The Secret Life Of Lewis Libby

Over at the Huffington Post we find John Amato huffing and posting about what Libby complained about when he called Tim Russert in July 2003.  Jeralyn Merritt has background as well.

Well.  Mickey Kaus gave a very plausible answer to this a few weeks back:

kf hears, through trustworthy and knowledgeable sources, that in his conversation with Russert Libby gave vent to the archetypal (and wrongheaded) charge that Matthews was animated by anti-Semitism--presumably because Matthews talked a lot about "neoconservative" Bush aides and war supporters and interviewed guests (such as Pat Caddell) who did too.

If that was Libby's complaint, it would help explain why NBC wanted to keep quiet about its exact contents. Not only does it potentially bring up a wild, hard-to-refute issue that the network would rather not have to deal with--but Libby's jag is also something you wouldn't forget, or make up, which would make Russert's testimony extremely convincing at trial. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may have wanted to keep it secret so it would have as much of an impact as possible, and Russert may be trying to honor a request from the prosecutor.

Let me run with that and toss in some wild speculation you have seen nowhere else.  I am not sure it would come out at trial, but it strikes me as plausible and relevant to the broader question of Libby's motives with respect to Joe Wilson.

Two leading questions will mark my course - first, is there any reason to think that it was only Chris Matthews that struck the "anti-neocon = anti-Semite" nerve in Libby, or is it a reasonable guess that Libby considered others to be anti-Semites as well?

And secondly, what was it with Libby and Joe Wilson?

You can guess the rest - some old appearances of Wilson at least allude to the sort of dual-loyalty issue that seems to be a part of the neocon/anti-Semitism debate.  I run them below.  And let's be crystal-clear: I am *NOT* alleging that Joe Wilson, Chris Matthews, or anyone else is anti-Semitic.  I am speculating that Lewis Libby may have thought so. 

Per an old LA Times story, Libby's interest in Wilson seemed to be excessive even to others at the White House:

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was so angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA officer, that he monitored all of Wilson's television appearances and urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against him, former aides say.

...Libby pressed the administration to publicly counter Wilson, sparking a debate with other White House officials who thought the tactic would call more attention to the former diplomat and his criticisms. That debate ended after an April 2004 meeting in the office of White House Communications Director Daniel Bartlett, when staffers were told "don't engage" Wilson, according to notes taken during the meeting by one person present.

Why so angry?  The obvious answer would be that Cheney's office marshalled the case for war, and it was Cheney's office that was anonymously attacked by Wilson in the early Kristof columns.

But there were other folks in Cheney's office that should have felt similarly threatened.  Might Libby have been motivated by something else?

Let's try a different tack - Wilson claims that it was a Wilson appearance on PBS in Feb 2003 that caught the eye of the White House.  Fitzgerald, in his indictment, dated the interest in Wilson to the May 6 Kristof column.

But let's unite the theories!  Per this LA Times piece above, Libby gathered up reports on Wilson's writings and public appearances (Yes, the LA Times says it was after Wilson's book, but that makes no sense at all).  So, perhaps Libby first took an interest in Wilson after May 6, but let it be known that he considered Wilson's Feb PBS appearance to be important.

Well, then - is there anything in the Wilson appearance on PBS that might be viewed as anti-Semitism?  Does Wilson raise the dual loyalty issue?

Let me repeat - I am *NOT* endorsing the "Anti-neocon = anti-Semite" reasoning.  Republicans have grown accustomed to hearing that anyone opposed to affirmative action is a racist, as proven by the fact that some affirmative action opponents are racist.  That argument does not impress me either.  However, if the anti-neocon argument resonated with Libby, let's see where it takes us.

This is from Wilson's PBS appearance in Feb 2003:

MOYERS: Tell me what you think about the arguments of one of those men, Richard Perle, who is perhaps the most influential advocate in the President's and the administration's ear arguing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. What do you think about his argument?

WILSON: Well, he's certainly the architect of a study that was produced in the mid-'90s for the Likud Israeli government called "a clean break, a new strategy for the realm." And it makes the argument that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's been since expanded to include Iran.

MOYERS: So this was drawn up during the '90s…

WILSON:  Right.  During the '90s, absolutely.

MOYERS: By men outside of all this?

WILSON:  Outside of all this, yeah.

MOYERS: And…

WILSON:  Now, Richard Perle's been outside of office since the Reagan years.

MOYERS: And this, you're saying that this has become a blueprint for the Bush Administration?

WILSON: Well, I think this is part of what has been the underpinning of the-- of the philosophical argument that calls for basically radically changing the political dynamics in the Middle East and…

MOYERS: To favor Israel?

WILSON:  Well, to favor American national security interests and Israeli national security interests which are tied.  I mean, we have…

MOYERS: How so?

WILSON: We have an important strategic responsibility to ensure the territorial integrity of Israel. It's one that we've accepted since 1948. It's one that's been increasingly close. There are those who believe that perhaps we've confused our responsibilities with the slavish adherence to the Likud strategy.

MOYERS: Likud, the party.

WILSON: It's the party in power right now. And certainly when the President or when Sharon comes — the Prime Minister comes to Washington and says that George Bush is the best friend that Israel ever had. And George Bush calls him a man of peace, calls Sharon a man of peace, there are those who wonder about the depth of our ties and the extent to which our national security responsibilities may somehow be confused with our support for the current government in Israel.

MOYERS: So help us understand why removing Saddam Hussein and expanding that movement, throughout the Middle East which would benefit Israel?

WILSON:  Well, I think those are the sorts of questions that you need to ask to Richard Perle.  The argument that I would make…

MOYERS: We asked him but he didn't want to come on the show.

Now, I am having a hard time conjuring some empathy with Lewis Libby, and I am having a hard time imagining whether that sounded like a "dual loyalties" attack on supporters of the war against Iraq.  Was Wilson speaking in a code that Libby and folks like David Brooks understood to be anti-Semitic?

Or, since Wilson had been at the State Department for years, had he left behind a reputation for being an Arabist?

Maybe someone could ask Libby.  Meanwhile, check this Wilson appearance on Buchanan and Press from Feb 18, 2003 (via Lexis):

BUCHANAN: All right, now, what do you think the president's objective is? He says, we're going to disarm this guy or I'm going to do it. And you say it's looking like a war of invasion, of conquest, of occupation, of reorientation.

What do you think the administration's real objective is? Because, if it is the second,one, they are going to look for a pretext to get the job done, whether he gives up more weapons or whatever he's doing.

WILSON: I believe the president's objective is the national security of the country. I take him at his word on that. And I believe him when he says that disarming Saddam is absolutely key to the national security of the country. I do believe, however, that those around him who have said that, you cannot disarm Saddam without invading and subsequently occupying the country, I doubt their motives.

He doubts their motives?  More code?  A bit later, Press addresses this more directly:

PRESS: ...Mr. Ambassador, I want to ask you maybe about the bigger picture here that's going on, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel quoted this morning as saying that -- yesterday said: "Iran, Libya, and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction next after Iraq. They're also threats after the United States takes care of Iraq."

He's implying that the United States should take care of Iran, Libya and Syria and have regime change in all of those countries as well. Is that President Bush's plan? Is that the American people are being asked to support?

WILSON: Well, there are certainly those who have written some of the philosophical underpinnings of this strategy who make those arguments. The seminal study was "A Clean Break" by Richard Perle in a study group, many of whom are occupying key positions in this administration. It's called "A Strategy for the Realm" or something like that. For the Israeli government, it was written for. And they make a lot of arguments about how to restructure the Middle East, including taking out Iraq and regime change in Iraq, applying pressure to Syria and to Iran.

BUCHANAN: Let me follow up on that.

"A Clean Break," you're right, "A Strategy for the Realm" was written, I believe, in 1996. It was written for Bibi Netanyahu, the incoming prime minister of Israel. And it talked about taking down Iraq first. We have seen Norman Patard's (ph) commentary list, about seven or eight countries, other scholars over at AEI and elsewhere.

And the argument is made that, by attacking the neocons and singling these people out, it is illegitimate to do so, because you are doing it because of their ethnicity. Did you see the piece by Lawrence Kaplan today?

WILSON: I saw the piece. I took some offense at it, because I think it is not the same to be for smart military action or not for military action and to be essentially being what they are claiming, anti-Semitic.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: Is there not an overlap between what the neocons are arguing for and what Sharon wants as an American agenda for the Middle East?

WILSON: Very clearly. And it is actively debated in Israeli newspapers, including an article in October in "The Haaretz" which was entitled, "Perles of Wisdom for the Feithful," referring to Richard Perle and Doug Feith, who at the Pentagon.

 

I can't crack the code.  Here is the Lawrence Kaplan piece (which mentions Chris Matthews as an offender), and scroll down here for a response from Mickey Kaus.

Well.  If we accept that Libby viewed some people as anti-Semitic for the nature of their attacks on the neo-cons, it is possible, based on these excerpts or others, that Joe Wilson was placed by Libby in that category.

And what does that suggest?  Well, was anyone convinced by Libby's "I heard about Plame in June from Cheney, but forgot it completely until I heard it again from Russert in July" defense?  I didn't think so.

But that already weak-defense becomes absurd if the prosecution can argue that Libby was motivated to "Get Joe" because he believed Wilson to be anti-Semitic.

On the other hand, Libby as a lone gunmen also becomes more plausible - maybe there was no conspiracy, and this Plame leak story is just Libby trying too hard to put Joe Wilson in his place.

Or... I scarcely dare suggest it, but if this was a conspiracy led by a fellow out to quash the anti-Semites, is there any particular ethnic characteristic we might look for in Libby's co-conspirators?  Maybe David Wurmser is a more likely suspect than Karl Rove.

I doubt the prosecution would ever let it get that far - the last example particularly illustrates that Fitzgerald would be treading on very thin ice if he started suggesting that a Jewish cabal was out to get Wilson.  Frankly, I think the whole topic is sufficiently radioactive that neither side will tackle it.

However, I am not prosecuting this; I am just trying to figure out what happened, and why.

Self Awareness Note:  I do not have notebooks devoted to Joesph Wilson's every utterance, and my experience is that Wilson's defenders (the Few, the Proud) are much more inclined to be obsessed with him than I am.  But thanks for wondering.

UPDATE:  I don't know whether Wilson's EPIC speech of June 14, 2004 would have been available to Libby (or might he have gotten feedback some other way?), but here are some excerpts that might have struck a sensitive neo-con as being anti-Semitic (Remember, its not what you or I think, its what Libby might have thought that matters):

[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."

Comments

[geo]

Our interests and Israel's interests are NOT aligned. Our interest is a stable oil supply, with or without Israel. Our interest is curtailing Islamic extreamism directed against the US - not becoming something other than an honest broker in the Israeli-Palistinian conflict.

---- and not a word about democracy and freedom.

[boris]

and not a word about democracy and freedom.

Israel is a free democracy. They are allies as much as any other free democracy and more than some like France. Being an "honest broker" in WW2's Europe was not our destiny.

[Carol_Herman]

FIRST! Where's the secret in the talk Libby had with Russert? You think Libby doesn't know what was said? Or that in preparing him for court, his BLACK and FAMOUS lawyer (Ted Wells), might not just be sure to clue him in, here?

Fitz-hooey is the out-of-towner. And, I'm not even so sure, as a prosecutor of the "mafia," that blacks in ghettos wouldn't be ultra-sensitive to these prosecutors. And, might not be willing, out of animus, to shoot him dead. Or give him a Sneddon's jurors' response to this case.

Anti-semitism flies? Arik Sharon has walked out of the Likud. His popularity is on the increase. Not the decrease. And, most Americans overpaying for gasoline for their cars and trucks, might not be in an "appeasement mode" for the Saudis.

Even if the anti-Semitism canard gets raised by either the prosecution or the defense, how good is it for the democraps to be defeated by something like the Dryfus case? Some stains on your reputation can last for a very long time, ya know.

And, to think that Ted Wells would allow his client to be painted as a "Jew" so he could be hung; might not fly? Given that a judge with a gavel can really punish an out of control prosecutor in any case.

And, why not think that Blacks, seeing what happened in New Orleans, might not be having misgivings about their tilt towards the democrapic party? You're just assuming they are automatons. Or that Pat Buchanan has any clout whatsover with the public. Or that we're not watching the media, itself, get hung out to dry?

Where are the advantages, anyway? Ted Wells wants to toss away his reputation on this case? While Fitz-hooey isn't in the best position at all.

Let alone one where he has to go out of his way to portray Libby as a vengeful Jew.

IF, in fact, the president put the kabosh on Wilson, isn't it possible it was the BEST long-term strategy? The democraps have been angling all sorts of things. With their last best hope being The lobbyist, Abramoff', case wending its way through "justice."

I'm going to guess that a lot of democrapic watering holes run dry with the public, up ahead. But I'm not the Oracle of Delphi, so I can't read the future, exactly. I can only guess the president is way ahead ... Just as is Arik Sharon in Israel. And, events will play out, ahead.

[TP]

I think there is a well founded fear among Jews of all political stripes that any discussion of the Iraq War in terms of Israel will eventually lead to Europeon style scapegoating here (particularly if there are a lot of deaths). It happened to Germans in WWI and Germans and Japanese in WWII and there is an obvious long term occurence with Jews everywhere for thousands of years. Whether there was any intent at anti-Semitism by Wilson is not the question. Once the subject of Israel was mentioned, it was bound to hit a nerve in Libby.

People may view Israel as an albatross for our foreign policy and might be in favor of abandonment of it, but they should consider the consequences of such a policy over the long term. This is a genie that can't be put back in the bottle both for domestic political considerations and for world safety. The radical Arab desire to push them in to the sea, is quite frankly, a suicide wish that would take us all down. If we adandon them, they may very well survive on their own. The consequences of their failure to survive (or a radical anti-Zionist victory) would be a catastrophic event for the world. This is a proud nation that probably possesses nuclear weapons. If it is seriously threatened, it will not go quietly in to the night. Anyone that thinks that a radical Palestine, whose primary desire is to destroy Israel, is ever going to be the cornerstone of peace and stability in the Midlle East should have their head examined.

[Syl]

Israel bashing is just one issue among many that the Left is being forced to abandon. And they're fighting tooth and nail.

No wonder they hate George Bush. He symbolizes the breakdown of everything they hold dear.

There is no progress in human history except technology. Tolerance is all we can hope to achieve but even that has it limits. And we faced those limits on 9/11.

The UN as a symbol of international cooperation and governance is shot to hell and back with corruption and incompetence.

Multi-culturalism has proven disastrous because it creates a wall between cultures and increases the danger of intolerance. The whole notion of multi-culturalism is the exact opposite of what progressives wish to achieve.

Political Correctness is a danger to our freedom of speech. A democracy's most precious freedom. (Not what library books you check out!) Fear of mentioning there might be a problem with an intolerant culture only causes more resentment.

Freedom and democracy as championed by George Bush is bottom up. Progressives would rather have a top down ponzi scheme governing all peoples.

I'm sure there's more. But this is enough to make progressives and internationalists stamp their feet in petulance and frustration.

[JM Hanes]

TP

"People may view Israel as an albatross for our foreign policy and might be in favor of abandonment of it but they should consider the consequences of such a policy over the long term."

While I might debate the merits of the particular argument you make, I'll just point out that I made no such recommendation and that you yourself mostly confirm that the albatross is a heavy one indeed. In a similar, though not analogous way, our domestic politics are often held hostage to the abortion issue.

[TP]

JM. Actually, the argument is more about us being captive to history. It is kind of like the nuclear bomb. Some may regret the consequences of having developed and dropped it, but there were good reasons for its development and dropping and, besides, there is not much we can do about it anyway.

[TexasToast]

Wow Syl.

What an unabashed expression of Volk. Corruption is a human vice - it exists in all contexts. You have managed to conflate corruption with multiculturalism. Corruption exists in monocultural societies - it is not an effect of multiculturalism - it stands alone.

I am frankly bemused at the attempts to link US foreign policy to a moral crusade ("not a word about freedom and democracy") Yes, there are cultural differences (witness the failure of nordic style social programs [socialism] in a multicultural context), but that does not mean that our foreign policy should be another witness to the infidel.

Just who is the jihadist?

[TP]

JM. Our exchange does point out the sensitivity of public discussion of this topic. I have a long time Jewish friend who I would describe as a moderate Democrat who has a real dislike for George Bush and who was not supportive the the Iraq invasion. In the lead up to the war, when I suggested that there might be an Israeli tie-in, he told me that he thought that attitude might be anti-Semitic. Since I was generally supportive of the war, I was a little astounded.

[Syl]

TT

You have managed to conflate corruption with multiculturalism.

Wow. I did that?

Show me how I accomplished such a feat.

And, how exactly do you get from there (whatever 'there' is) to Iraq?

[JM Hanes]

TM
"Just to be clear - I am referring to a code that Libby seems to be able to hear; I am not saying I het it myself. Maybe "dogwhistle to the neocons" would be a better metaphor."

I just think there's not much code in Joe Wilson's public statements; he flat out says Iraq is all about Israel. Now Libby may think that qualifies as anti-semitic, and I can certainly imagine him referring to Wilson that way or blasting Matthews for promoting that anti-semite's spin. But if, as a Libby aide, per Matthews via Kaus, states, "Scooter thinks anytime anybody uses the word 'neoconservative' it's anti-Semitic," then that angle starts looking like background noise to me, obscuring more compelling reasons for Libby's particular interest in Wilson and for the premise, if not the language, of his call to Russert. Matthews was, after all, attacking Libby repeatedly and by name, on the show in question.

It seems as likely that in the course of trying to nail down who Wilson was, the Ambassador started looking less and less like a one-off loose cannon, and more like the public face of a organized "conspiracy" to discredit the White House in general and the Veep's office in particular. You don't really even have to be that paranoid when you look at Feb. 2003 to wonder how Bill Moyers, of all people, happened to light upon Joe Wilson. Joe was out there long before he broke the surface in the Times. Who was sponsoring himi?

The more tracking Libby did, the more Wilson had to look like a guy with his fingers in every pie in town, from Moyers, to Intel, to Kristof & the Times, to Kerry -- not to mention Matthews/Mitchell et al. and perhaps the WH itself. How was Joe supposed to know, per Kos for example, "that a dossier was being prepared on him in March of 2003"? And who, I keep wondering, is the SAO who originally outed the "two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists"?

What bugs me the most about the SAO is how perfectly his comments at the time conformed to (and confirmed) the Joe Wilson line. "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge." The SAO explained his decision to go public by saying he thought the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility." Don't you think that sounds a whole lot more like script than conviction?

Considering how many sources everybody seems to have in everybody else's business, the idea that nobody knew where Plame worked seems almost laughable to me at this point -- as do the last minute interviews of the Wilson's neighbors. As members of the general public, they would be the least likely to have an inside track on DC scoop. Maybe Fitz really needed them to shore up his assertion that Plame's employment was not widely known.

P.S. Just checked the WaPo link which now only gives citation info. I have a copy of the full text if anybody needs a file copy.

[JM Hanes]

TP

Indeed. It's not an easy subject to approach. You're right about the fear of scapegoating as both real and well-founded, yet I can also understand the frustration on the flip side, whether being tarred as a racist expressing concern about states rights or as an anti-semite for expressing concern about our relationship with Israel. The potential downside of letting racism or anti-semitism get by unchallenged is so ghastly, however, that I've concluded the guilty till proven innocent approach in this regard may be the lesser of two evils.

[TM]

Well, the "Senior Administration official" got demoted in the follow-ups.

Here is the WaPo from Sept 29, one day later:

Bush Aides Say They'll Cooperate With Probe Into Intelligence Leak By Mike Allen

...An administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to selected journalists to discredit Wilson.

And get this, later in the story from what I hope is a different source (which means they had two sources? What are the odds?):

An administration aide told The Post on Saturday that the two White House officials had cold-called at least six Washington journalists and identified Wilson's wife.

I am baffled - who is the aide, and what happened to the senior administration official from the day before?

[Neuro-conservative]

TM & JMH -- I think this SAO quoted Sept. 28 WaPo holds an important key to this whole mystery, and I'm not sure why more effort hasn't been expended in figuring out his/her identity. This SAO raised the stakes on Plamegate from an isolated incident to a systematic WH campaign. As you say, the quote dovetails with Wilson's script. I have therefore always assumed that the SAO was a senior CIA figure (McLaughlin?) sympathetic to Wilson/Plame and hostile to Bush/WH.

Moreover, this WaPo piece immediately followed Andrea Mitchell's Sept. 26 scoop on the whole CIA/Justice Dept referral. Again, I had previously assumed that that leak was from CIA.

However, the Sept 30 WaPo article by Mike Allen and Dana Milbank states, "Word of the Justice probe emerged over the weekend after the CIA briefed lawmakers on it last week." Somewhere in the Mitchell thread (or in a link from there), a similar reference to a Congressional source for the original Mitchell scoop is offered. So let's speculate that the source for the Sept 26 Mitchell scoop is a Congressional Democrat (Schumer?).

Now, let's imagine the scene on Saturday Sept. 27: The administration is surprised and thrown on the defensive. As expected, the WH once again goes into Rove-denial mode. Nothing new there.

But who would leak the idea of a larger WH conspiracy? Who would have knowledge of such cold-calls and why would they want this known? While this disclosure serves Wilson's interests, is it possible that this is only coincidental?

Wouldn't the additional focus on a WH-based conspiracy also serve the interests of any administration officials outside of the WH who might have separately leaked about Wilson's wife prior to the Novak column? Such an official might have started getting nervous upon finding out about a criminal investigation. Better to keep the focus on the WH, like throwing sand in the eyes of an umpire...

Moreover, if the cold-calls were made by WH officials from AF1 on the way to Africa, what non-WH administration officials might have been aware of it?

I have been wondering if there might be a 3rd major sphere of influence within the administration, whose interests might at times align with the WH, and at times align with the CIA against the WH. But I am having trouble getting to the bottom of it, because my vision is foggy.

[kim]

Foggy bottom fishing, huh?

Syl: They stomp their feet in petulance and frustration rather than rethink their assumptions. Sounds like donkeys. With long noses.

Just where is the liberal urge with respect to the self-determination of the Iraqis and the Israelis? This is why I suggested to JM that he just announce that Bush is a liberal(foreign policy) and be done with it.
================================================
==================================================

[kim]

I know why liberals have so much trouble with the concept. Basically it's Carter Redux. In part. And, by the way, why didn't Carter supervise elections in Iraq and Israel. Too busy in Palestine and Venezuela? Oh, I get it. So do they.
=============================================

[MayBee]

You all will have to forgive my forgetfulness.
But these 2 sources cold-calling never actually panned out, right? At least not yet?

[kim]

Not much news about the cold(hot?) calls lately. I'm of the belief that those calls were made after Novak's article had hit the wire, so already in the public domain. By then, though there was a herd of shattered decoy in the ditch, even the HyPo considered Val fair game.
==============================================

[JayDee]

The whole "anti Semitism" argument from the right seems like another one of their pet semantics games, which they can easily turn on its head as a "racist" argument. i.e. If you don't like Condoleeza Rice, you're a racist. I think this might be the habit of simplistic thinking among some of them, but at higher levels it's just another tactic to discourage honest debate.

I can see the need to preserve Israel's sovreignty. I can also see the outrage of the Palestinians at having one religious group accorded such disproportionate privilege. It's a difficult question and if there were no oil in the Middle East, it's fairly easy to see that it would be a question of minor import to this country.

I myself have lived all my life, from infancy to now, in a heavily Jewish community, work in an office where half my coworkers are Jews (mostly practicing) and have a Jewish brother in law. They are without a doubt, and almost to the individual, the most reliably LIBERAL group of voters I know. They don't see any conflict with support of Israel and disgust at the Iraq War. This obsession with finding another way to label liberals in a box that can be McCarthy-ed is a game whose usefulness is played.

Start debating these complex issues on the merits. Stop trying to inhibit free speech with Politically Correct rules, now the province of conservatives. I think the Iraq War had to do with the geopolitical fantasies of arrogant elitist intellectuals. I care more about America than Israel, and in fact care about Israel ONLY as it pertains to my country's interests, and I am in no way an anti Semite. This is just another ridiculous game by conservatives, increasingly trapped and defeated, looking for new ways to shame their oppposition into silence.

[kim]

That was remarkable sensible.

Nits to pick. I see lots of oil underground in Israel. Explain to me why Uncle Tomism is still actively promoted to energize the black electorate, and antisemitism is used politically, if maybe not by you.
===========================================

[kim]

And, of course, I presume a bit about your views, but how is it that you defenders of the UN, and of the global community, can so explicitly state that, in fact, you care about Israel only as it pertains to your country's interests?
================================================

[topsecretk9]

Stop trying to inhibit free speech with Politically Correct rules, now the province of conservatives.

okay this statement, on a mostly right leaning blog that has the balls TO BRING IT FOR DEBATE WITH A COMMENT THREAD , is HIGHlarious.

Now my eyes may be lying but, when I have witnessed anti-war rallies in San Fran a significant proportion of the protesters are sporting very provocative and down right vitriolic anti-ISREAL messages.

You may be cool with Michael Steele in black face of Condi and Powell as Uncle Tom or worse in comics and speech, but excuse the heck out of me if I find, what I have been told by your side, that any speech like this is racist. Period.

No one here is saying YOU are racist. I think the inference is many LEADERS of the left are either ignoring, allowing or aligning with this strain of sentiment that is undeniable present and the hypocrisy of crying "McCarthyism" whenever it is raised " seems like another one of their pet semantics games" to avoid the obvious.

[boris]

There is no progress in human history except technology.

So it seems. For modern cargo cultists the trappings of technology provides an illusion of newness that enables dark and primitive human traits to rage anew while the restraining forces of tradition are systematically neutralized.

[owl]

I assumed the cold calls came after Novak?

Seems like Dana Priest/Mike Allen sure do get a lot of CIA leak damage to WH. The 9/28/03 and now their "torture prisons".

[Neuro-conservative]

Owl -- From the Sept 28 WaPo:

"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. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge." [emph added]

The use of the phrase "just revealed" seems to place it as the immediate aftermath of the OpEd (ie, when the officials were on the plane to Africa and Armitage had the memo faxed to AF1).

[kim]

On Fri. or Sat before the column ran but after it hit the wire.
======================================

[JM Hanes]

TM & Neuro

"I am baffled - who is the aide, and what happened to the senior administration official from the day before?"

Half the time I think that reporters are just "paraphrasing" the work of other reporters, or even trying to avoid repetition at the expense of clarity. Do we have a shift from SAO to aide, two separate sources, or a Libby/Miller "former hill staffer"?

The implication is that whoever leaked the leaking would be someone in a position to know who Libby & Rove were calling, which would make a CIA source unlikely -- if logic even applies in PlameWorld. Considering the spin, however, it sounds almost like his/her info came from the recipients.

OTOH, the State Dept. may be worth suspicion here as well. I forget whose links I was following when I ended up at this piece from Asia Times/Oct. 2003. A useful reminder of just how poisonous things got between the Veep's office and the State Dept. I'd forgotten Cheney had his daughter installed at the Near East bureau.

Aides are sort of an all-purpose tool. It was struck by how much the following, from another recent Wash. Post piece tracked with contemporaneous Democratic demands for Rove's head:

Top White House aides are privately discussing the future of Karl Rove, with some expressing doubt that President Bush can move beyond the damaging CIA leak case as long as his closest political strategist remains in the administration.

The whole article had a weirdly similar feel. Were Republicans really having a Democratic moment en masse? Can we actually figure out how many Republicans the authors actually spoke to? The piece is a regular paradigm of anonymous sourcery. The folks who brought us the People's Right to Know give us:

top White House aides
some [of the above]
colleagues
senior Republican sources
an attorney
White House officials
two sources
sources close to Rove
some top Republicans
Bush's top advisers
White House official spokesmen [sic]
a GOP strategist
top White House officials
a number of people inside and out of the White House
many mid-level staffers
people familiar with the case.
some aides
a Republican
influential conservatives
Republicans with firsthand knowledge
people inside and outside the White House
a large number of administration officials
court officials
friends [of Libby]
intermediaries for Libby
several law firms
legal sources
White House colleagues
legal experts
sources close to Rove
sources said
sources who were made aware...
sources close to Rove
White House critics
the outside
a few conservatives

So, are sources close to Rove the same as sources close to Rove and the sources close to Rove? Maybe. Maybe not. In an unintended bit of irony, the authors explain that prosecutor's "Offical A" is clearly a pseudonym for Karl Rove!

[kim]

You forgot, JM, it was Rove that Joe wanted frogmarched. And who asked Joe to want that? And who helped Joe nearly get that?
============================================

[MayBee]

Good list, JM.

Excellent point, kim.
Imagine, wanting Rove frogmarched before the elections.

[Sam Schulman]

Has anyone here noted the other part of Joe Wilson's point at EPIC? Not only did he expect that we would find WMD and a nuclear weapon development program in place in Iraq, but also that it would be understandable for Saddam to have had such a program in order to defend himself against Israel. It's pretty clear that he is of an anti-Israel persuasion - as is his privilege. (full disclosure - I am a Jew). It's also clear that he's lying when he says that Bush lied, since he thought - well after the Iraq war was started - that Bush had good reason to think as he did. Lying, too, is Wilson's privilege.

Here is what Wilson said:
Of course we didn't find any terrorists when we got to Iraq, just as we haven't yet found any weapons of mass destruction, though on that score I remain of the view that we will find chemical and biological weapons, and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam's regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons--not surprising if you live in a part of the world where you do have a nuclear-armed country, an enemy of yours, which is just a country away from you.". . .]

[kim]

Joe very apparently switched his public comments after the invasion. This is the source of a great deal of my moral outrage at the scumbucket. He is a coward, and a taker of illegitimate apoprtunity. Check out his 2/6/03 op-ed in the LATimes. Sam, you've pointed out a transitional area, where he still suspected Saddam of having WMD, before he was in full 'Bush,Lied' voice.

That voice was given to him. By whom? Surely, it'll come out.
============================================

[kim]

And Mickey, it's radioactive. It is a worse third rail than social security. That's just money. This anti-semitism bit gets into areas people have no understanding of. It makes money simple.
==================================================

[kim]

Naked and nowhere to think.
=============================

[Pointed Head]

the fundamental flaw in this article is that its premise is not just subjective, but absurd- the neocons don't actually "believe" that their political opponents are "anti-semitic". this is simply a rhetorical weapon, one that is shamelessly and ruthlessly exploited, in various degrees, in order to maintain the primacy of israeli strategic objectives (over US strategic objectives) at the pentagon (vis-a-vis the middle east) and to intimidate and silence any critics of the process. everybody is conscious of the phenomenon on this level, despite the fact that few speak out about it in such candid terms.

consequently, building an article around the possibility that libby 'may actually have believed' that wilson was an anti-semite is no different, intellectually, than evan thomas' insipid argument that 'it is a safe bet libby felt he was doing the right thing for the country'. if we were to accept that premise (the former) then we would also have to accept the corresponding premise that libby is insane, emotionally unhinged, irrational.

not to mention the fact that if libby were to actually come out and say it... say that he felt wilson was an anti-semite (and he has said nothing of the kind)... this would mean something entirely different than what the author suggests it might mean. if libby were to say it or even think it, it would be political code for something else. in libby's mind, a man who is not insane, it would mean that "wilson is unbeholden to the american jewish political establishment; wilson does not accept, nor has he ever been forced to accept, the primacy and dominance of israeli strategic objectives when it comes to US foreign policy in the middle east." wilson, therefore, would have to be shut up or , if that didn't work, slandered as an "anti-semite", which would at least serve the purpose of getting people to stop listening to him. however, none of this would actually mean that libby "believed" wilson to be an "anti-semite", i.e. as in "anti-semite" in the old-fashioned sense. and even if he did, it would only be because he allowed the term to morph into a catch-all for something else.

nevertheless, even if he (libby) had allowed to definition of the term to expand in his own mind, to morph into a political catch-all, he would still be conscious of the... legerdemain. unless, of course, we accept the possibility that libby may also be stupid. but he does not appear to be stupid, any more than he appears to be insane.

so why write an article about this, unless you are just looking for an excuse to put the words "joseph wilson" and "anti-semite" next to each other, over and over again? for even if you write "joseph wilson is not an anti-semite", there is damage done. the subconscious mind does not hear "not".

nevertheless, the quotes in here are great. particular the last wilson quote.

[cathyf]

the fundamental flaw in this article is that its premise is not just subjective, but absurd- the NAACP doesn't actually "believe" that the KKK is "racist". this is simply a rhetorical weapon, one that is shamelessly and ruthlessly exploited, in various degrees, ... to intimidate and silence any critics of the process. everybody is conscious of the phenomenon on this level, despite the fact that few speak out about it in such candid terms.

Yep. Everybody. Uh huh...

cathy :-)

[kim]

All those people.
===================

[kim]

Actually, I'd like to hear what Joe has to say.

Speak, Joe, speak.
===================================================

[Pointed Head]

cathy... the kkk is an organization that is specifically devoted to racial supremacy. there is no such "anti-semitic" organization in existence to whose membership one could ascribe joseph wilson.

the parallel you are trying to make between my remarks and this kkk thing is, frankly, inflammatory and slanderous.

but getting back to the article, the mere suggestion that wilson may be anti-semitic is, in effect, a form of racism- because he is not jewish he must therefore be anti-semitic? because he is not jewish the burden is upon him to prove that his actions do not originate from an "unconscious" animus towards israel? this is the worst kind of anti-intellectual red herring. it's amazing that one would even entertain the question in any kind of serious discussion. not to mention the fact that, the war itself is the worst kind of anti-semitism, in the sense that anti-semitism pertains to all semitic peoples, and the war is able to move forward only because the deaths of these people don't count in the minds of the average americans.

re: everybody. what i meant was: everybody who matters. if you choose to exclude yourself from that community, that's your business.

[kim]

Uh, Saudi paymasters for his consulting business.
===================================================

[NeoDude]

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet's family, the direct descendants of which -- and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows -- is King Hussein.

From:

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm

A report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies' "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

[kim]

And PH, as I mentioned to TT, we know that the descendents of Shem are numerous, and live here ad there. Don't try to confound the meaning of anti-semitism and don't presume racism where it ain't.
=================================

[Pointed Head]

kim.. i don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. my view of the world doesn't come from reading science fiction novels. er.., i mean... the bible. talk about presuming racism where it doesn't exist. "the descendants of xenon are mighty and out to crush the peoples of ur"

but regarding this presumption of racism, wasn't the entire point of this article that libby "might" have presumed racism in the case of joe wilson? my point, in fact, was that the article itself was a case of presuming racism where it didn't exist. actually, my point was also that "anti-semitism" doesn't have any meaning any more, at least in a conventionally racist sense, but has become a catch-all "denunciation" intended to suppress political opinion. in some cases it is used by the american jewish political establishment (brooks, for instance, claiming that anybody who criticizes the neocons is an anti-semite) whereas in other cases, it is used by elite US interests to suppress their own critics (as related to their own agenda in the region). in yet other cases, it is used by people of all varieties on blog sites who don't like listening to other people talk who sound like they might actually have an education or who know how to think. or who have read something in their lives besides the bible.

[kim]

Oh, so antisemitism is imaginary. Boy have you got a lot to learn. And your bible fiction is just that. It's from your head.
==============================================

[kim]

And while you are at it, tell me what you think is in the bible.

Or even one of those other books you've read.
================================================

[kim]

The Ecleptic Elenchtic here wondering just what is in that pointy head of yours, besides the usual claptrap.
===========================================

[kim]

You sound a lot like a smart skinner to me.
===================================================

[kim]

Here's the giveaway code: "used by elite US interests to suppress their own critics(as related to their own agenda in the region)."

Just what else do you read?
==============================

[kim]

Whoa UP, pony. Alright, I'll hope you can think, and I'll concede that perhaps you didn't understand that you brought up Shem. Do you understand that your assumptions about me and the bible were fundamentally antisemitic in structure?
==================================================

[clarice]

I've just returned and scanned the posts made after I left for the Holidays. Nothing in them has changed my mind.

Frankly, I see Wilson's remarks at EPIC and thereafter as virtually identical with Lindberg's when he stated that the Jews were pushing FDR into war with Germany to save the Jews of Europe.

The realists' view of the ME has to me always been delusional if not outright dishonest:Nothing short of mass suicide would have satisfied Israel's opponents whose grievance seems to any objective observer to have always been Jews buying land in the 'hood.

The Oslo accord was a disaster, based on the pretense that sealing wax and signatures on a treaty would resolve anything when one of the signatories had everything to gain and nothing to lose by continued non-compliance. That American Jews like Foxman and their Democratic leaders were persuaded otherwise is the surest sign ever that the Bell Curve thesis is fatally flawed.

If Libby thought that Wilson type attacks on the President's Jewish advisers was anti-semitic BTW he would not have been alone. And objectively the plight of Israel was NOT a major factor in the decision to invade Iraq. Israel into play only because like the rest of the "realists'" delusions the Oslo Accord and everything which followed it until the Iraq War showed up the nonsensical nature of their strategic vision.

[MattR]

Pointed Head - Thanks for trying to bring some sanity to this discussion. I have to agree with your view that the neo-cons don't actually believe the anti-semitism comments, they use them for political advantage. Also agree with your point about Wilson having to prove he is not an anti-Semite because he is not Jewish.

So, as a Jew, let me make a few comments. There is nothing anti-Semitic in anything that I have heard from Wilson. There is nothing anti-Semitic about the terms neoconservative and neo-con. I dislike Paul Wolfowitz for reasons other than the way his last name ends.

[kim]

What does being a Jew have to do with it?
=========================================

[kim]

So MR Jew: Is that sanity or naivete you are bringing to the discussion. And is it sanity or bigotry Epithelium Head brought?
========================================

[kim]

Maimonides wrote in Arabic for crying out loud. What is the matter with you people. Jihad this, crusade that. The jews have a homeland in Baghdad, and youse have a homeland you shit in.
=================================================

[boris]

As Wilson explains, these plans were hatched by Richard Perle and his study group some years back. And now, as a result, "... American boys and girls are dying for Israel."

The sentiment expressed here is either anti-Jew or anti-capitalist-democracy or both. Either way Wilson is a piece of work.

[kim]

Mickey notices.

Arafat made sure little Palestinian boys die for Israel, too.

Crystalline Parking Lot's Wife.
Why is it always the knife?
=================================================

[kim]

Check out these cool pebbles I found in the stream bed. They can keep your hands warm but too long and it burns. And who says burning these black rocks will change the weather? What druid told you that?
==============================================

[kim]

Hey, Mick! Drop it. It's too hot. It'll make your tongue swell and garble your speech and thought. We aren't used to talking about it, hearing about it, thinking about it. It's taboo, and toungled.
============================================

[MattR]

Kim - It seems that reading comprehension is beyond you so I will try and do this slowly. PointedHead made the point that because Wilson is not Jewish, any negative comments he made about people who are Jewish are being perceived as anti-Semitic and he is faced with the burden of proving that to be false. I agreed with the sentiment and said as much in my comment. Since that is the environment we are in, it seemed necessary for me to state the fact that I am Jewish before I could try to defend Wilson or say something negative about the neo-cons. Otherwise there was a good chance I would be accused of being an anti-Semite as well. Capeesh?

[kim]

What's being a jew got to do with it?
======================================