Powered by TypePad

« We Are Moving Now! | Main | The Case Against Libby »

November 01, 2005



Speaking of comedy and incompetence, listening to Frist whine is hilarious.

Cecil Turner

First of all, his remark is legitimate because the CIA sent him to Niger in response to a question raised by Cheney.

Well, kinda. What the VP actually requested was "the CIA’s analysis of the issue." Maybe it's just me, but I'd expect that sort of "question" to be answered by analysts. (And it was: in response, he got a report that essentially said it was single-sourced, and the ambassador thought it dubious.) The subsequent decision to send Wilson to Africa was related, but hardly a direct response.

More to the point, he's a distraction from the criminal wrongdoing in the WH.

Even more to the point, his partisan blather is making it clear this was a political leak war . . . which he started. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the GJ refused to indict on the leaking charge for that, or a related reason.


Clarice: just be happy for Hitchens. :) The envy will fly away. That dude does rock though.

Cecil Turner

That dude does rock though.

It's a well-written article. This bit seemed like unnecessary roughness though:

I had not known until I read this article that Scowcroft was a Mormon, and this may have no importance. His willingness to believe anything could well stem from another source.


CT: Agreed. Quite gratuitous.


Hitchens is vehemently anti-religious, and yes, that is gratuitous, but I'd do anything if I could write a first sentence as good as that one.

Gary Maxwell

Let see GJ Jury does not indict Rove

Response hissy fit on Senate floor by Minority leader

Delay gets Moveon.org judge removed from case

Response? Ronnie Earle wets diaper? Or is that too mature of a response for this crowd?


Sen. Rockefeller is an incompetent, and the day's events in the Senate, can we stop championing the bipartisan wonders of the SSCI report yet?

Er, the whole SSCI report is bankrupt because one member of the panel is incompetent?

As they say in Iran, oy.

And I wouldn't characterize Rockefeller's comments as being caused by incompetence.

Seething partisanship, maybe. If he were incompetent, his foulups would break both ways. I.e., in favor of the W.H. and against the W.H.

Much like Wilson's "mis-statements" or when he "mis-speaks." Odd how his verbal problems always work in favor of his larger accusation. Never against.



Too bad the minority party can't conduct more than the Conyers type Playhouse Hearings.

Your seething disdain for our democratic institutions, separation of powers and minority rights, is always a patriotic inspiration , Clarice.

Looks like the pubs got their pants pulled down in public today, doesn't it? I should think some are harboring a grudging respect for Harry Reid's display of his boxer's skill today. FINALLY got the toadying Repubs to pause from their White House water carrying and carry out their constitutional role of oversight. As much as I despise the modern day preppy style of insipid gloating over what they consider their "permanent" one party dictatorship, it DOES provide a lot of added enjoyment when they get their eltitist faces slapped like they just did.

Hitchens might want to grow a little more respect for Mormons. They may have some inner wisdom that alcoholic narcissists often lack.


Pity they outlawed duels in the Capitol. ;)


alcoholic narcissists

Hmm, that's quite a revelation. Someone in the throes of such pyschological and physical despair should not be able to destroy leftwing arguments on every occasion (of course, given the quality of "progressive" thought today, that's not much to be proud about).

If the lefties can't keep up with him in this condition, imagine if he straightens up?

Anyway, warts and all, I'll still take Hitchens. You can have Moore, Galloway et al.


Gary Maxwell

I am sticking with my prediction. Wet diaper it will be.



Strangly like Kay Bailey.
Perkins removed. "Retired" Visiting Judge appointed. Lets see how Ronnie plays this.

I'm looking for another shot at a directed verdict.


This is getting boringly predictable, isn't it? Pinocchio Wilson gets trotted out for smurfball interviews where he repeats his long dicredited lies, Kristof calls for Cheney's resignation and Reid pretends the Reps are hiding stuff in the investigation.

Let's subpoena some phone records!! LOL

Sounds to me like Rockefeller pulled out the old memo about how to politicize the Intel Committee and decided to try another shot at it.


Just noticed Moveon Did a second version of that blockbuster video "Uncovered"--in November of 2003. This time Beers starred, Wilson having been bumped from the co- star role by the SSCI report..LOL http://www.nndb.com/films/302/000092026/


SMG - Rockefeller is not just one member, Rockefeller has been the ranking Democrat. And simply put, he's a wimp and an incompetent, and he got rolled by the smarter and rougher (I mean that as a compliment here) Roberts. Et voila, the SSCI report part one, and the Republicans' up until now effective refusal to perform its proper oversight function and produce part 2. Looks like that might change now, however, thanks to some Democrats who actually know what they're doing.

Gary Maxwell

Dig this:

Among the letters submitted by [Time's Matt] Cooper [to the judge considering whether to compel his testimony] was one from a former Time White House correspondent, Hugh Sidey. "In this case it seems to me the protection of a source transcends the other considerations,which do not seem to threaten national security," he wrote.

Mr. Sidey said in an interview that the identity of the CIA operative, Ms. Plame, was widely known--well before Mr. Cooper talked to his sources. "You know this game as well as I do," Mr. Sidey said. "That name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time."

And this is an exchange between host Alan Murray and guest Andrea Mitchell on CNBC's now-defunct "Capital Report," Oct. 3, 2003 (transcript not available publicly online):

Murray: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

Mitchell: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it

Two journalists on the record as having known about Plame. Now where is that JBG to apologize and put his moron crown back on? Andrea Mitchell said no such thing, its just an urban ledgend ( kinda like the levees in New Orleans).



Did I mention Rove ? No!

So so CIA contacts say otherwise .. yes follow my link .. that's who is on the other end and that is what he is saying. Got that.

Only a partisan hack would read more into my statements than I wrote.

My point was that in the real world, outside the Beltway, the best that you ever get is a good mention (sound like Ms. Flame) unless you happen to personally know the CEO of a company.

I can say without hesitation that Valerie Plame got Joe Wilson the job of going to Niger, and I don't have to put on my partisan hat to do that. It is a simple fact of life. Get over it.

Cecil Turner

Et voila, the SSCI report part one, and the Republicans' up until now effective refusal to perform its proper oversight function and produce part 2. Looks like that might change now, however, thanks to some Democrats who actually know what they're doing

According to Roberts on the tube a bit ago, part two has been complete since (May?), and held up over Democrat objections. (Since it didn't find Admin misuse of the intel.) Any bets on whether that version leaks, now? In any event, it's a bit rich to hear the railings against part I amid simultaneous pleas for part II.


Cecil, for a smart guy, you can be pretty gullible - selectively of course, when it suits your preordained conclusion. You honestly think the Pubs have produced a report and it's being suppressed by the Dems? They're so afraid of this coming out that they made a huge public display today to call attention to themselves? Come on, you're not stupid.

The genius of this Dem move today is that the American people WILL support it. It cannot be criticized because it goes to the absolute heart of what a democracy is. If a government can take its people to war on the basis of willful misinformation and lies, then the people have abdicated their democracy. The issue is not just what do we do now that we are in this godforsaken debacle. If it were, then all any government would have to do to achieve totalitarian control would be to cook up a fake war and forbid any other government body to investigate or criticize. You all should be proud that our government has not yet deteriorated to that degree - where we'd be subjects of an unaccountable king. If we were lied into war, then the people have a right to use their electoral power to change that government. If we weren't then we should know that once and for all.

I laugh at Pubs trying to steer the national conversation to judges and flu vaccinne and missing white teenagers. Nothing will ever matter more than this war, until the admin proves they played fair and honest with the citizens. If they had wanted a war to play out their geopolitical fantasies they had the duty to present THAT case to the American people, and let them decide. Since they decided to go the back door route, they must now explain themselves to their employers - we, the people.


Rockefeller is not just one member, Rockefeller has been the ranking Democrat.

Yes, I understand that Rockefeller is the grand poohbah for the Democrats. However, did the other members - Durbin, Feinstein, Levin et al. - also fall down on the job?

Let's take Levin, for example. He's a very smart and savvy guy. Of all of the Dems pushing the "Bush lied meme", he's about the best. I can't see him being hornswoggled by Pat Roberts.

Seems to me that if all of these Democratic senators are so mind-numbingly incompetent then we sure can't take anything they say on this matter seriously.

That includes any future statements that the neocons were found to have cooked the pre-war intelligence? Clearly not a credible charge (ahem)

Agreed? (hah)

Anyway, as you well know, these Senators are so busy with 50 (50? 100-and-50) other measures and legislation and issues that much of the work is undertaken by their staffs.

If someone screwed up on your side, I'd blame the staffers. Which is a lot of pretty smart folks.

Which pretty much undermines the "neocons fooled us again meme."

Geez, they fooled Rockefeller and Kerry and Clinton into voting for the authorization and then fooled them again afterwards? It's all that Straussian esoteric textual ability I guess.


Rick Ballard


In your reality, what was the purpose of the authorization to use force, passed by the Congress of the United States as representatives of the American people in October of 2003?

If you wish to argue that the majority of our elected representatives are gullible or stupid, then do so. The American people do not decide to go to war, period, and no amount of agitprop will change that.


Jay Rosen has me thinking. Must Wilson be a hero or a goat?

The idea that Iraq had WMDs spanned two administrations, as did many of the players in this saga.
When one discusses the intel used to go to war and how Bush lied about it, and one points out that Clinton told us strongly that Iraq had WMDs, the argument back is that Clinton didn't bring us to war over it.

So is the problem the 'lie' about the WMDs, or is it the war? Was it ok to lie to bring Americans to the point of going to war, if no war would have taken place?

Because if two administrations talked of WMDs, and the critics (Clarke, Beers, Wilson/Plame) only come out after Bush brings us to war....what was SUPPOSED to happen with the WMD story? Where was that narrative supposed to take us? Why not start telling us back when they must have thought Clinton was telling the story wrong?

What I'm saying is either
a) both Clinton and Bush lied and strong-armed the CIA
b)both Clinton and Bush lied and the CIA was in on it
c) Neither lied but both were wrong and the CIA was wrong too.
d) The CIA mislead both Clinton and Bush.

The idea that Bush alone lied because Bush alone went to war doesn't work. Why would Clinton lie? If he did lie, why was nobody calling him on it? And if the CIA was lying, why do they start complaining when it comes to WAR?

Shouldn't Clarke and Wilson complain about 8 years of WMD lying? Why aren't they?

Am I making any sense?



I have the exact same questions. No one seems to be able to answer them.


I wish to argue, Rick Ballard, that our representatives were either gullible, stupid, lied to or were complicit in deceit. I believe that this is quite obvious. We ALL deserve to know which of these is the true explanation, so we can vote accordingly in upcoming elections. I am well aware that we do not vote directly on such decisions, which is why the integrity & competence of our elected representatives is so vitally important.

Why are Republicans so AFRAID of the truth on this matter? And how long will they quibble about whether we deserve to have it?


My problem with LDS is that the Angel is Moronic.

Rick Ballard


It could only be obvious if their acceptance of intelligence estimates that were accepted by legislatures of our allies in the endeavor, who all chose to go to war with us, was a universal fault. Accepting, arguendo, that the WMD case was dispositive to the decision. In fact, it was not.

The original mandate for regime change in Iraq was passed by a different set of legislators in '98. Were they also gullible, stupid, deceived or complicit? I don't know how you can stand to live in a country whose citizens continue to elect fools to represent them. It must be very difficult for you to live where a solid majority of the people are so ignorant.

Cecil Turner

You honestly think the Pubs have produced a report and it's being suppressed by the Dems?

I think they produced a report you'll like even less than part I. (And Rockefeller, et al, are--perhaps wisely--deciding not to sign off on it.)

The genius of this Dem move today is . . .

Did you just call me gullible? (Heh.) Let's check back in a month or so.


To argue the illegitimacy of the present Iraqi government is absurd and to argue the illegitimacy of the agent of change is to argue the legitimacy of Saddam's regime.

That's all, folks.


Gee, Cecil, didn't take you for the tin foil hat kind of guy. In your version of reality, the Democratic representatives of half of the American people are either stark raving mad or clinically retarded. They make a huge public spectacle so that a report they've been trying to suppress can be revealed, a report they are claiming does not exist,but which they have nonetheless tried to suppress because they "won't like it"? So to keep it from coming out, they shut down the Senate to DEMAND it come out - even though it doesn't yet exist? Wow. You and Clarice must lunch together often.

Gary Maxwell

OK we heard it here first. It was a genius move by the Dems. I am with Cecil, lets give this whine a little time to age and see if it is still retailed by its maker.

Creepy Dude

It's been ready since May? Thanks for the laugh CT.

But here's the funniest quote today:

"Never have I been slapped in the face with such an affront to the leadership of this grand institution." -Bill Frist

Wow. Now that's rich.


I don't think Frist'd know slapped in the face from slapped in the butt.

Too many Dems are being swayed by the anti-war fringe who have been sandbagged by the press. It is instructive and amusing to listen to left leaners come to the realization that they should be suppporting self-determination.

The comments to this entry are closed.