once she recovered, she became a wonderful mother, but that 8 or 9 mo. period, she was a danger to both herself and her newborn child, and even her husband felt at risk sometimes.

I'd like to hear from any ex-spy types who might know what unfavorable psych. evals. can/could do to a career.

PeterUK

This is obviously a job for Valerie Plame,she can sweep to power followed by her henchusband

sad

Peter

It won't pay nearly as well as the book deal.

PeterUK

Squiggler,
And this one was married to Joe.

Dwilkers

Oh gawd, Goss is resigning? I cannot imagine what a good reason for that might be, especially coming on the heels of the McCarthy business.

And who the heck are they going to get to replace him?

/sigh

larwyn

I'd like to see James Woolsey come back!

Those pointed ears and balding head are wonderful and fit his persona exactly.

I love to see/hear that man speak and to read his op eds.

He would be all ready for - GOD FORBID - the return of the Clintons!

clarice

Take your choice on reasons:http://hotair.com/archives/top-picks/2006/05/05/breaking-porter-goss-resigns-as-dci/

Gary Maxwell

Just saw Kristol droning on about Porter Goss. He actually got Richard Armitage out his mouth as a potential replacement. The mind boggles.

larwyn

Russert reporting that they have been
interviewing candidates for the job
for weeks now!

So this was not a surprise as the LSM was promoting.

"The Crawford Kid" letting the crazies do there thing - Rand Beers was on Fox, Dana Priest, Stanfield turner on CNN etc etc.

Nora just reported that "intelligence source" said that Negroponte asked Goss to step down.

General Hayden of the NSA interested in the job!

I like him too!

Hit The Bid

PeterUK,
please stop flirting with me to such an embarassing extent:
"Am I right?" No as usual the same old illogical detritus that rattles about your brain after you have been given the day's talking point."

I am stright and married and I just think that the people here on Just One Minute are as tired of it as I am...thanks.

sad

It's all about deflecting attention from Rove's momentary "frogmarching." snark

Hit The Bid

I hear that the old Neggr ask for his resignation as well. Bolton wanted a clean break from some scandals bubbling up wuith a mind to 2006. (well my source anyways).

Hit The Bid

Oh and have fun with this...Kennedy to go into REHAB!!! From Drudge

Gary Maxwell

I hear that the old Neggr ask for his resignation as well.

Well that pretty well nails it in my mind.

A Republican admin but a moonbat has connection. Whose your connection, Larry fing Johnson?

larwyn

BOO HOO - REP KENNEDY GOING TO REHAB.

let's see how they treat this compared to Rush.

We have 4 traffic citations and a
cover-up.

We have witnesses to his drinking that night.

Dana threw in his mother and that it is "genetic".

Rush's pain was evil.

Kennedys' lies, drunkeness and misuse of power are "genetic" - yes they are!

Thanks Dana Bash - CNN.

Gary Maxwell

Drudge say which Kennedy? Or is it a family plan?

Hit The Bid

WHats with the disrespect? I been in DC for many years. What jealous you don't have any sources at all?

Jeff

Russert reporting that they have been
interviewing candidates for the job
for weeks now!

Yeah, and there are just so many great candidates that they couldn't settle on one before surprising everyone with the announcement of Goss' resignation. Yeah, that explains it.

Right now what you are seeing (Russert, O'Donnell) is the White House scrambling to put out the word after the fact that this was actually no big deal, no big surprise. By tomorrow morning we will have a clearer sense of what actually happened. But if this was not a sudden development, there's just no way the Bush administration would have sprung it as such a surprise. There's no benefit from doing so, the way there is with a positive development for them, like, say, a new SC nominee. In fact, it's all bad.

Chants

Byron York on Plame:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjI1MD
A4YzhhMTlkYjBiMGJkYTRmM2QzMDFhYTBiYmY=

PeterUK

Hit the Bid,
Then why do you write like a woman,is it an affectation,or do you jusat help them out when they are busy?
Seriously though,you didn't have an answer did you? That is why you came up with such a pathetic answer.

larwyn

BLAME AMBIEN!

Now go back to his statement last night - Kennedy said he was RX'd

AMBIEN, SOME TIME AGO

Coincidence that just last weeks stories on cable nets regarding the sleep walking, eating and driving on AMBIEN.

IIRC effects were in people long term users - like to see his RX bottle from

"some time ago"

Just remember what the S.O.B'S did to RUSH!

Now the special Kennedy Kid gets to go to the MAYO CLINIC!

FNC's Major Garret gives it the one-two. "All this could have and should have been said yesterday.........leaders of the Dem party stepped in ......"

PeterUK

"Oh and have fun with this...Kennedy to go into REHAB!!! From Drudge"

Won't make any difference,he'll still come out a Kennedy.

Jim E.

Hey dudes,

Here's a story you'll love (seriously, no snark):

From Byron YOrk at the corner:
Lewis Libby defense lawyer Theodore Wells told a federal judge a short time ago that the Libby defense team has located “five witnesses who will say under oath that Mr. [Joseph] Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA.”

Chants

More from YorK:

Wells said he expects that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will call Wilson himself to the stand to rebut those accusations.

Today's hearing concerning what evidence Fitzgerald is required to turn over to the Libby defense team turned into an extended discussion of whether jurors will be allowed to assess Joseph Wilson's credibility vs. that of the administration as it concerns the reasons the U.S. went to war in Iraq. Prosecutor Fitzgerald told the court, "We don't want to try the war. The courtroom is not a reasonable place to try the war. Judge Reggie Walton seemed to agree, saying, "I'm not going to let this case end up being a judicial examination of the legitimacy of the war."

In the hearing, prosecutor Fitzgerald suggested that he would offer the Libby defense team some proof that Valerie Plame Wilson's status at the CIA was classified. But as he had said earlier, Fitzgerald again said, "We will not offer any proof of actual damages" caused by the revelation of Plame's identity, although Fitzgerald said "the issue of potential damage will come up several times" in the trial.

PeterUK

"I am stright and married and I just think that the people here on Just One Minute are as tired of it as I am...thanks."

Hit the Bin,why are you tired of being straight and married? The rest of us feel your pain,but essentially,this is something you will have to work through yourself.Try a different eyeshadow and some new shoes.

Gary Maxwell

Maybe your source is Larry Johnson's butt buddy Ray McGovern. His gig heckling Rumsfeld is over so he has the time to chat idly with a college sophomore.

Semanticleo

Have to at least give TM credit for doing the heavy lifting of the legal mazes GR is loathe
to risk taking a postion on.

I suggest,as TM as well as GR seems to have
a problem with the style, rather than substance of Greenwald's posts, that it might
be a fair match to liveblog the TM/GR legal
mastery pitted against GG You know, a real time debate to see just who is full of shit.

I have failed to roust the tenured professor
from his lofty perch on this subject. Perhaps the respectful relationship between
you two could be bolstered by rising to
the challenge. Let's see just how anxious
GR will be join your team. Two against
one. How about it boys?

Hit The Bid

Peter and Gary are definately the two worst bloggers on this site...juvenile, anti-gay, lazy and about as funny as Colbert.

Move on......org

Hit The Bid

PS i am the age Christ was when he died...33

Gary Maxwell

Kinda old to be sophomore still. Maybe juvenile takes one to know one?

Gary Maxwell

Peter

HTB does not like us! You offended? Me? Yawn.

Davebo

Geez Tom, you couldn't be bothered to offer your opinion on it so why should I? At least I offered more than two links and nine words.

And of course, noted that you aren't exactly a disinterested party in this dialogue which might have been a useful additional ten or twelve words in the post.

PeterUK

You just lost Hit the Bid.I'm not anti-gay,if you feel uncomfortable in your body,I wouldn't dream of criticising you..but do something about your brain,it is embarrassing you.

PeterUK

"PS i am the age Christ was when he died...33"

Yes he was an example to us all.

Davebo

Gary Maxwell

You might want to read Paul Pillar's piece in that rabidly partisan magazine Foreign Affairs (March/April 2006).

Going on and on about how the CIA is just a bunch of moonbat dems is getting a little tired.

Especially considering Goss's last second decision to "spend more time with his family" today.

Of course I guess you could offer up the obvious excuse. Those damned librul CIA agents tricked poor Porter into that orgy!

PeterUK

Gary,I would be mortified if he did...they mature a lot later nowadays do they not?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame