Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Armitage Speaks! | Main | 'Hubris' - Interesting Odds And Ends »

September 08, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d834e4dc5069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Whose Got 'Hubris'? Not The Humble (And Puzzled) Chris Matthews:

Comments

clarice

Heh! Maybe we can print the story out in big crayons on lined paper for Chris or for his buddy David Shuster to read to him if even that is too hard.

Do you suppose his claim that Russert never told him about the Libby conversation is more credible than Mitchell's claim she never talked to Russert about the Wilson/Plame connection?Or is MSNBC so dysfunctional the staff needs a course in communication skills?

paulv

poor, poor Chrissy getting drilled on cross. too complicated for poor boy.
I thought that getting slamed for being bigot could make poor dear forget the rest of conservation

ed in texas

They've arrived at "I don't want to talk about it" mode, which is usually followed by a discussion about the weather and a hearty "how 'bout them Dodgers"...(Redskins/Yankees/whatever)

cathyf
Libby's jag is also something you wouldn't forget, or make up, which would make Russert's testimony extremely convincing at trial.
Exactly the opposite. If Libby was on a tear/jag/rant, then the part(s) of the conversation that were NOT the tear/jag/rant would be all the more forgettable. Which means that Russert's testimony is impeachable even without questioning his credibility -- "of course Mr. Russert is being totally honest with us, it's just that he clean forgot this piece of trivia that was an unimportant (to him) little detail because all of his attention was consumed with the emotionally fraught wild accusations that Libby was attacking him with."

In other words, after remembering the rant, and remembering the sick feeling of being attacked, he didn't have enough brain cells left over to remember some silly little thing about Joe Wilson's wife.

SteveMG

Well, one can certainly sympathize with Matthews here.

After all, who wants to take on all that pro-Cheney press that's out there ready to pounce on any criticism of their man? It'll take a bold man, a big man, a strong man to do so.

Boy, sometimes I think the smart thing to do is to forget about keeping up on this nonsense, just move to Kazakhstan and devote one's life to raising goats.

SMG

windansea

I don't see why it's the anti semite deal that Matthews is afarid of...he stopped talking about Plame after Armitage was outed.

Sue

I don't understand. The program that Chris Matthews thinks sparked the phone call to Russert was about Wilson, VP, behest, twisted intelligence.

Jane

That would explain Matthew's 1-man jihad on behalf of Joe Wilson.

Sue

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/012922.html>talkeft was the first place I found reference to the show.

clarice

Let me suggest if that were the complaint, NBC would not want that made public. With MSNBC's ratings in the tank, I do not think this is the kind of image they are looking for.

topsecretk9

First of all, don't you think that Matthew's and Wilson were seen wining and dining around town BEFORE Wilson "manned up" /sarcasm off and put the pencil in hand in the NYT's?

And then don't you think Matthew's was going around off-air, spitting "the neo-cons are coming, the neo-cons are coming" after his Valerie and Joe whispered ear?

Wilson/Val was not hard to "track down", Democracy Now put THIS up after his OP-ED, BEFORE Novak's article, linking to the Epic speech...(where Wilson mentions "NEO_CON" quite a bit AND listed his wife as Plame that has since been airbrushed)

[Includes statements: 19:46: "The real agenda in all this, of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum which was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90s, which was called 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the Realm'. And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, or some of these governments, that are antagonistic to Israel, then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions on the Palestinian people. . .But that is the real agenda. You can put weapons of mass destruction out there, you can put terrorism out there, you can put liberation out there. Weapons of mass destruction got hard-headed realists on board, through a bunch of lies. . ."

...
13:33: In response to the question about the geopolitical agenda behind the Iraq war, Wilson replies, "On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there's a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon's life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we've had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it's a terribly flawed strategy."


topsecretk9

typing too fast and not checking, sorry for the typos...meant to say "NEO_CON" storyline quite a bit.

JM Hanes

Matthews has always seen Bush is a politically gifted idiot being exploited by Cheney & the neocon cabal. He's thought that Iraq was an unAmerican war from the very beginning, & he blames Cheney for manipulating the hapless President into it. When Wilson showed up, it was a match made in heaven.

JM Hanes

typing too fast here, too, tops!

**as a politically gifted idiot**

SteveMG

He's thought that Iraq was an unAmerican war from the very beginning, & he blames Cheney for manipulating the hapless President into it

If you recall, he believed in much of the same idea back in the Gulf War in 1989/1990. At that time he was against removing Saddam from Iraq using force and often warned that the real danger lay in the Pentagon and the hawks, read Cheney.

Substitute "neocon" for hawks and you've got the same argument.

It appears that his idea of realism in foreign policy is to do nothing that could possibly destabilize a region. In that case, one could never support military action since there will always be a destabilizing effect of the use of force. Cf., Afghanistan was certainly more "stable" under the Taliban than it is now.

I'm not sure what Saddam Hussein had to do to incur the anger of Matthews. Invade Chevy Chase, Maryland? Maybe not; that would mess up the Beltway traffic too much.

SMG

Patton

Chris Mathews says: ""Well, the story's just gotten so complicated. I mean, it's just such a mess. """

What that means is Mathews and Shuster have told so many huge lies, that they simply can't explain it all away with a Armitage did it line. Mathews is basically saying, 'Look, the truth just won't work on this story, we have to go beyond the truth to get to the real story'.

Now would be a good time for Mathews to discover those Bush/Cheney, 'get Wilsons Wife' memos from a guy in Texas who got them from a girl at a rodeo.

SteveMG

The latest, and possibly the greatest, from Matthews (this evening):

MATTHEWS: Do you think [Richard Armitage] might have been used by people like Scooter? They put it in front of him knowing he's a blabbermouth?

So, the conspiracy was to use Armitage the gossip to put forward the name.

Of course, there's zero evidence of this.

Good grief. Just friggin' make it up.

SMG

clarice

Of course, it is ironic but Armitage was one of the signers of the PNAC statement to which Wilson was referring.

owl

Toot Toot.....been telling ya all the time it was going to come back to the MSNBC crew and head honcho Matthews.

You had to have been watching (religiously) or....I watched so you did not have to. And yep...all those evil emails they received daily came from me.

Shez

This is why, after watching Hardball for years, several months ago, I finally just quit watching.
Of course Matthews is biased, we all are. He didn't like Clinton and had the guts to be one of the few media types who was honest about what was going on. So agree or disagree, I've always liked Matthews for his enthusiam and for the debate. But since the Iraq war started, he has gotten ridiculous. I mean, I don't mind listening to the rants against it, but night after night, the same stories. The Plame story was a classic example (but one of many). It is the heighth of hypocracy that he won't now talk about it.

topsecretk9

This just makes me C R A Z Y, ESPECIALLY coming from an liberal who subscribes to the flipping point I have made over and over, via SLATE

But liberal Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly's Political Animal thinks it's not quite all-over-but-the-shouting-for-forgiveness: "I know I'm flogging this horse over and over, but where did the name 'Plame' come from? The proposition that Novak looked it up in Who's Who and decided to use her maiden name just for kicks has never struck me as plausible. What's more, we also know that someone gave the name 'Plame' to Judith Miller, though she now pretends not to know who she got it from."

Under the Epic Forumn, CPSAG and ARAB Institute BIO and Who's Who, WIlson...WILSON listed his wife's name as "PLAME", obviously her maiden name

What ERA do we live in? Yep, the era of liberated bra burners appalled at the thought of submissively accepting their husbands last name. Hell I know of a few neutered dudes who've taken their WIVES last name.


Novak, is old-school and acutely aware of the nuances of chauvinistically assuming the woman took her husbands name SINCE WILSON took the added step to list her as "Plame" ...so even with the distinction of "former" Novak is aware that many women USE their maiden name for their profession.

- and if she even had a droplet of concern for he anonymity, let alone her careful protection of her precious cover, she'd request her name listed only as "Valerie" or NOT at all. (as in Wilson lives in DC with his wife and 2 children"

To make this the central "mystery" and "the heart of something more to the story" is just L A M E.

topsecretk9

This just makes me C R A Z Y, ESPECIALLY coming from an liberal who subscribes to the flipping point I have made over and over, via SLATE

But liberal Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly's Political Animal thinks it's not quite all-over-but-the-shouting-for-forgiveness: "I know I'm flogging this horse over and over, but where did the name 'Plame' come from? The proposition that Novak looked it up in Who's Who and decided to use her maiden name just for kicks has never struck me as plausible. What's more, we also know that someone gave the name 'Plame' to Judith Miller, though she now pretends not to know who she got it from."

Under the Epic Forumn, CPSAG and ARAB Institute BIO and Who's Who, WIlson...WILSON listed his wife's name as "PLAME", obviously her maiden name

What ERA do we live in? Yep, the era of liberated bra burners appalled at the thought of submissively accepting their husbands last name. Hell I know of a few neutered dudes who've taken their WIVES last name.


Novak, is old-school and acutely aware of the nuances of chauvinistically assuming the woman took her husbands name SINCE WILSON took the added step to list her as "Plame" ...so even with the distinction of "former" Novak is aware that many women USE their maiden name for their profession.

- and if she even had a droplet of concern for he anonymity, let alone her careful protection of her precious cover, she'd request her name listed only as "Valerie" or NOT at all. (as in Wilson lives in DC with his wife and 2 children"

To make this the central "mystery" and "the heart of something more to the story" is just L A M E.

topsecretk9

2ce, for good measure.

clarice

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm Armitage was a signatory to the 1998 *shudder* PNAC letter urging Clinton to work for regime change in Iraq.

owl

They may claim that Libby used them deliberately but the very same claim could be made against MSNBC.......easily.

Matthews sounded anti-semetic with his constant sneering of Perle,Feith, Wolfowitz, neocons, cabals, etc. I never had a doubt that Libby was ranting over this.

Shez....I no longer watch either. This finished them up and it should have since the MSNBC crew is what has blown this thing off the walls. Matthews just went round the bend over the war. But Fitz should have had better judgement.......or be forced to watch 3 solid years of Hardball. Let him watch all the shows and then come to the same conclusion....no way.

Sue

Saddam Hussein has told interrogators since his capture in December 2003 that his government had not cooperated with Mr. bin Laden.

How cool is this? Saddam Hussein said it didn't happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/09intelcnd.html?hp&ex=1157774400&en=0f631262baeef300&ei=5094&partner=homepage>NYTs

Sara (Squiggler)

Let me suggest if that were the complaint, NBC would not want that made public. With MSNBC's ratings in the tank, I do not think this is the kind of image they are looking for.

As much as I dislike disagreeing with Clarice, I have to on this one. NBC is very aware that both Matthews and Russert are anti-semitic uber Catholics and that their only appeal and viewership comes from that wing of the democratic party. A wing that comprises a huge part of the democratic party of racists, sexists, and antisemites.

Matthews, in particular, thinks all minorities are too dumb to think for themselves and need people like him and his ilk to guide them thru life. A tactic that has been quite effective for many years but is finally being seen for what it is. They've given up on African-Americans for the most part and turned their attention to Hispanics, but then they have to deal with how the lowliest and most ignorant uneducated and unable people on earth (their characterization), the Semites, can possibly be able to pull off huge and complicated plots. Afterall, if that pesky Arab street would only let people like him help them out of their misery everything would be hunky dory. Class warfare is the way Chris Matthews sees life. There are always those too stupid and untalented to exist and those who must step in as the guides to protect these same from those who think that Matthews and his crowd are the real problem and not the solution. Matthews hates Israel because Israel proves him wrong. All one needs do is compare what Israel did compared to what the Palestinians did and where they stand today from 1947 onward. Everytime self-determination triumphs over the nanny state mentality, Matthews and Russert look like fools.

Sue

It's kind of weird. Do a google news search on Plame. You don't get much on Plame's employment status. What was supposed to be a block buster revelation, turned out to be ignored. You think the press knows the truth and isn't going to get caught again?

Sara (Squiggler)

Sue, Plame's employment status has never ever been the issue, that was the red herring. This has always been all about Joe Wilson's ego. He was pissed that his so-called verbal report was never codified into writing to become the definitive word on Iraq.

Sara (Squiggler)

And ... Wilson blamed Cheney for not accepting his report when he should have been laying the blame alot closer to home ... like in the bed (or backseat) next to him.

MayBee

Do you remember when David Brooks wrote the article about people using the term "neo-con", where "neo" means "new" and "con" means "jewish".

Back when the term first started being used a lot, Matthews was right on it. To me, the "neo" smacked of "neo Nazi". We've had this discussion before.

BUT....

Almost everyone that has been a vocal part of the anti-Cheney cabal has also claimed the Iraq war was done for Lukid. Wilson has. Wilkerson has. Cindy Sheehan and her backers. They all point at Israel. I don't think Libby was too far off base to wonder about Wilson and Matthew's promotion of him.

I just wish the This is for Lukid! groups would stop the whisper campaign and come out and say it.

Verner

Sue: What was supposed to be a block buster revelation, turned out to be ignored. You think the press knows the truth and isn't going to get caught again?

That's my guess. I looked back at some of the articles printed at the time, and old hands at the CIA seemed to think that a) NOCs don't run business out of headquarters and b)it would be insanity for a clandestine network to be run by a NOC agent under her own name. I'll just add, her own name that is printed in the Who's Who and in the FEC report as a contributor to the democrat party using her cover company. Then there's the bit I put in the thread above concerning Armitage, Novak and the actions of the CIA concerning "naming" her and her employment. One error you could see--but two? And at such a high level.

My thoughts, she was a WMD manager whose status/job was classified. She traveled to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence as an analyst--which means to me that they knew where she worked.

And think of it this way as well. The Cubans and Soviets have known who she is since 1996. How hard do you think it has been for them to keep track of her? She drives to Langly every morning, she's married to Joe, they're on the DC FP cocktail circuit (where she met Joe), she's in Who'e Who--all in her own name. AND she publishes the name of her cover company in the public record. I mean, to be any less covert, she'd have to walk down Pennsylvania Ave naked. And we still do not know how many friends/journalists the Wilsons told themselves--remember Well's 5 witnesses. And Fitz didn't even care to ask.

And of course, the biggie--Fitz didn't indict anyone.

I think Corn is trying to pump up this covert/covered business for public consumption, and the people who know are avoiding the trap.

Tom Maguire

After all, who wants to take on all that pro-Cheney press that's out there ready to pounce on any criticism of their man? It'll take a bold man, a big man, a strong man to do so.

Courage, Chris!

You don't get much on Plame's employment status. What was supposed to be a block buster revelation, turned out to be ignored. You think the press knows the truth and isn't going to get caught again?

Interesting point - I don't know if they know "the truth", but they sure did ignore that.

I could see a "don't get burned again" thing. Just for myself, David Corn talking to Val's CIA friends about how important she was just isn't that credible.

Sue

O/T:

http://www.floppingaces.net/>Check out Flopping Aces on the Senate report

Sue

They ignored it. Hardly anything out there except for blogs talking about it. Doesn't bode well for book sales. And kind of makes EW's project look like a day late and a dollar short. People are over Plame, or so it would seem.

Sara (Squiggler)

Justin Levine is one who has seen an advance copy of "The Path to 9/11":

[posted by Justin Levine]

Instapundit nails it on the head today. Read his post, along with all the links he provides.

Like him, I most certainly do not blame the Clinton administration for 9/11. I do blame them for constantly trying to distort history by claiming to have been focused like a laser beam on terror throughout their tenure, and then implying that everything was going swimmingly in the anti-terror effort until Bush came into power. That is an out-and-out lie - and one that the “Path To 9/11″ powerfully dispels.

But you know who I think comes across as the worst in this film? [Not including the terrorists themselves obviously.] It actually isn’t anyone in the Clinton cabinet. It is

Barbara Bodine - the U.S. Ambassador to Yemen who is portrayed in part 2 of the film as essentially shutting down the FBI’s investigation into the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

The Weekly Standard provides some crucial background here. It shows that there are two sides to every story, but that the filmmakers had enough justification for choosing to portray one side over the other.

Part of the brilliance of ‘The Path To 9/11′ is that it shows how each different jurisdiction of power can work against one another. People normally don’t think of Third World Ambassadors as having a whole lot of power over institutions such as the FBI or the CIA. This film might change your thinking on that. When Third World Ambassadors also happen to have big egos (Joe Wilson anyone?), then the results can be even worse. And yet, Ambassador appointments to Third World countries isn’t usually given a whole lot of scrutiny in public debates.

topsecretk9

--Barbara Bodine - the U.S. Ambassador to Yemen who is portrayed in part 2 of the film as essentially shutting down the FBI’s investigation into the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.--

Bizarrely, Joseph Wilson and Marc Grossman's classmate at UCSB.

6 degrees of separation.

topsecretk9

Barbara Bodine '70- Former ambassador to Yemen
Barbara has recently been appointed to the UC Board of Regents where she will serve a two year term. Barbara has spent much of her long career working for the United States on Southwest Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. She was twice appointed to Bureau of Near East Affairs' Office of Arabian Peninsula Affairs, first as Country Officer for the Yemenis, then as Political-Military officer for the peninsula. She also served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Kuwait during the Iraqi invasion and occupation in 1990. In 1997, she was appointed by the President to be Ambassador to the Republic of Yemen.

http://www.ucsbalum.com/alum_dir_plus/notable/politics.html

PeterUK

"She traveled to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence as an analyst--which means to me that they knew where she worked.

And think of it this way as well. The Cubans and Soviets have known who she is since 1996. How hard do you think it has been for them to keep track of her? She drives to Langly every morning, she's married to Joe, they're on the DC FP cocktail circuit (where she met Joe), she's in Who'e Who--all in her own name. AND she publishes the name of her cover company in the public record"

Ah but,Verner,that was her cover,deep double,covered, occluded,covert,hidden in plain sight,clever eh?

Jane

NEW REPUBLIC Editor and Al Gore supporter, Marty Peretz joins Libby Legal Defense...

http://www.scooterlibby.com/

Verner

Yeah PUK, and her uber cover--no foreign intelligence agency in the world would have guessed that a NOC would be dumb enough to be married to a clown like Joe.

Hey TS9 good catch--so Barbie was in Kuwait when Joe was standing up to Saddam!

clarice

I saw that this morning, Jane. Good for Peretz!

Scott

I've been watching Matthews since he had gray hair, and I tend to agree with those who say the Iraq war unhinged him. When the initial push to Baghdad slowed down due a sandstorm, Matthews started invoking the magic word "quagmire." Honestly, for a while the man was trying to outdo Baghdad Bob. Then he had to publicly apologize, and I think that he's resented having to do that ever since, hence his willingness to harp on ever fragment of bad news coming out of Iraq and tendency to ignore or pooh-pooh any good news. I have serious doubts that he will ever apologize for his shameful behavior in the Wilson matter, but what I'm really wondering is whether anyone higher up at MSNBC will look back at what's happened and wonder why they indulged the likes of Matthews and Olberman on this matter for as long as they did.

Florence Schmieg

I heard Bodine speak at a forum at my university in the year following 9-11. She didn't strike me as someone who had a belief in democracy for any country in that region even then. Very patronizing about the people but affectionate towards them (like a puppy?). So I was really surprised when she initially was sent to be the State dept. rep in Baghdad early in the post-Saddam era there in 2003. Apparently she failed and was recalled (turf issues and different philosophy about the Iraqis from the provisional government). I might have predicted that from that first forum I heard.

NBC news keeps Matthews and Olberman because essentially they agree with them. Matthews has gone over the bend.

clarice

Maybe. Maybe the nutroots are their only niche and they feel they cannot expand it and are afraid to lose it.

Sara (Squiggler)

Maybe the nutroots are their only niche and they feel they cannot expand it and are afraid to lose it.

That's my take, Clarice.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

I'd flip it - Matthews has seen "real" polling data and knows that if he doesn't sit down and shut up, he and the nutroots are actually going to cost Dems seats.

Seven weeks to go and the Dems "grand strategy" is an absolute shambles. The Clinton panic over a silly docudrama is just one more indicator.

I wonder if the DoJ will indict Cold Cash next week to make a matched pair of him and Torricelli Jr.? It's simply amazing how quickly that climate of corruption acted in infecting Menendez. Pelosi and Dingy Harry came up with a real winner.

clarice

Heh! Rick. I hope whoever dreamed up the C of C is still front and center in their strategy braintrust.

Perhaps Chris has seen the polls. More likely he has been shamed into silence at last. If I had a program running opposite of him I'd run a montage of his Rove rants with the date on the bottom running across the creen. The ending would be the same idea but starring Shuster and the 24 hours and sealed v sealed.

When I hear he's removed and torn Munchausen's card from his rolodex I will consider him on the way to recovery.

clarice

About cold cash, I'm still waiting for the Courts to rule on when and whether the DoJ can see the records their subpoenaed and seized. They are late in ruling. I do not see how they can indict him without those records.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

I would think the videotape of him accepting a bribe would have some prosecutorial value. My take on the records is that they will implicate other Congresscritters - pure speculation - but I'm holding out some hope for the SoCal sister act.

Matthews is a totally shameless Dem shill - MSNBC would have fired his sorry butt long ago if he didn't have such strong party ties. I really do believe that someone has provided him with info that has his tummy just tied in knots. The nutroots are as scary to normal Americans as the orange hatted Deaniacs were to the Iowans. To know them is to run. Right into the great big elephant tent.

Tom Maguire

I have glanced through bots of the Hibris book, and a few details caught my eye:

(1) Isikoff/Corn are pretty clear that Armitage and Powell got the June 10 INR memo, which contradicts the circulation list and the dramatic TIME (Newsweek?) story about how the whole memo was re-addressed to Powell for his Africa trip (and a second memo with a new cover sheet was in fact prepared).

Maybe they aren't clear themselves as to who got it when, but Armitage's story requires that he got it before he talked to Woodward on June 13. I think that is fair enough - Grossman briefed Libby and I could see Armitage wanting to be dialed in in case Cheney called.

2. LOL - when Armitage needed a personal lawyer in 1989, he hired.. drumroll, please... I. Lewis Libby. (p. 242)

Add Armitage's signature on the PNAC letter calling for the liberation of Iraq, and what have you got?

3. The Vanity Fair article had a vague pronoun reference when it reported that Kritsof met for breakfast with Wilson and his wife in May 2003. (Whose wife? Ms. Kristof is also a journalist). But yes, Valerie was at the conference that weekend when Nick and Joe got together.

4. NO mention of Robert Grenier telling Libby about Ms. Plame in June; no appearance of Grenier in the index. C'mon, that is in the indictment for heaven's sake (Grenier is a Senior CIA official).

5. I will be available for autographs at a secure undisclosed location - John Maguire is a CIA covert operator and a star of the book (I first appear on p. 4. OK, no relation, but that won't be my story at cocktail parties).

6. The anti-semitism thing with Libby and Matthews ought to strike people as quite odd. (p. 267) Per this account, "It's always "Libby and Wolfowitz and Perle" said Libby, according to Russert. And, still per Russert, that was it - Russert listened to the "Matthews is an anti-semite" tirade and then called Neal Shapiro, his boss, to advise him of an incoming complaint.

I agree with the point that, although Russert will surely remember the meorable bit (tautology watch) he could easily forget his won useless and ineffectual spluttering.

7. File a Missing Person report for Andrea Mitchell.

8. The 1x2x6 story gets trashed. In brief - an editor added "before Novak's column ran" to clarify the prose, but had misinterpreted what reporter Mike Allen was trying to say.

The result:

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.

They do note that the following day the "senior administration official" was downgraded to an "administration aide", and tell us that the WaPo discussed running a correction but figured, why bother.

Javani

"They do note that the following day the "senior administration official" was downgraded to an "administration aide", and tell us that the WaPo discussed running a correction but figured, why bother."

Why bother? Sheesh.

Assuming Plame talked to them, did the authors ask her whether or not she thought Iraq had WMDs before the war? That would be some "hubris" if they didn't. A book that misses the most salient question.

We know Mr. Wilson said yes before, did they ask him?

clarice

Powell and Armitage may have received the 6/10 memo but it was redated and sent to them. Why? Or-- They may not have received it and Armitage learned it from someone else--say, Grossman.

They may have trashed the 1/2/6 story but it is clear to me that it was the lodestar of the investigation.

Do you get the idea that I think we are more puncitilious that I & C? Well, draw your own conclusions.

JM Hanes

Matthews has never struck me as anti-semitic, but mainly anti-war from way back (did his stint in the Peace Corps). He clearly bought the neo-con cabal, but he thought Cheney was the guy pulling the strings. The fact that Matthews was waaaay out of his depth on foreign policy became abundently clear immediately post 9/11. That's back when I still bothered yelling Geez-Get-A-Clue at the screen.:)

What irritated me most was that he had such a limited set of questions that he'd ask over and over, from one show to the next till he got the answer he was looking for from someone. Had a bunch of beating-your-wife type questions he'd demand a yes/no for, too. I hadn't seen the show in a couple of months, and when I happened to tune in again, there was precisely the same dissenting anti-Rumsfeld general and Matthews was asking him to run through precisely the same points he'd been making the last time -- almost had to prompt him, it was that weird.

I'll say this for him tough, I think he genuinely cares about the troops as a whole & as individuals. I suspect he doesn't just visit the wounded when he's on camera, and when he highlights the obstacles they face and the courage they show, he does at least that much in a really non-political way. I also don't think he's a hypocrite like so many others, I just think he's really unsophisticated and maybe none too bright.

CNJ

I recall some weeks/months ago Bob Novak telling that Bush knew the identity of the leaker and he should make it public .. or something to that effect.

What does he have to say about that now ?

Javani

Tom, Clarice:

Here's my list of the most important questions the authors didn't ask or didn't report the answers to:

1. Valerie, did you believe there were WMDs?

2. Joe, on one date did you begin advising the Kerry presidential campaign?

Of course I could be proven wrong...

Javani

"2. Joe, on one date did you begin advising the Kerry presidential campaign?"

Sorry. I meant on "what" date.

clarice

Who do you suppose their sources were.We know they didn't talk to Rove or Libby.
Was it Armitage? If so, when did they talk to him? He says he was just released to talk?

Let me guess--Powell and Wilson and Taft..Get my drift?

clarice

I do not watch Matthews. Never have. Don't intend to. But if I got a hot tip that this was the night he'd be carried out in a strait jacket, I'd watch. And from today's report, my guess is that day is not far off.

JM Hanes

Wow!

Missed Tom's update while I was off composing. Fascinatin' Maybe I'll spring for a souvenir copy myself.

JM Hanes

CNJ

Novak seriously backed away from that claim, soon after he made it, apologized for it if I recall correctly, and said he actually had no way of knowing, he just assumed someone (Armitage?) would have told him.

clarice

JMH, If you mean that he's not anti-semitic in the KKK sense, I agree. But PNAC and the pro-war faction are made up of people of all backgrounds. (Heck Armitage signed the 1998 paper endorsing regime change in Iraq) but they are never mentioned in these attacks.

Moreover, when people like Wilson, Sheehan, Wilkerson and Matthews continually attack the patriotism and loyalty of people like Feith and Perle and Libby and Wolfowitz--and they do by calling them Likudniks and contending that the only reason they were for war in Iraq was to protect Israeli interests--that is, they hurt American interests because their real interests are elsewhere--I consider that anti-semitism.

It has more than a Dreyfusian whiff to it.

Carried further, it means that any Jew in a foreign policy position who supports war anywhere in the Middle East has motives worth questioning--indeed, the logical conclusion, is that they should not hold those positions.
when I wrote about this, David Duke and his cronies attacked me. Just in case you think that is not the underlying theme.

clarice

Wilson also has been supported by Lyndon Larouche who views on the subject are ---ahem--less nuanced.

At the disgusting White House Correspondents dinner I recall someone reporter being surprised that Wilson was having a long, apparently warm chat with Lyndon.Goes to show you they didn't take a good look at the "whistle blower".

lurker

Who is Marty Peretz, Jane? Surprised that a Al Gore supporter joined the Libby Lewis team.

clarice

He's the owner of The New Republic, a liberal mag.

lurker

I saw that earlier but what do we know about him?

clarice

He's a liberal to moderate Dem. It--and the WaPo article today critical of Fitz--suggest the tide has turned. People really thing Fitz behaved badly.

JJ

I happened to catch Corn and Isik on Hardball, and I watched agog.

Corn was animated, to say the least. Especially when talking about the run-up to war as presented in the book.

Sounded eerily like what Wilson wrote.

And dissent stifled!

clarice

**thinK**

Niters.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

It's clear the crowd you're describing exists, I just don't lump Matthews in with the rest of them. I also think it's perfectly clear that there is/has been an active group of well connected neo-cons in powerful positions who have had a direct input into this Administration's foreign policy. I just wouldn't call them a cabal. I'd call them an interest group, and I happen to agree with a good chunk of what they've been pushing. And yes, I'm aware that it's not an exclusively Jewish affair. I'm not inclined to think it should make a difference if it were, though in many quarters I quite realize it would.

Unfortunately, the paper Perle produced on Israel/Iraq as a consultant helped prop up the Likudnik charge, and the cabal crowd were off to the races. I have some reservations about Perle myself, though not on that specific basis. In the considerable time I was watching Hardball however, Matthews never gave the Israel factor undue emphasis. I certainly see no reason not to bring it up, because Israel's position is relevant. I see nothing wrong with being an Israeli sympathizer in the first place, but be that as it may, I didn't hear Matthews imply there was either or question anyone's loyalty on that basis.

In England & in Europe, the progress of using "Israeli" as a socially/politically acceptable substitute for anti-semitic reference to Jews is much more obvious and pervasive, but unhappily, it's been on the rise here as well. I think that BDS currently has more traction on the left than Wilson's brand of anti-semitism, but it's definitely there, and it's worth paying careful attention. I've been watching the out migration of Jews from France for several years now -- and the unwillingness of the French to fully acknowledge the problem despite their own government studies -- with great unease. You'd think by now we'd have learned there's no such thing as "never again."

MayBee

8. The 1x2x6 story gets trashed. In brief - an editor added "before Novak's column ran" to clarify the prose, but had misinterpreted what reporter Mike Allen was trying to say.

The result:

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.

They do note that the following day the "senior administration official" was downgraded to an "administration aide", and tell us that the WaPo discussed running a correction but figured, why bother.

I just want Jeff to see that. We've been trying to warn him of the folly of putting too much faith in the wording of articles.
My argument? They are too sloppy and don't often offer corrections.
Ahem.

topsecretk9

--I think that is fair enough - Grossman briefed Libby and I could see Armitage wanting to be dialed in in case Cheney called.--

TM - you are too generous. I can't see Grossman ever dialing in Libby without an automatic pre-dial to big football necked boss Amritage...who do you think Grossman feared the "why didn't I know about this first" from"??

topsecretk9

--They do note that the following day the "senior administration official" was downgraded to an "administration aide", and tell us that the WaPo discussed running a correction but figured, why bother.--

But figured why bother...yep. And here it was was MIKE ALLEN , MayBee!!!

JM Hanes

Ahem.

Ran that through my Clarice spell checker, and it came out: Amen. :)

topsecretk9

In going through the Wilson tour of "misquotes", I noticed a few times in these early stories (May to July 03) Wilson was referred to in different sentences ( at this point he was in pretend "anon" mode) as "senior envoy" as if he were current and "A high-ranking American official" , again as if current, and HIGH RANKING??? Come on!


Funny business in these "sourced" stories...no wonder they don't want to revisit.

topsecretk9

also...the "senior" envoy?

Retired.

Lew Clark

While waiting impatiently for Tom and Clarice to write the definitive, truthful, book, I think I'll write my book to compete with "Hubris". I'm just going to make stuff up as I go. But, I will reference my sources, which are actually the voices in my head. The "persons close to the case" voice, the "White House Official" voice, The "former CIA/STATE/BLM official" voice, and, my personal favorite, the "super duper double top secret spy/retired ambassador" voice.

clarice

I couldn't stay away..and after reading the last couple posts, I can see why it's waste of time to sleep. This is too funny!!

Geezzer

At an age far to old to be a neo_, but too young to leave old friends to twist in the wind. I still judge my enemies by the color of the ensignias on their tanks. The Pan_ Arab states had, has red on Red tanks. The Muslim Brotherhood moved easily from Nazi to Commie murderous action without even a long breath.
There is a direct linage between the old Left and the continuing Left in this country, that old Irish, old Jewish, old Black Liberals find themselves in anti-Iserali and anti-Jewish political positions is not anymore remarkable than a Muslim Mother who is proud that her child just blew himself to Hell.
That people like Matthews harbor their own type of maddness is not really remarkable either.

clarice

Some more bad news for Wilson:
"The Senate Select Commitee on Intelligence Phase II reports may take some time to process, reading the source data rather than just relying on the conclusions, but I've found one interesting nugget already. In the WMD accuracy report, a significant passage demonstrates the falsity of one leftist talking point (page 16, emphases mine):

On February 4, 2003, the U.S. government provided copies of the Niger uranium documents to the IAEA with talking points which stated, "two streams of reporting suggest Iraq has attempted to acquire uranium from Niger. We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding specific claims. Nonetheless, we are concerned that these reports may indicate Baghdad has attempted to secure an unreported source of uranium yellowcake for a nuclear weapons program." The two streams of reporting refer to the intelligence reports from the foreign intelligence service and a CIA intelligence report reflecting the findings of a former Ambassador's visit to Niger.
This confirms what we read in the previous SSCI report: Joe Wilson told the CIA that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, and the CIA included that data in its assessment of Iraqi nuclear-weapons development. " http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/

JeanneB

Nice find, Clarice.

When you have a few moments, could you explain something to me? I have followed this story quite closely, but I still don't understand the "story line" on Libby and Rove .

Has ANY incident been reported where Libby or Rove gave a reporter any more information than that reporter already had (as implied by reporter's question)?

My best recollection is that, given what we know so far,
both Libby and Rove responded to REPORTERS' inquiries about Plame with something like "I heard that too". I can't recall any instance where they raised the subject.

Jane

JM,

I agree with your assessment of Matthews. I was a devoted Hardball follower up to the 2004 elections. It never once occurred to me that he was antisemitic, and I think that is the sort of thing that comes through if you watch enough although I admit to not thinking that way in general.

I thought leading up to the 2000 elections Matthews was very good. He clearly wrestled with the decision of who to vote for, and later admitted that he voted for Bush. And I think you are right that it was the war that sent him over the edge. I never assumed he was simply antiwar, despite his peace corp stint because the peace corp thing just seemed like the best way out of Viet Nam. I don't recall any huge antiwar campaign from him over Kosovo.

Frankly I think he was and is against the Iraq war - lots of people are. While I see it as a necessity, he sees it as imperialism. And since it hasn't been a walk in the park that has fueled his opposition.

The whole anti-semantic angle really shocked me. Altho I can recall hearing him rant on about the neo-con cabal over and over. And I do remember thinking or hearing about the whole angle that the neo-cons are all Jews but I simply dismissed it, in my own head. But I'm not inclined to see prejudice all over the place.

I've always had this fantasy of running into Matthews in Nantucket at a cocktail party at Tim Russert's house and lure him into a candid conversation. Now more than ever.

sbw

Clarice, yours is a beautifully clear parsing of why Matthews comments are anti-semitic and undermine society's sensible planning. Now that you explain it, it makes sense to me.

The problem is that English needs, and does not yet have, two words to provide proper short handles that differentiate between the kind Matthews is and the KKK kind.

Since Matthews is not of the KKK flavor, and missing the subtlety of what Matthews does, others may discount your criticism when presented as a label "anti-semite" without explanation and, following that, they may discount other meaty things that you say.

Maybe we can think of a more useful, equally effective discriptor.

Hope this makes sense.

windansea

must be a new ClownHouse memo out

twas the night before fizzlemas, and all through the Clownhouse, not a lefty was stirring, not even mouse

Brows

Matthews does'nt want to go back to the hospital with the shakes. He has some mosquito disease from his PC days.

The 'war' between the CIA and Bush is happening because his dad was Director CIA and then President. That is the last time this will happen. So, WMD got sold out at CIA because they hate Rice(degree and realtionship) and CIA and it's just like the DEA thing his dad started.

Must do drugs.


Must deal with bad CIA agents.


Lucifer having fun..............

richard mcenroe

Is it too late in the thread to point out the typo in the title?

Barney Frank

The whole anti-semantic angle really shocked me.

Matthews is not only hostile to Jews but even the meaning of words now?!? The cad has gone too far this time.

Unless, Jane, you were referring to Cleo in which case vive la Chris.

clarice

Thank you, sbw. I can't think of another way to put it,unfortunately. Whenever one implies over and over again as Wilson, Matthews, Sheehan , and the VIPS have that the President's advisers are acting not to advance US interests, but to advance those of Israel, you are charging them with dual loyalty or disloyalty to the US by virtue of their religious convictions. As those are Jewish, what else can you call it?

Odd, so many on the other side are in one way on the other on the Saudi payroll and have for so long refused to acknowledge that the Palestinian-Israeli dispute is a mere sideshow designed only to test Western will. Where are their loyalties. And why is that of interest to virtually no one?
During the last campaign Kerry had a letter of support from a long list of ex-diplomats. As I checked thru each name I found each was in some way on the Saudi teat. It was apparently of no interest to a single journalist.

clarice

Jeanne, Libby said he told Cooper when Cooper called him. But Cooper says HE told Libby. In any event, Cooper's contemporaneous notes show not a single reference to any mention of Wilson's wife. Noe does an email he later sent to others about the conversation.

I can't figure out Miller's testimony. It is unquestionably true that she had numerous sources, probably even before she spoke to Libby on June 23 to debrief him on her WMD hunt in Iraq and receive portions of the NIE which had been declassified. Even in her jumble there is no indication he gave her the name Valerie Plame or said that she'd played any role in sending Wilson. In fact, there is no inidcation he told her where Plame worked, her noted, indicating only "Bureau", an odd choice of words if he meant the CIA.

Libby says he DID call Russert to complain of Matthews' coverage. He says that Russert told him about Plame and said that "everybody knew", but Russert who has no notes says the subject never came up.

clarice

***Correction: In fact, there is no indication he told her where Plame worked, her noteS, indicating only "Bureau", an odd choice of words if he meant the CIA.

Barney Frank

The problem is that English needs, and does not yet have, two words to provide proper short handles that differentiate between the kind Matthews is and the KKK kind.

How's about cloaked anti-semites as opposed to hooded ones.

clarice

HEH!!

kate

Judith Miller, although not hostile to Libby, was protecting her more favorite sources, including, but not limited to, Armitage and ...

I remember her being interviewed by Lou Dobbs after her release from jail and she responded to one question, "let's see what the Special Prosecutor has". She seemed to be smirking and I thought it was at Libby/Rove and other White House officials. In retrospect, maybe she was smirking at Fitzgerald, she knew at the time that Armitage was an early source to reporters and wanted to know if Fitz found that out, he hadn't.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

I'm sorry but I just have not heard Matthews claiming that neo-cons were traitorously advancing Israeli interests. I will stipulate absolutely to the existence of an anti-semitic "neocon cabal" contingent, but I've seen nothing to persuade me that Matthews thinks "unamerican" is synonymous with pro-Israeli. From what I've seen (and read) he's talking about a betrayal of what he thinks of as American principles & practice. There is nothing inherently anti-semitic in that, or in the fact that he blames the neocons for that betrayal.

Are you yourself not assuming that anyone who faults the neocons as a group for current foreign policy -- despite its complex composition -- is necessarily anti-semitic? That's what it sounds like, which is why I simply raise a caution, even though -- and I cannot emphasize this enough -- I don't doubt the existence of an anti-semitic cohort for a second.

JM Hanes

I'd amend the above to say I haven't heard Matthews even insinuate such divided loyalties either.

MayBee

The only thing I have heard Matthews say for himself about the Iraq war and Israel has been support for the idea that many Christians believe this will all help bring about end times.

I do believe he believes that Bush is doing an evangelical thing here. So I don't think Matthews is anti-semetic. I do think with his anti-war views, he has given voice to many that have made the "this is all for Lukid" argument. He's never called them on it that I've heard (or made them state it on his program), but then I haven't watched him much since I moved out of MSNBC viewing range.

clarice

JMH . I never watch him but others have. Among the other things he's said is that the Dems support Israel only because of their big donors. And as I've said he repeatedly singles out Jewish hawks claiming they are not acting in US interests, but Israel's. He's not alone, but is the most noticable because he seems to have been in a closed loop for so long:

"*"Hardball" host Chris Matthews: War is being driven by "conservative people out there, some of them Jewish, who...believe we should fight the Arabs and take them down. They believe that if we don't fight Iraq, Israel will be in danger."

*"Meet the Press" host Tim Russert, to Richard Perle: "Can you assure American viewers...that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests. And what would be the link to Israel?"

*University of Chicago Professor Fred Donner in The Chicago Tribune: "The Bush administration paints a rosy scenario for the upcoming war against Iraq. It is a vision deriving from Likud-oriented members of the president's team -- particularly Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith."

*Washington Times columnist Georgie Anne Geyer: "The 'Get Iraq' campaign...emerged first and particularly from pro-Israeli hard-liners in the Pentagon such as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and adviser Richard Perle..."

*Former (and prospective) Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart: We "must not let our role in the world be dictated by Americans who too often find it hard to distinguish their loyalties to their original homelands from their loyalties to America and its national interests."

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/20042/edition_id/408/format/html/displaystory.html> Matthews

I'm sorry, but I do not feel like digging thru this dreck further. I believe this is anti-semitism. If Libby did, I can see why he'd say so.

Odd, however, that no one questions Armitage's loyalty or Woolsey's or Bennett's and they all signed the 1998 PNAC letter asking Clinton to move for regime change in Iraq for the very same reasons all the neo-cons did.

JM Hanes

Clarice:

I don't know how many ways I can say this, but I am not defending anyone but Matthews here.

Now I'm sorry too, but I think you need to dig up something more than a partial, out-of-context, elided statement -- a statment which is not false on its face, btw -- before you tar him as an anti-semite.

I'm certainly prepared to change my mind, but I see no reason to ignore my own substantial first hand impressions on such a basis. If the example you provide is all it takes, you risk making the charge of anti-semitism as meaningless as the constant cries of racism have become, and that would truly be a terrible thing.

clarice

No. it is not intended to be a compendium. If I find one, I'll post it, but I am so disinterested in him, I have no interest in doing that myself. The report is that Libby argued that Matthews' reportage was and I meant only to show why--that is the argument for why a repeated, consistent pattern of such statements would be considered that.

JM Hanes

Well if you're not actually lodging the charge, you don't actually need to do the digging either. In fact, I'd hate to see you wasting time on Matthews myself!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame