Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Two Editorials | Main | Jack Shafer Switches On Spitting »

March 07, 2007

Comments

Michael H

"Now boy, I want to ask you one question and I want you to tell me the truth," she said.
"Yes, maam," I said all attention.
"Do you steal," she asked me seriously.
I burst in a laugh and then checked myself.
"What is so damn funny about that?" She asked.
"Lady if I was a thief, I'd never tell anybody."
"What do you mean?" She blazed with a red face.
I had made a mistake during my first five minutes in the white world. I hung my head.

From Richard Wright's Black Boy; A Record of Childhood and Youth pub 1946.

Similarly, now. Patriots 'lie' if they don't conform to the preconceptions of Washington Post reporters who will be happy to wear their gaudy occasional clothes to the resultant hanging, consistent with a conservatives otherness.

steve sturm

A smear, as defined in this case, is anything a Bush defender says that implies that Bush critics are less than 100% correct in everything they say.

Martin

Here's a lefty talking point for ya:

Libby is now a convicted felon based in no small part on the facts that Bush is an idiot and Cheney is a creep.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

bgates

I'd say Martin's comment is a fair representative of lefty talking points, and lefty understanding of the legal system as well

Holly

Martin, how old are you? Seriously.

Martin

I'm over the age of consent, Holly. Email me baby!

jwest

Another victim falls to Martin’s rapier wit.

RichatUF

...here he is in Matt Cooper's "War"...

Tom,

not to be pedantic about it, but it did end in a question mark...

RichatUF

Alcibiades

A smear, as defined in this case, is anything a Bush defender says that implies that Bush critics are less than 100% correct in everything they say.

I'd say it differently. Any true reply that a Bush defender makes against Bush critics is a smear.

Martin

You can't defend Bush with the truth.

agum

By the final count, there was a lot of right-wing smearing of Joseph Wilson. But here's the initial White House smear:

"On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction."

So, according to Administration officials, Joseph Wilson wasn't chosen because he was competent and could make discreet diplomatic inquiries, which added to the information collected by the CIA on (the complete absence of) Iraqi WMDs.

No, he was sent on a worthless junket by his wife, who (by implication) wears the pants in the family. And he's too dumb to realize that he only got worthless information to put in his worthless New York Times Op-Ed.

Hilzoy puts it best here:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2005/07/come_to_scenic_.html

Hope I've contributed something useful, to repay all of you for the laughs I got reading your site during the Libby Trial.

Enlightened

Well, we used to play smear the queer about 30 years ago. These days I think they call it Touchless Tag.

Old Dad

Martin,

You seems to have secret knowledge and power.

Association with a known creep and idiot is a felony.

Given that you appear to be both a creep and an idiot, you could have us all jailed in Martinworld.

Michael Smith

Those who constantly engage in ad hominem as their primary form of argument tend to assume that their opponents do so as well. So, any argument against their position is perceived as a smear.

Michael Smith

No, he was sent on a worthless junket by his wife, who (by implication) wears the pants in the family. And he's too dumb to realize that he only got worthless information to put in his worthless New York Times Op-Ed.

That sounds about right.

james

aqum

Given that Wilson WAS sent on a worthless junket by his wife, how do you see this as a smear?

AMDG

Each and every one of those will say with an absolute straight face that the smear was the leaking of Secret Agent Girl's name this punishing Lyin' Joe for telling the truth about the made up intelligence to get us into a war to avenge Saddam's plot against Bush 41 and to line the coffers of Haliburton.

Facts do not matter to these Houyhnhnms. The only truth they know is an ideology that based on a visceral hatred of one man.

It would be pathetic if the consequences were not so great.

Michael Smith

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

What an original way to strengthen one's argument.

AMDG

aqum says:
"On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction."


AMDG Observes:
Where is the smear (okay technically it was only at Secret Agent Girls' behest!)

SteveMG

On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House

An administration official is not the same thing as "the White House" (or someone in the White House).

The official noted above was clearly Armitage who, from all the evidence we've seen or heard, was acting on his own and speaking on his own without official White House acquiesce or on their orders.

Sorry, still looking for a White House ordered "smear" of Wilson.

And remember, a smear cannot be accurate.

SMG


Michael Smith

Hope I've contributed something useful, to repay all of you for the laughs I got reading your site during the Libby Trial.

Gosh, you laughed at us? Now that really hurts my feelings.

AMDG

The new motto for those interssted in truth, justice and the American way. It works for anything from the Secret Agent Girl kerfuffle to attacks on the Swift Boat Vetrens for Truth.

Where's the smear?

uh_clem

Well, with all due respect, Tom, obtuse would seem to be an apt description. All you need to do is read the comments of your own blog to see the smearing at work. All the comments below were collected from one thread, within the last two days:

  • And the horrible thing about all this is that Joe Wilson - the one man who indisputably lied to the country - gets off scot-free.

  • Joe Wilson is a scumbag liar.

  • What about Joe Wilson, who lied through his teeth to hurt an administration during a time of war. What about an indictment for TREASON for the Plames??

  • What's been conveniently forgotten by all the media reporting on this issue is that Joe Wilson is a liar.

  • THERE WAS A CAMPAIGN to counter Wilson's LIES. That was shown in evidence. Discrediting someone who was LYING is not criminal.

  • ...pardon Libby today, in prime time, while calling out Wilson and the MSM as the distortion-filled bastards that they are.

  • ...do you have some other crime in mind - other than the crime of refuting the lies of Joe Wilson?

  • Moreover, it has been amply demonstrated that Joe Wilson did nothing but lie.


So please, stop it with the feigned innocence. I can't hold you responsible for the thuggish behavior of the people who post comments on your blog, but please don't try to pretend like none of this ugliness exists. It's the logical equivalent of me saying that I haven't heard anybody say anything nasty about Bush.

Tom Maguire

Since you mention it, "boondoggle" has two related meanings - folks think of the "corporate boondoggle", where.e.g., all the staff is flown to a weekend retreat for golf, tennis, and strategizing, as a pleasure trip - that is clearly the sense in which hilzoy is taking it in your link.

But it is also quite commonly used to mean "waste of money", without any of the good-times aspect - lots of government projects, including useless trips to Niger to replicate the work already done by a General and an Ambassador, would be a boondoggle in that sense.

Joe Gloor

Martin - "You can't defend Bush with the truth."

Because the truth is a smear and that's wrong?

Kurt

Martin has just clearly stated the precept which defines a "smear" in the world of this lefty talking point. Pointing out the truth to defend Bush is strictly verboten.

Tom Maguire

Well, with all due respect, Tom, obtuse would seem to be an apt description. All you need to do is read the comments of your own blog to see the smearing at work.

Clem, you are not making sense - Karl Rove was saying mean things about Wilson in 2003, or he wasn't - the comments here have nothing to do with it (and I am pretty sure that is not what Kerry referred to.)

agum

That sounds about right.

Michael Smith and james just proved my point. If what I said only sounds accurate to a bunch of dead-ender wingnuts who loathe Wilson, it's a smear.

Maybe if the CIA had sent someone competent, like you lot of internet gumshoes, instead of that bumbling fool Joe Wilson, you would have found all those missing Iraqi WMDs.

Not to mention Elvis, Jimmy Hoffa, the last of the Romanovs, and the Roswell Alien Autopsy.

Tom Bowler

I think I've got it. Declassification and "leak" of the National Intelligence Estimate is the smear!

royf

Well the moonbats answers confirm what everyone at JOM already knows.

Exposing the lies of a partisan with the truth while being a Republican is a "smear".

Bostonian

If only the press would quote the page of the Senate report that spanks Wilson for lying.

But they won't.

agum

Tom,

That's a reasonable point about different senses of "boondoggle."

But it's nitpicking. The larger context remains the same -- the White House was attacking Wilson's professional competence, after he basically volunteered to go on a sensitive diplomatic mission to a hole of a country.

It's the same reason all the Republican US District Attorneys just turned against the White House. Their professional competence was attacked.

steve sturm

You all may bash Martin but he's pretty much on point:

"Libby is now a convicted felon based in no small part on the facts that Bush is an idiot and Cheney is a creep"

Libby wouldn't be facing jail right now had Bush and Cheney the brains and guts to take Wilson on in public instead of behind the scenes. They could have held a press conference and countered the substance of Wilson's allegations and declared that not only Cheney didn't pick Wilson to go to Africa, he didn't request anybody to go and that Wilson was picked by the CIA because his no-longer-a-secret-agent wife 'suggested' he go. Had they done so, this whole thing would have blown over within a week or two... no referral, no investigation, no trial, no talk of a pardon. But rather than be up front about it, they (or, probably more accurately, Cheney) decided to play the leak game and got burned.

Serves them right... and it serves Libby right for not telling the truth.

Michael Smith

Michael Smith and james just proved my point. If what I said only sounds accurate to a bunch of dead-ender wingnuts who loathe Wilson, it's a smear.

Ahh, so now I see. A smear is any statement that doesn't "sound accurate" to those of you on the left. Which means, you have just classified anything with which you disagree as "a smear".

That is nearly as clever as how the race-baiters like Jesse Jackson define racism to be any statement, factual or otherwise, critical of any black anywhere.

In both cases, it spares you the necessity of answering actual arguments or addressing facts and evidence -- you simply declare that it "doesn't sound accurate" to you, so it must be a smear!

Michael Smith

Had they done so, this whole thing would have blown over within a week or two... no referral, no investigation, no trial, no talk of a pardon. But rather than be up front about it, they (or, probably more accurately, Cheney) decided to play the leak game and got burned.

You might want to look up "begging the question" in a book on logical fallacies.

Enlightened

Uh Clem - What a delightful summation of the real Joe Wilson. How do his socks smell?

windansea

why play defense when offense is o much more rewarding?

Collins:

I'm not eager to be on any jury for a six week trial, especially with a recently published novel to pimp.


sure buddy...I am starting to have Runaway Jury flashbacks and am wondering if this guy somehow manipulated the system to get in the jury pool, then engineered the choosing of foreman

he's a bit too slick with his hip talk and name dropping, I am sure he gained credibility on this jury based on knowing some of the players and his reporter experience

"You wrote about the CIA?"

"I did." The perfect storm.

Yet here I am.

this guy has got a big pie hole

I bet Wilson is getting jealous


The woman left a perfect smooch of red lipstick on her white porcelain coffee cup, then turned to ask what I was doing at this Union Station diner so early in the morning.

yikes...he's channeling Soylent Red

"I'm on jury duty," I told her and, too late, bit my tongue. Didn't Judge Walton tell us not to discuss the trial with anyone? Reinforced it with the cautionary tale of a 13-year-old girl who called the judge at home to squeal on her father for spilling testimony during dinner! And here it was, second day of the Libby trial and I'm blabbing to this stranger at Johnny Rockets.

and I am a card carrring firepup!

Then again, I didn't tell her which trial.

I am so cool

"I got called for jury duty and didn't go," she told me. "I was running for DC City Council from Ward 5. I didn't have time for a jury. Now they're putting me in jail."

"For real?"

I'm 50 but I am very hip...what's your number?

"Oh yes. Didn't report for jury duty and they're putting me in jail."

I paid for her breakfast and wished her luck. "Look on the bright side. Jail didn't seem to do Mayor Barry much harm."

crackhead Mayors?? no problemo...wanna get high?

Gary Maxwell

Hey If I call Joe Wilson a liar or even a scumbag liar and he is shown by the Senate panel to have lied, where is the smear? Any objective reading of the bipartisan committee's finding would surely lead to a conclusion that Joe's editorial was pure unadulterated fiction and not even very good fiction. Adding a descriptor adjective for rhetorical effect hardly makes it a "smear". It might more properly thought of as an indication of how utterly revolting this type of liar is to readers here. And calling someone a liar can hardly be calimed to be unheard of territory in leftyland. Difference here is that there is something objective to back the claim.

JeanneB

Maybe if the CIA had sent someone competent, like you lot of internet gumshoes, instead of that bumbling fool Joe Wilson, you would have found all those missing Iraqi WMDs.

No, but I would have thanked my spouse for the opportunity, gone there, interviewed government contacts and investigated the best I could. Upon return I'd report to the CIA that, in fact, Iraq had made overtures to Niger regarding yellowcake, but there's no evidence any sales actually took place. And that would have been the end of it.

Oh wait. That's exactly what Wilson did! Except for the last part...he didn't leave it alone. He put out the (false) word that he was sent by Cheney AND that he'd told the CIA the "seeking yellowcake" story was false.

It was soon all over Washington that he hadn't been sent by Cheney...his wife put him in the role. Regardless of who you think leaked that info, exactly how is it a smear?

royf

If only the press would quote the page of the Senate report that spanks Wilson for lying.

But they won't.

Hey the democrats and their public mouth piece the MSM have over 3 years invested in the "Bush Lied" mime.

Do you honestly expect them to say Oh nevermind.

tp

And on what date did Joe Wilson become an unpaid advisor to the Kerry campaign, anyway? Was it before or after the NYT op-ed?

JeanneB

Anyone else having flashbacks to the Clinton-parsing days?

AMDG

Aqum:

Let us try to focus by answering these questions.

Did Lyin’ Joe state that he was sent to Niger on request from the OVP?

If that is untrue, how is it a “smear” to point out that it is not true?

Was Lyin’ Joe’s trip initiated per a recommendation from Secret Agent Girl?

If that is true, how is it a “smear” to point out the origins of the trip?

Did Lyin’ Joe erroneously state that he debunked the claim that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium?

If that is true how is it a “smear” to correct Lyin’ Joe’s errors?

In addition, for bonus points – What specific evidence was invented by the administration to lead us to war? How does this evidence square with evidence gathered over the prior 6 or 7 years?

If a person repeatedly repeats a lie (oh let’s say Bush lied us into War) at what point does that become a smear?

Are Bush opponents capable of smearing political opponents?

Don’t worry, aqum, I don’t expect an answer – I understand that these are rhetorical questions. If you were to honestly consider the questions, your entire worldview might change.

And one more time – Where’s the smear?

Sue

If you will remember, Wilson first came out with they will come after him because of the number of times he was married, he did inhale when he smoked pot, etc. The response to the pending smear that Wilson was expecting fell short when they did nothing more than respond with the truth, as it related to the trip. The smear against him (that didn't happen) was a built in mechanism for Wilson to use when he decided to risk outing his wife to smear the administration.

You've got to hand it to them. The won the war of words. The Bush administration was smearing a critic who was critiquing the administration with smear.

BumperStickerist

All due respect to Joe Wilson's patriotic motivations, but he was also heading up a consulting organization that did work in Africa.

So I find the altruistic angle a bit tinged with corporate opportunism - which nullifies the altruistic angle.

Also, left uncommented on by The Left is how One Man - any man - could credibly make the claims he made based on his activity.

"I am a former ambassador, I spent a week talking to a couple of people in Nijer - Bush lied!" ... puh-leeze.

What intel value there was in Wilson's trip was the amount of communications traffic sent talking about how Wilson was duped during his week drinking sweet tea on the veranda.

But the NSA won't give you its report on that.

.......puh-leeze

Enlightened

3: a usually unsubstantiated charge or accusation against a person or organization — often used attributively


Unsubstantiated charge or accusation.

1) Joe Wilson DID go to Niger - Not a smear
2) Valerie Plame DID suggest Joe Wilson go to Niger - Not a smear
3) Senate Intelligence Committee DID condclude Wilson lied - Not a Smear
4) OVP did NOT send Jow Wilson to Niger - Not a Smear
5) Joe Wilson DID "misspeak" about news before the cycle - forged documents - Not a Smear
6) Valerie Plame WAS listed in Who's Who - Not a Smear
7) Joe Wilson DID call reporters about his wife - Not a Smear
8) Valerie Plame is NOT in hiding - Life is NOT bad for Val - Not a Smear

9) Scooter Libby convicted for charges stemming from no crime, and no smear. Priceless.

Sue

The[y] won the war of words.

Sara (Squiggler)

I don't think the "smear" in Wilson's eyes was anything about his wife. He was furious that Condi Rice called him "low level" and Armitage (I think that's right) called him "obnoxious." Any other "smear" claims from Wilson, et al, flow from there.

Would it be less of a smear to say Wilson was just using "literary flare" rather than call him a liar?

Alcibiades

from JPOD:

Chris Matthews just asked a Libby juror whether she thought Patrick Fitzgerald was "very virginal...like he never had a date." She looked at him as though he were completely, totally, stark-raving insane.

And if he is virginal, that makes this case, what? The output of a pure spirit? The Lord's gospel?

Enlightened

Eww - How did I do the bold/underline?

Sue

Read Wilson's interview with Larry King last night. He is still stinging over being termed low level. But the smear he was trying to make of less value was the one about his personal life. Which is how the Clintons would have gone after him. I guess he thought Bush would too.

topsecretk9

--Chris Matthews just asked a Libby juror whether she thought Patrick Fitzgerald was "very virginal...like he never had a date." --

Matthews sounds like he like a shot at changing that perception himself - he's gone so bananas over this.

Michael Smith

When John Kerry accuses our troops of being "baby killers" as he did in Vietnam, and when he accuses them of terrorizing women and children in Iraq -- it is NOT a smear.

But when the Swift Boat Vets produce evidence showing that Kerry could not have been in Cambodia the night he claimed was "seared into his memory", it IS a smear.

So, of course Kerry will consider any statements against Wilson to be smears, regardless of the facts.

UglyinLA

aqum wrote: "Joseph Wilson...he was competent and could make discreet diplomatic inquiries..."

Aqum, I hope you are a comedien because that is frickin hilarious.

As Wilson himself puts it, "I spent a total of eight days in Niger "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people."

Allow me to translate that from moonbat to English.
eight days in Niger drinking sweet mint tea = junket

dorf

So we had a barbecue buddy media mole on the jury. The best defense in the world could never beat that.

Sue

I am listening to ABC News radio. They just gave a heads up as to what the news will be at the half hour. John Murtha, war critic of the Bush administration, on Walter Reed. So, if Bush responds to the critic in any way, shape or form, he will be smearing a critic? Does that make sense.

uh_clem

Tom Maguire wrote Clem, you are not making sense - Karl Rove was saying mean things about Wilson in 2003, or he wasn't - the comments here have nothing to do with it.

Well, that's a different question than the one you posed in the main post. I'm now restricted to only citing Karl Rove from 2003?

Karl Rove, who works mostly behind the scenes and usually only gives interviews on background or not for attribution. That Karl Rove?

Next you'll be asking me for examples that don't use the letter "R".

Judicious

Corn and Isikoff in their book Hubris make abundantly clear that Valerie's role in sending Joseph to Nigeria has been greatly overstated largely due to a memo written by Douglas Rohn, a State Department officer who "wrote a crucial memo related to the trip" which unintentionally gave that impression.
The truth is that it was a panel of her superiors who actually sent Joseph on the mission, not Valerie. Furthermore Libby even said in his grand jury testimony that both he and Cheney felt that Wilson was "qualified" for this kind of mission.
But if the Bush administration received bad information and took it at face value and passed on this information in good faith, then this particular argument probably doesn't count as a smear.
On the other hand, when dealing with a CIA NOC great care must be taken, and it's clear that hasty steps were made by administration officials which opened the doors to the events that have transpired. In their haste to repudiate Wilson, they uncovered one of their own agents who was working on an issue that was a priority for them: Weapons of Mass Destruction.
In this light, their actions do appear to take on more of a "smear" quality, as their primary concern wasn't whether the CIA agent's cover was intact, but rather that their political concerns were addressed and that a credible critic was impeached in the public eye.
My sense is that there is plenty of blame to be tossed around on all sides, but the greater burden of blame falls on those in the administration (Armitrage, Rove, Libby and possibly Cheney) who played fast and loose with a CIA agent's identity either out of foolishness, or for what are largely political reasons.

topsecretk9

I never take any leftist claims of "smears" seriously after smear merchant Sidney Blumaenthal pushed Monica as a skanky, stalking, nutso, slut to reporters before the Gap DNA and Carville called Paula Jones trailer trash - and that is just 2 of the women the democrats slimed.

mshyde

Remember, what goes round comes round.

The fifth will be more widely used in
investigations, or "I don't remember".

Lots of butts looking at being bit by
what they've sowed.

As to the Bush administration, the
fact they exist is a 'smear' to the
left

Martin

Hey, at least they smeared Joe Wilson.

That's a lot more than they've done to Osama bin Laden.

MikeS

I agree with Corn and Isikoff that Plame's role really wasn't very important.
That's why I believed Libby when he said he was "struck" that Russert thought it was important

SPQR

martin, so far I've not seen a truthful comment from you in this thread. Nor one with any relation to reality for that matter.

When were you going to begin making substantive comments? Or should I not wait up?

soccer dad

And let's not forget that Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post was complicit in the smear campaign back in 2004.

clarice

Dear Judicious:
Armitage may have played "fast and loose" with Plame's identity, but he did it on his own. And though I am certain you know more about the IIPA that its author (Toensing) and the prosecution (which never charged anyone w/ violating it, the fact remains that you must concede that Armitage said he's never seen the name of a CIA agent in a memo where the identity of the agent was to be kept secret. And he surely has a great deal of experience in such matters. Nor can anyone imagine why she was introduced to DoS attendees at the meeting. The person from the CIA who accompanied her was never identified. Did you notice that?

The WaPo editors who surely are not part of the Bush machine seem to see this differently than you do as you can see from TM's cite.

PMII

I though the smear was Wilson against the Bush Administration. Wasn't Everything Wilson said proven a LIE.

Sara (Squiggler)


Plame Game - Back to the beginning - Part I

royf

Judicious


and that a credible critic was impeached in the public eye

credible critic? nothing the guy has said holds up to any honest inquiry, everything he said was a fabrication.

But even at that he has made millions off books and public appearances, super secret gal is making millions off books and a movie for christ sakes.

He's a hero to all you moonbats regardless that his story has been shot full of holes. That is some public humiliation.

Joe Gloor

PMII - "Wasn't Everything Wilson said proven a LIE."

Well, he did go to Niger...

Chants

Orthodoxy is my doxy; heterodoxy is thy doxy.

Steve Sturm at 1:09 p.m. hit the nail on the head. If a conservative criticizes someone on the left, it is a "smear". If a liberal criticizes a conservative, it is "speaking truth to power".

UglyinLA

Hey Martin, I just read this on AP
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070307/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Dems to add billions to Iraq war bill

Say, isnt that your party? LOL So much for exit strategies, eh?

Bostonian

Judicious, let's take a look at your "argument," shall we:

On the other hand, when dealing with a CIA NOC great care must be taken,
>>No argument

and it's clear that hasty steps were made by administration officials which opened the doors to the events that have transpired.

>>Clear according to you. Pure assertion.

In their haste to repudiate Wilson,

>>Objection. You are guessing at inner thoughts of people you do not even know.

they uncovered one of their own agents

>>If by "they" you mean Richard Armitage, OK. But he wasn't the one in the dock, now was he?

who was working on an issue that was a priority for them: Weapons of Mass Destruction.

>>OK

In this light, their actions do appear to take on more of a "smear" quality,

>>To you-—again this is assertion to be proven

as their primary concern wasn't whether the CIA agent's cover was intact, but rather that their political concerns were addressed

>>Objection—you have no idea what the primary concerns are of people you do not know

and that a credible critic was impeached in the public eye.

>>If he is credible, that is news to the Senate Intelligence subcommittee. Actually Wilson remains a “hero” to a large part of the public, because his rebuke has gone unnoticed by the press.

My sense is that there is plenty of blame to be tossed around on all sides,

>>Why how kind of you

but the greater burden of blame falls on those in the administration (Armitrage, Rove, Libby and possibly Cheney) who played fast and loose with a CIA agent's identity either out of foolishness, or for what are largely political reasons.

>>Not proven. Your argument consists of 1) guessing other people’s motives, 2) bashing them for the motives you invented for them, 3) obscuring who the real leaker was (Armitage), and 4) pretending that Libby, Rove, and "possibly Cheney" have some control over Armitage.

Martin

SPQR-don't wait. I've given up on sprinkling the water of reality into this desert of ignorance. The sweltering stupidity immediately vaporizes it, and the savages are too dumb to drink anyway.

This is the site where people actually thought Wilson was going to get indicted! I can't compete with that.

verner

Yeah, the administration smeared Valerie alright. First they told the world about how she slept with a married man on the third date--and outed herself to him violating agency policy. Then they reported the fact that she had a devastating bout of post-partem depression that made her take sick leave for almost a year, then they went whole hog in smear mode and published pics of her in a big national glossy----


OOOPS! That was Joe and Val!!!

Bostonian

Martin, if you consider yourself grounded in reality, then surely you have read what the Senate report said about Wilson's fabrications in the NYT.

If not, "ignorant" and "sweltering stupidity" would apply to you quite well.

Then again, maybe you just don't care if a guy on your side lies to advance "a greater truth."

royf

Why martin that is nothing compared to the fantasies you left wingers entertain.

verner

Also, shouldn't all the press types who are reporting on Kerry's "smear" remarks ask the Senator from Mass. why he kicked ole Joe off his campaign? That would be interesting.

Michael Smith

Hey, at least they smeared Joe Wilson.

That's a lot more than they've done to Osama bin Laden.

Well, that certainly persuaded me.

Joe Gloor

Martin - "I've given up on sprinkling the water of reality into this desert of ignorance."

I'd call that going over to someone else's house and pissing in their pool.

PeterUK

"Martin, how old are you? Seriously."

How old is he unseriously?

arcanorum

Martin-
"This is the site where people actually thought Wilson was going to get indicted!"

The guilty have gone free, and the innocent have been wrongfully convicted. There is nothing to be proud of in that.

"I can't compete with that."

It is good for you to admit this. Now please put your small penis back in your pants, and go away.

AMDG

Judicious Says:
“The truth is that it was a panel of her superiors who actually sent Joseph on the mission, not Valerie.”

AMDG Responds:
Nice avoidance but the genesis of the trip comes from a suggestion from Secret Agent Girl. The fact that it was approved by higher-ups does not negate the fact that if she had not initially brought up Lyin’ Joe he never would have gone.

Judicious Says:
“On the other hand, when dealing with a CIA NOC great care must be taken, and it's clear that hasty steps were made by administration officials which opened the doors to the events that have transpired.”

AMDG Responds:
How does driving to Langley everyday square with being an NOC? Is that SOP? If Secret Agent Girl’s status was of any concern how was Wilson allowed to speak to groups about his mission. Is there anything in the conduct of the CIA, Lyin’ Joe or Secret Agent Girl herself which would lead anybody to believe that she was currently an NOC whose secret status was vital to national security? If her secret status was so important to national security why wasn’t somebody else dispatched to Niger – Did Lyin’ Joe’s expertise outweigh the threat to national security that the release of Secret Agent Girl’s identity would bring about?

Judicious Says:
“In this light, their actions do appear to take on more of a "smear" quality, as their primary concern wasn't whether the CIA agent's cover was intact, but rather that their political concerns were addressed and that a credible critic was impeached in the public eye.”

AMDG Responds:
How should the administration have reacted when a man, who was being treated by administration critics and their parrots in the MSM, as a credible critic when he was, in fact, a bald faced liar? Why is the administration responsible for the failure of the Secret Agent Girl, her husband and her employer to maintain her secret status if that is actually the case? Given that she is one of the most well known people on the country, why should there be any reluctance to reveal what her status was?


Martin

Bostonian, I don't give a shit about Joe Wilson.

I live in today. And today we are sitting in Iraq for nothing, wasting lives and money, and actively harming our long term interests. The despicable assholes who launched this war have no plan to win it, never did, and don't even seem to care.

Their braindead supporters, although constantly dwindling in number, are still somehow deluded and vociferous enough to somehow block a termination of this travesty.

So I just wait. And shower contempt upon fools in the meantime.

Gary Maxwell

Perhaps there is a merciful God after all, Martin sure sounds like he is promising to leave ( will he please add "and not come back."?)

JeanneB

Judicious:
Your reply sounds reasonable. The only thing you left out was the barrage of incoming the White House was taking from the media over Wilson's allegations. It was 24/7, full media throttle, huge headlines, with the WH press corps screaming for scalps. Wilson was on all the talk shows. His minions had devolved his "at the behest of the V.P." into "he was sent by Cheney".

Given that Cheney had not sent him---he didn't even know he'd gone---it's understandable that they would say "Who is that guy?". And when they found out he was lying, the natural thing to do was point it out. By your scenario, Wilson should have been allowed to lie at will and hide behind his wife's status. No administration would tolerate that.

You also give little weight to Wilson's own role in revealing his wife. (Listen to the Armitage/Woodward tapes.) I've seen no one rebut that Wilson lied when he said Cheney sent him. This would ALL be different if Wilson had been revealing truths...but he wasn't. He pointed his guns at Cheney's office counting on cover from the classified nature of the material and his wife's job. It was a risk he put on the table. Not pretty, however you look at it.

Tom Maguire

Well, that's a different question than the one you posed in the main post. I'm now restricted to only citing Karl Rove from 2003?

Hmm, one of us ought to re-read the post. Here is the Kerry bit:

This trial revealed a no-holds barred White House attack machine aimed at anyone who stood in the way of their march to war with Iraq. It is time for President Bush to live up to his own promises and hold accountable anyone else who participated in this smear.

I am pretty sure the trial did not reveal the truth about Typepad blogs and the folks who comment there.

From judicious:

Corn and Isikoff in their book Hubris make abundantly clear that Valerie's role in sending Joseph to Nigeria has been greatly overstated largely due to a memo written by Douglas Rohn, a State Department officer who "wrote a crucial memo related to the trip" which unintentionally gave that impression.

Yeah, yeah. Corn and Isikoff unaccountably do not even mention Bob Grenier or the sentiment attributed to him in the indictment excerpted above, which I am sure you have read.

Was Grenier, a top guy at CIA, misinformed by the INR memo? Can we have some trial testimony, please:

The individual at CPD, did they also bring up Wilson's wife.

[Grenier]: Mentioned to me that she was working within the unit at CPD that had sent Wilson.

That's why they knew about Wilson and why he was sent. [not sure on this phrasing, sorry Jeff]

And per the Senate report, Ms. Plame was instrumental in getting her hubby the 1999 trip to Niger.

So the Corn/Isikoff notion does not sway me, sorry.

verner

"Their braindead supporters, although constantly dwindling in number, are still somehow deluded and vociferous enough to somehow block a termination of this travesty."

And to think, my hard earned tax dollars are paying for this little twit's Pell grant.

arcanorum

"I live in today. And today we are sitting in Iraq for nothing, wasting lives and money, and actively harming our long term interests."

You are a fool little man.

Bush will be heralded a genius in the decades ahead. He is the Churchill that stood up to the Islamists and took the first steps to peace in the middle east.

Iran and Syria are the next stops on the peace train.

now, go away, the adults want to talk.

Bostonian

Martin. So you admit you're not here to defend the verdict. You're just here to bash your political opponents.

Well, it's cheaper than therapy.

SunnyDay

Anybody just hear John Gibson?

Gary Maxwell

nd to think, my hard earned tax dollars are paying for this little twit's Pell grant.

they have Pell grants in the prison trade school? Who knew!

SunnyDay

Oh guys, poor Martin - I feel for him. He's not even a good troll.

Jane

Could we maybe find some smarter moonbats than the ones currently posting, since they have failed desparately in answering Tom's question?

Cecil Turner

This is the site where people actually thought Wilson was going to get indicted!

Heh. It's more than a bit rich to see the flakiest commenters claiming a few misguided comments are telling. The predictions on this site were a heckuva lot better than most others (e.g., 22 indictments, sealed indictment against Rove, Cheney in the dock).

arcanorum

" He pointed his guns at Cheney's office counting on cover from the classified nature of the material and his wife's job."

I am sure that Wilson/Plame planned for her to be outted and he took the necessary steps to ensure that this would happen.

That way he could scream 'smear' even as he took credit for Kerry's election, in order to recieve a plum ambassadors position suitable for his oversized ego.

Ironic how he quickly he became a liability as his lies unravelled. Oh what a tangled web...

Martin

Bostonian-the trial is over. Why should I waste a second "defending" the verdict? Are you actually under the illusion that a thousand rightwing monkeys are going to type up a winning appeal brief from inane blog posts?

Look at TM, blogging up a post trial storm. For what I haven't clue. Inertia I suppose.

Soon this will all whimper out, and you'll have to look up from this trial sideshow and see what the administration lackeys who weren't forced to resign have cooked up in the meantime. And it ain't pretty.

Rick Ballard

"Could we maybe find some smarter moonbats"

I don't think so. The upper bound is fixed at an IQ of 86 and generally those having an IQ under 80 don't type. It's actually a pretty tight range.

Bostonian

Um-hmm. And how do you feel about that? Get in touch with your inner feelings here.

RichatUF

from clarice's At piece...great

...The Bush crowd is guilty only of terminal naiveté and the foolish idea that high standards of probity will ever beat the opposition's utter unscrupulousness and willingness to misuse the legal system to their own partisan ends...

too much to quote, great article

RichatUF

Bostonian

My last was directed at therapy-seeking Martin, of course.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame