Powered by TypePad

« 'Hubris' On Valerie Plame's Day Job | Main | Soaking The Spiteful Rich »

September 05, 2006



Jason Leopold.

Scary Larry.

Ray McGovern.

George Soros.

David Corn.

Michael Isikoff.

Walter Pincus.

Murray Waas.

Kate Zernicke.

James Risen.

Eric Litchlen (sp?).


Senator Charles Schumer.

John Conyers.

Chris Matthews.

Ned Lamont.


Senator Charles Schumer.

John Conyers.

Chris Matthews.

Ned Lamont.

Wilson's a Liar

Check out Sweetness and Light today - he has already started the catalog and has some great links. So does Mark Levin at NRO.

Chuck Schumer
Maureen Dowd
Frank Rich
Paul Krugman
Kevin Drum
Chris Matthews
David Shuster

I'm not even going to mention the nutroots amateurs like Leopold. Nobody takes them seriously anyway. It's the alleged "journalists" like Shuster and politicians liker Schumer who flogged this bogus story and whose careers should be ended by it.


"Who was so memorably taken in by Joe Wilson?"

Why, Valerie Plame, of course. Sometime around 1997 according to Corn.


You are missing a category: Special Prosecutors.


Hi, I still cannot get to sweetness and light.


Best may be yet to come.


Mary Mapes rejoining Dan Rather.

MM: .."to have some fun and
to break some balls!

Rather and Matthews now tight, now we've got a trio of "scrambled minds".


I watched Matthews to see what he would have to say about the news, after a week's vacation.

Not one word.

What a bloody coward.

Jim Miller

Congressman Jay Inslee (WA, 1st). It was at an event sponsored by Inslee that Wilson said he wanted Karl Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House.

(You may have seen Congressman Inslee, even if you don't live in this area. He makes a practice of trying to get in the camera when more famous Democrats, almost always wearing a distinctive blue parka. It's so blatant, it's funny.)


Andrea Mitchell
Matt Cooper
90% of the staff of the NY and LA Times.
Marc Ash
soon to be Tim Russert
Frank Rich
George Stephanopolus
Jane hamsher
Arianna huffington



Other Tom

Howard Dean.




"Coward" is exactly what I called him.

But worse than that he & Biden
begin rehab of Armitage!

Gutless wonder asks:
Who would be a better SOD?

BIDEN "Armitage would be better Sec of Defense!"

Speechless. How dumb do they think Bush is!
So Matthews is coward and this is part of bury/rehab
job on integrity of Army/Powell

Armitage SOD, Colin VP & Hill Pres.

And Matthews, Rather and Mapes
"break balls"


Pincus definetely for helping start the whole bit but he also "saw the light" long before Armitage was outed.

Dana Priest, too.

However, I do hold them responsible for just leaving it at one short comment and letting the awful meme continue forward.


My brother-in-law. And he will pay every holiday for as long as I live.

Telly Salivas

Juan Williams (who on FNS this weekend tried to push the line "well if OVP requested a memo on Wilson;s trip and his wife was mentioned in it and Armitage read it and passed it along then it's still Libby's fault)

Jeff Greenfield (CNN)

Pete Yost (AP)

Jonathon "BDS sufferer" Alter (Newsweek)

David "crybaby" Gregory

Ellis Henican (Newsday)

Jim VandeHei (WaPo)


#1 Taken in by Joe Wilson would be Joe Wilson.

Graydon Carter. No link required. Joe Wilson was profiled in the most aptly named magazine for him.

I don't want to be mean, but Jay Rosen declared Murray Waas "our" Woodward and Bernstein over his reporting on this.

So I gotta give a nod to Jay (and Murray?). Hoping this was going to bring down the President is a shark-jumping moment.

Anyone on the "Plame Panel" is in jeopardy, I'm afraid. Well, maybe not Froomkin.

Telly Salivas

Larry O'Donnell (???)

Chuckie Schumer

Barton Gellman (WaPo)

Dafna Linzer (WaPo)

Myron P. Medcalf (Minn Star-Tribune)

JoAnne Allen (Reuters)

Tom Hamburger (LA Times)

Peter Wallsten (LA Times)

The Guardian (UK)


trip and his wife was mentioned in it and Armitage read it and passed it along then it's still Libby's fault

Juan must read blogs. That is what all the pro-Wilson blogs are claiming, in order to keep the spotlight on Libby and off Armitage.


Sue and Other Tom

::grin:: LOL

Sara (Squiggler)

O'Reilley just read off a list of people who owe an apology in his talking points. He mentioned Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution as one at the top of the list of Rove/Cheney conspiracists.


Arrianna Huffington

(was she mentioned?)

Sara (Squiggler)

Also, Sheer(?) of the LA Times, I think. I was in the other room and didn't really catch the subject until he was almost through with the segment.


Joe Biden

Joe Biden, the Gift that Keeps on Giving [Kathryn Jean Lopez] He just nominated Richard Armitage for Secretary of Defense, on Hardball Posted at 7:16 PM, Sept. 5, 2006

Josh Marshall

(he gets a few days pass though, since his dad passed away)


These reporters are little more than copyists, taking a steaming load and passing it on without using even the teensiest bit of independent judgement or moving their rears off the National Press club bar stool.


The true story needs to be put into a book or a movie format that can be easily distributed.

The headlines need to scream SCANDAL!!! Give the details later. First get their atte ntion and interest. That is what the libs do, except that all of their headlines are lies and these headlines will be the truth.


Attention Getters:




steve sturm

I would add a category: those who 'stayed quiet to score some cheap points instead of coming clean'... with inductee #1 being Armitage, inductee #2 being Colin (just why did Bush ever appoint him to anything?) Powell, and inductee #3 being Novak.

None of the people mentioned in the above comments would have gotten the least amount of traction had Armitage or Powell fessed up at the very beginning, or had Novak been a bit more forthcoming about his source. All three stayed quiet, in my view, because they enjoyed the spectacle of their opponents in the Bush/Cheney Administration getting roasted in the press. Remember, Powell and Armitage were vehemently opposed to going to war in Iraq and did their best to keep it from ever happening and Novak was no fan of it either... and by staying quiet, they let the whole "Bush lied" theme get off the ground.

Jim Miller

Tom - I just put up this post at Sound Politics, asking for nominations of local figures. (Local to the Puget Sound for those not familiar with that group blog.)

Other Tom

Sure looks to me like we've got a fine list for starters. Now comes the hard part: going back and finding the juicy quotes. I suppose I had better drag out an entry from my excuse book, such as the upcoming Dog the Bounty Hunter marathon on the tube. Will that do?


Jeff Greenfield (CNN)

I want to take him off the list.
On CNN last night, he said the Dems need to start addressing the probably consequences if we leave Iraq.

This is my favorite, most underlooked (is that a word?) point.
So he has rehabilitated himself.

Jeff B.

David Goldstein of HorsesAss blog in the Puget Sound Area bought it hook, line and sinker.


Seriously, a book needs to be written. The definitive telling of the truth. I'll bet Regnery would publish it.

At the very least the conservative base would read it and then spread the message to the rest of the country. It could be cited as the official source.


Co-authors: Tom Maguire and Clarice Feldman, with many hat tips to all the regular posters at Just One Minute (you know who you are.)


O'Reilly had a qoute from Scheer and Krugman which really made them look like co-conspirators. These stories are full of libel and calumny. All reporters need to publicly apologize says O"Reilly. I agree. I knew after Andrea Mitchell's gaffe on Imus that everyone knew that Duh they all knew about Armitage. I agree with Clarice's comment about reporters offering up their "steaming load". That just about sums it up. What happened to good old fashioned journalism?


Members/Witnesses of the televised October 24, 2003 Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing on “National Security Implications of Disclosing the Identity of an Intelligence Operative” http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-hearing.cfm?A=5

Senator Tom Daschle
Senator John D. Rockefeller
Senator Carl Levin
Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Frank Lautenberg
Vincent Cannistraro
Larry Johnson
Jim Marcinkowski

If you have time to reread all of these statements…it’s pretty revealing. Notice what Tom Harkin was pushing that day:

"I want to thank the Chairman for holding this important hearing and I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming here today.

Fully 101 days have passed since Robert Novak’s column, based on White House sources, exposed the identity of a CIA undercover agent. After prodding from the CIA and Sen. Schumer, it wasn’t until two months later, on September 23, that the Justice Department officially launched its investigation. But even then, Justice failed to notify the White House until four days later to preserve all records relating to the matter.

So up to that point, there hadn’t been a lot of press or publicity. Things were unfolding slowly. But this changed dramatically 27 days ago when the Washington Post reported that a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two “senior White House officials” called at least six journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Joseph Wilson's wife.

And what has happened over the last 27 days? Well, not a lot from the White House, except some joking around about this matter by the President, and a generally blase attitude, summed up in Mr. Bush’s statement that, well, we may never find out who the leakers are.

This is unacceptable. That Post article came out on a Sunday. On Monday morning, the President should have demanded answers from his staff. He should have called his senior staff members in the Oval Office, and asked them, one by one, if they were involved in the leak of the CIA agent’s name to the media. He should have laid down the law and resolved this matter immediately.

Instead, Bush has joked about the leak. He nonchalantly speculated that the leaker may never be found. And then he allowed the matter to drop from sight."

Telly Salivas

Jeff Greenfield keeping hope alive (8/30/06)...

from CNN:

Greenfield: Game over on the Plame leak? Maybe not

By Jeff Greenfield
CNN Senior Analysis


" To conservatives, this Armitage disclosure is proof that there never was any effort to smear Joseph Wilson, or to injure Valerie Plame. The Wall Street Journal editorial page Wednesday pointedly asked why Armitage never let Fitzgerald know of his role. The National Review says the whole controversy was much ado about nothing.

But does this put an end to the mater? Liberal bloggers say maybe not. Maybe others were out to punish Wilson and his wife even if Armitage's talk with Novak was wholly innocent.

And there is this curious report from a Washington Post piece of September 2003:

"Before the Novak column was published," the Post said, quoting a senior administration official, "two top white house officials contacted at least six reporters and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." If that reporting is right, the questions remain.

At the least, though, this story suggests that passionate opposition to a policy or an administration is no guarantee that every suspicion will be borne out..."


'If that reporting in right...'LOL!


Ahh 1X2X6 where have we heard that before? And how many stakes do you have to put into the heart of a lie, until it dies?

Contenetti (Weekly STandard)wrote about that Oct meeting earlier. In the same article where he wrote that theprevious meeting in May 2003 (Minutes curiously vanished and available nowhere) featured Wilson, was where Kristof met and interviewed Wilson. Ladies and gents that always was the kickoff for the yellowcake circus.

Sara (Squiggler)

Well Telly there do seem to be at least 4 reporters who initiated calls, but there has yet to be even one administration official identified who initiated a call to a reporter regarding the Wilson/Plame subject.



How about your commentariat here compiling a Junior Achievement list of the screen-names of those JOM vistors swhose heads were filled with visions of Fitzmas sugarplums?

What Semanticleo's head is filled with, I shudder to imagine.


richard mcenroe

God Bless Colin Powell. The West Point Protective Association must be so proud...

I can't believe nobody mentioned Little Pinch Sulzberger yet...


I also wathched Hardball and noticed Matthews looked rather sad. He doesn't have Karl Rove to kick around anymore.Not one word about Armitage,why am I not surprised?


Lurker - to get to S&L try http://www.anonymizer.com if it works, chances are your ISP has corrupted DNS files. Call and tell them. They will say it isn't them, but they will fix it.


But does this put an end to the mater? Liberal bloggers say maybe not. Maybe others were out to punish Wilson and his wife even if Armitage's talk with Novak was wholly innocent.

Liberal bloggers say: We can analyze this thing 8 ways to Sunday to find a way to point a finger at the WH.
Liberal bloggers never say 'die'!!

I kind of think its funny when News analyst use liberal bloggers (or right bloggers, for that matter) trying to keep a story alive as *NEWS*.

Other Tom

"Two top white house officials contacted at least six reporters and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."

We still await the identity of a single one of the six reporters--and it's been three years since that assertion was made.

As to the West Point Protective Association: Colin Powell is not West Point. I regret hugely to say, however, that Richard Armitage is my fellow Naval Academy alumnus. I haven't seen a peep about him in any alumni newletter or magazine, and don't expect to. Most of our guys are not that politically obsessed (unlike, say, your narrator).

Other Tom

Corn declares that "Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher." Wonder how former analyst/paper-pusher Crazy Larry feels about that one?

Other Tom

Can anyone enlighten me as to how Scooter Libby went about "commissioning" the memo? Did he say, "Somebody draft a memo claiming that Wilson's wife works at the CIA and she sent him on the trip, and let's hope that when Armitage sees it he'll leak it to the press so we can out Wilson's wife, thereby punishing him for daring to tell the truth about the president's uranium lies?" Or did he use language that was perhaps more innocuous?


You are a smartass OT. If 1 X2X6 was good enough for Fitz, for the lefty bloggers,and for the MSM reporters to keep repeating uncritically, who are we to question it?


He "commissioned" the INR in exactly the same way Cheney "behested" Wilson.


Liberal bloggers say maybe not. Maybe others were out to punish Wilson and his wife even if Armitage's talk with Novak was wholly innocent.

Ahhhh...he also reads Emptywheel.


Hey Sue...do remember what paper or who wrote the in the British newspaper Wilson said he debunked the forgeries because the names and dates were wrong?


MSNBC Doorman: "Good afternoon, Mr. Olberman."


MSNBC Doorman
: "Sure thing, Mr. Olberman."

Life imitates art.

In the movie, Network, TV executives exploit an unbalanced Howard Beale for the sake of ratings, leading to the following exchange:

Nelson Chaney: All I know is that this violates every canon of respectable broadcasting.

Frank Hackett: We're not a respectable network. We're a whorehouse network, and we have to take whatever we can get.


What does that make MSNBC?


Dana Priest deserves a double mention in association with Mike Allen for 1x2x6 in the WaPo on Sept 28, 2003.



I can't remember. And I'm about to head out. If you haven't found it by tomorrow, I'll look for them. There are 2. Besides Kristoff and Pincus.


Where's our buddy Jeff wandered off to, anyway?


Let me add our buddy Libby, who was so memorably taken in by Joe Wilson that he could not speak the truth and had to perjure himself.

And then there was Scott McClennan who was so memorably taken in by Joe Wilson that he had to peddle some lies.

And lets not forget none other than Commander in Chief, who was so memorably taken in by Joe Wilson that he declared that the leakers would probably never be found.


I vote to take Keith O off any list. The man is our new national Winston Churchill. He is just too comedial to lose. Too much of a boon to the conservative effort.

But, alas, from another perspective, I fear that you all are going to discount the whole Plame thing with this Armitage outing. The real show in center ring has yet to play out, hasn't it? The Libby trial is coming!

Exhibits A-F:

"What I Didn't Find in Africa" by Joseph Wilson via the NYT.

"Missing in Action: Truth" by Nicholas D. Kristof and the NYT.

"CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data" by Walter Pincus.

(Take a bow, Walter, take a bow.)

"The First Casualty" by Spencer Ackerman and John B. Judis via the New Republic.

"The Mission to Niger" by Robert Novak.

"A War on Wilson?" by Matthew Cooper, etc via Time Magazine.

I hate to see a grand forensics on Plame take place at Scooter's expense, but it appears that the train is en route. And if it doesn't stop these articles are due for dismantling if Mr. Wells and Mr. Jeffress are up to the task...


Even Karl Rove had a bit of Wilson induced amnesia. I hear that he has completely recovered, thank God!


And wasn't there a famous blogger who was so memorably taken in by Wilson that he pegged the chances of a Rove indictment at 70%? The name escapes me.


Anyone got Fitz under surveillance?

Florence Schmieg

Don't let Greenfield off the hook. He is one of the group of reporters who met in some apartment with John Kerry to help him do a better job getting his message out during the democratic primary season in 2004. That has always bothered me.

I vote for Chris Matthews and David Shuster at the top of the list with David Gregory a close second. Shuster should lose his job. He will out and out lie and speak half truths and since he poses as a true NBC hard news reporter, that is a journalistic sin.


I remember that A**hole David Gregory grinning like a masturbating idiot (to use G. B. Shaw's memorable phase) about the prospect of Rove being frog-marched from the White House in shackles.

If anyone deserves to deep-fry in Hell over this affair, it's Gregory.

What a dork. Can anyone out there imagine trusting your life, or even money, to that ass-clown?


Does anyone remember the UK paper on the "debunking" Wilson was a source for? Guardian?


David Gregory

David made a scene today at the press gaggle.


Q Hey, Tony, how are you?

MR. SNOW: Okay.

Q The President, in his last speech, made very clear that the American people have a choice -- right? -- in the way forward in the war on terror, which suggests, by definition, that he is trying to frame the political debate for the midterm election when it comes to national security. Is that fair?

MR. SNOW: I think both parties -- if you take a look again at the letter --

Q But I'm asking about the President. I'm not asking about Democrat -- you don't speak for Democrats. I'm asking about the President.

MR. SNOW: Well, but I'm trying to answer, because there are two parts of this equation, David. There seems to be a presumption that if Democrats make political points the President shouldn't respond because that would be political. The President -- these are important issues, and you can call it politics, you can call it whatever you want, but the most important thing to do is to provide a basis for people to take a look at the facts and reach thoughtful conclusions.

We do have a choice to make as a country: Are we going to acknowledge that this is a long war, analogous to the Cold War in the sense that we have a dispersed ideological following -- this is not one where, like in World War II, or other wars, you have a grounded political enemy --

Q I'm not asking for the major points. I understand that. I'm asking --

MR. SNOW: Well, it's important to talk about the major points --

Q Right. But you don't disagree that he's trying to frame the debate for what is an important political choice?

MR. SNOW: Absolutely. Of course, of course.

Q Okay. There's so much emphasis by the President on his resolve and on the consequences of failure, which seems to dovetail to the political strategy of casting the vote as not a referendum on his leadership or his conduct in the war on terror, leading the war on terror, but on a choice between two parties and their visions. And I'm curious whether, in this document, there's any reflection on the fact that this White House, this administration failed to anticipate a violent terrorist-based insurgency in Iraq, and also failed to adapt once it learned of its presence? And shouldn't that be put before the voters this fall?

MR. SNOW: I think you've admirably expressed the Democratic point of view, but I don't think --

Q Actually, Tony, I don't think that's fair, if you look at the facts. If you look at the facts.

MR. SNOW: Well, I do, because -- no, because, for instance --

Q No, no, no. No, I don't think you should be able to just wipe that, kind of dismiss the question --

MR. SNOW: Well, let me --

Q It's not a Democratic argument, Tony.

MR. SNOW: Let me answer the question, David.

Q But hold on, let's not let you get away with saying that's a Democratic argument.

MR. SNOW: Okay, let me -- let's not let you get away with being rude. Let me just answer the question, and you can come back at me.

Q Excuse me. Don't point your finger at me. I'm not being rude.

MR. SNOW: Yes, you are.

Q Don't try to dismiss me as making a Democratic argument, Tony, when I'm speaking fact.

MR. SNOW: Well, okay -- well, no --

Q You can do that to the Democrats; don't do it to me.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm doing it to you because the second part was factually tendentious, okay? Now, when you were talking about the fact that it failed to adapt, that's just flat wrong. And you will be -- there has been -- there have been repeated attempts to try to adapt to military realities, to diplomatic realities, to development of new weapons and tools on the part of al Qaeda, including the very creative use of the Internet. So the idea that somehow we're staying the course is just wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

So that's why -- I apologize for interrupting, but I think it's important to challenge that presumption. Now, did we fully anticipate --

Q If you want to challenge that presumption -- no, no, wait a second. If you want to challenge that presumption, why don't you describe in some detail how you accurately anticipated the insurgency, and what was done to deal with it at the time.

MR. SNOW: I was just about to go back to that part.

Q Okay.

MR. SNOW: See, there were two assumptions. I was taking --

Q No, you described me as rude in making a Democratic argument and said --

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because I kept trying to answer the question, and you kept jumping in. We need to come to an accommodation, because I'm perfectly happy to take on both sides.

and on and on...


William Rivers Pitt.

I know he's a small-time hack, but he's still trying to spin this at DU & Truthout, and even claims he's in direct contact with Wilson when sourcing info on this.


"Let me add our buddy Libby, who was so memorably taken in by Joe Wilson that he could not speak the truth and had to perjure himself.

And then there was Scott McClennan who was so memorably taken in by Joe Wilson that he had to peddle some lies.

And lets not forget none other than Commander in Chief, who was so memorably taken in by Joe Wilson that he declared that the leakers would probably never be found."

wow Pete, how clever of you. And it sure was compelling too... maybe you should start a list like sam. That seems to keep him well occupied and out of trouble.

So try and do a better job or just stick to parroting the liberals talking points. Liberals don't like individual thinkers who wonder off the plantation... just ask Joe Lieberman.


Another Moonbat was http://nyobserver.com/20060911/20060911_Joe_Conason_opinions_conason.asp>"Fooled Again"

Media Misses the Point
On C.I.A. Leak Story

"What Messrs. Corn and Isikoff reveal, among other things, is that the first official to reveal Valerie Wilson’s covert identity as a C.I.A. operative to columnist Robert Novak in June 2003 was Richard Armitage, who then served as Deputy Secretary of State. Unlike other Bush administration figures who were involved in leaking Ms. Wilson’s identity, such as Karl Rove and Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Mr. Armitage was known to be unenthusiastic about the U.S. invasion of Iraq."

But further down the article:

By disclosing her identity, the Bush officials ruined her career and endangered the sources and methods she had used in the President’s service. Hubris also suggests strongly that her alleged role in dispatching her husband to Niger has been exaggerated.

Is this as twisted as it seems to me... Armitage didn't ruin her career, by leaking Plames name, but Bush/cheney/Rove did!

There really must be something genetically wrong with the liberal mind!


Yeah, precisely why Corn / Isikoff story is shot-full of holes, huh?


Step right up, step right up Ladies and Gentlemen, step right up. Now you Sir, you there young fella' John Q Public is it? Well Mister Public, you look like a fine specimen of manhood, strappin' fine. Why with your muscles I bet you could hoist this here sledgehammer and make that bell ring like a telephone, sing like a fire alarm, peal like the dad-gum Liberty Bell! And wouldn't this bee-ueatiful little lady next to you, your daughter I s'pect, wouldn't she just love it if you made that bell ring and won her this here stuffed pinata of President Bush to beat to your heart's content, or better yet, a bottle of this marvelous Oil O'Asp I'm a sellin'. Can't win if ya' don't try sir, can't win if ya' don't try. And you young lady, Miz Public is it, or can I call you 'darlin'? Why let me guess your weight there gorgeous, one hunnert nineteen pounds soaking wet or my name ain't Honest Joe Wilson. And if you're a day over 19 why I'm a damned liar and...what's that you say, his wife, and a momma' to boot, why I doubt that, and you being hardly but a teenager. Now you two look like smart folks, just a smart, smart couple. Moment I laid eye's on you two I said to myself, "Now there Joey my boy is a smart, smart couple, just a smart, smart couple," Yessir that's what I said. And am I right? Am I right? Am I right, or am I right? Right? Righhht. Yessir I'm right. And good lookin' too, Ummm Um! Now just inside this tent here on my left is...it is John Q and Missus Public ain't it? Yessir I thought so. Well John, and Q darlin, if you'll pardon my French, this is your lucky day, 'cause today, this special day, this just once in a lifetime opportunity day we've got...we've got...we've got a show so amazing and incredible, that it's been swallered' hook, line and sinker by not 1, not 2 but 3 Major TV Networks, plus 2 itty bitty ones, and all 479 editorial boards across this fruited plain, as God's Honest Truth these past 3 years. First up, wearin' nothin' but her fair vanity, we've got the bodacious Princess Valerie, all the way from Foggy Bottom, wrapped in a love embrace with a 2 headed Boa Constrictor named Kristof and Corn. Next is that fabulous India Rubber Man, Andrew Sullivan. You'll laugh, you'll cry, as he contorts his political positions so bad he don't even need a partner to commit sodomy! Then watch in stunned belief as the great Expectorator hisself, Chrissy Matthews, spits a full 4 feet across a TV round table and hits Michelle Malkin square in the kisser. Ooooo, then things'll turn spooky as our very own Ghost of Christmas Past, Lawrence O'Donnell, travels back through time to reveal, from a magic list in his coatpocket, the 22 Rethuglican Conspirator's indicted on Fitzmas 2 Years Ago! Your heart now poundin' like racehorses folk's, we'll slow it down. For comic relief we've got our favorite 600 pound pig, The Old Gray Lady, and you'll die laughing as our 3 clowns, Krugman, Rich and MoDo, try to catch that old sow and put lipstick on her. Wheww, tear's in my eye's just thinkin' bout it, 'scuse me a sec. Next we'll spring the lovely Miz Andrea on you, able to develop amnesia quicker 'n any human being ever, dead or alive. And don't kid yourself thinkin she can't multiply 1 X 2 X 6, nunh, unh. But what's a show without acts of courage you ask. We got...wait for it, wait for it now...all the way from Viet Nam via the Queen O' England, we got us Sir Dickless Rich Armitage himself, off in the corner there polishing his personal bravery. This critter is such a mystifying mess of incorruptiblity that he's able to effortlessly reveal unauthorized gossip 'bout CIA ops to every Tom, Dick and Harry reporter in the U. S. of A, yet breathes not a single solitary word to The President when ordered to come clean. Why if I could bottle such bravery I'd add it to my Sna..er Oil O' Asp concoction folks. Dick's a real charmer, big media favorite. Then last but not least, a scene guaranted to scare the Be-jesus outta' you or your money back, we offer...The Cabal. That's right THE CABAL, pure concentrated essence o' evil itself! Here you'll see a 57 year old Jew named Scooter recitin' poetry 'bout Aspen trees as he out's a covert CIA agent. Absolutely horrifying. And if that don't completely terrorize ya', then you'll witness a scene even more horrendous, a Behestin' Dick Cheney loading a shotgun while drinkin' a beer! Cross my heart and hope to die folks if that ain't Gospel. 'Scuse me while I shudder. And then last but not least, a spectacle most folks'll never even dream of, never even imagine could have existed. Yessir, guaranted to send shivers down the backs of grown men and make women and children weep like heifer cows, we present...seeing's believin' folks, seing's believin',...the one and only Puppet Master himself, a frog marching Karl Rove just a daring his telephone to ring. Why terrifies a body just to contemplate such a thing. The hair on my neck's rising up like the dead in a graveyard come 'Pocalypse Day' even as I speak it. Yesiree, if you're man enough step right up, step right up right now Ladies and Gentlemen. Koolaid's on your right as you enter.

Good Lt

I hate to say it, but Rick Moran (RWNH) almost bought it - he had the Rove indictment probability at "70%". At least he admitted it - more than can be said for the cast of uberliberal dingbats listed above.

Almost, but not entirely. So I guess that counts as a 1/2.


And the Times still is stuck on .. Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.

Does anybody remember this happening ?

And then there is this from Kate O’Beirne ..

“For almost three years, at every minor twist or turn of Plamegate, there were media stakeouts at the offices and homes of of the suspected leakers that invariably made the evening news and played in constant loops on cable. So who’s on Armitage driveway duty? Richard Armitage isn’t being hounded to answer questions about his role in Plamegate because the media wishes he had no role.”


No matter how many times the msm tries to write this false drivel about the Wilsons the average American can see through these partisan attacks. There is something about spin that smart people can detect and the wheels on this spin machine are falling off. The truth is out there now and everyone is aware that nothing was done to harm the Plames. They will soon do a great fade into the woodwork once the case against Libby is tossed and their civil suit is dismissed.


Surely Kristof deserves to be near the top of any list.

Other Tom

What does Joe Wilson have to do with Bush's expectation that the leakers would likely not be found? What "lies" did McClellan tell, and what on earth did anything McClellan said have to do with being "taken in" by Wilson? And why does the expectation that a zealous special prosecutor will indict a man have to do with being "taken in" by Wilson? This, apparently, is what the Left's arguent has come to: Yes, we now admit that Joe Wilson is a liar, but he sure had you (and us) fooled, didn't he?

Gary Maxwell

What the NYT, THE PAPER of RECORD climbs down off its high horse and admits that its been wrong about nearly everything about Plamegate ( in a indirect Jeff sort of way) and TM has nothing up???? WTF? I know he started celebrating early and is already too smashed to type. Good job TM, it took you almost three years but you made even the dour grey one flinch.


Daddy, that was positively brilliant! Soylent is now facing some genuine competition.

Wilson's a liar

Ha! That NYT editorial is a classic. They are right, too - this has turned out almost exactly like the Cisneros investigation. Some consoervative bloggers and the Wall Street Journal editorial page continue to believe that prosecutor Barrett found some stunning, horrible conspiracy within the Clinton administration, and that those evil Clintons are keeping the report suppressed. Just like the Jason Leopolds continue to fulminate about the still-to-come indictments of Rove and Cheney. Both barrett and Fitzgerald got sidetracked from thier main investigation to chasingh phantom White House conspiracies.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.


Really, Wilson? In the Barrett case, Kennedy and Kerry went out of their way sub rosa to prevent him from filing a report, and Clintonistas spent a great deal of time and trouble getting court orders to preclude the mention of their role in any report. Here, no one has done a thing to stop the Fitzleviathon. Actually, I think the analogy is closer to the Armitage situation, where the one to blame is being shielded by the prosecutor in the sense that apparent wrongdoers there are being shielded by the Courts and the Dems in the Senate.


****No matter how many times the msm tries to write this false drivel about the Wilsons the average American can see through these partisan attacks. There is something about spin that smart people can detect and the wheels on this spin machine are falling off. The truth is out there now and everyone is aware that nothing was done to harm the Plames. They will soon do a great fade into the woodwork once the case against Libby is tossed and their civil suit is dismissed.****

We are lucky the Plames chose to be so conspicuous, in magazines and attending press dinners wearing Armani, writing and talking about themselves etc..... Had they been smarter and more discreet they might have pulled this off. Sometimes greed and the desperate desire for fame and fortune are good things.


About the book--If Tom will do, I'll work with him. Nag him!



Do you remember who the other 2 reporters were that, along with Kristoff and Pincus, wrote early articles about the envoy to Niger?


Off the top of my head here are the reporters (American and British) who, before July 6, wrote about the trip, and for whom Wilson was the obvious source:
Walter Pincus (Washington Post)
Nicholas Kristof (New York Times)
John Judis and Spencer Ackerman (The New Republic)
John Lumpkin (The Independent)
Buncombe and Whitaker (The Independent)
Andrea Mitchell (who hosted an appearance of Wilson’s on Meet the Press the very morning of July 6, and therefore most certainly had advance notice that his op-ed would be appearing that day)


Additions to the list:

"Keep Hope Alive No Matter What" Pete
Helen Thomas

S Duerr

Chris "foaming at the mouth" Matthews, whose show for weeks and weeks on end devoted nearly every minute to this non-story. I'd love to see a Limbaugh-style video montage of a red-faced Matthews repeatedly calling for Karl Rove's resignation.

Wilson's a Liar

Clarice, I am one who thinks the Clintonian conspiracies are as nonexistent as the Bush/Cheney/Rovian ones are. Presidents and their staffs are generally neither as clever, nor as venal, as their political opponents paint them amongst each other. Those on the right who continue to push Clinton conspiracies just hand the leftists a reason to push their own conspiracy theories about the Bush administration - sauce for the goose and all that. This cycle of conspiracy spinning really needs to stop, for the good of the country.

I think the Barrett investigation went waaaay off course and went on way too long. I really don't blame some Democrats for wanting to quash the report, as it is probably full of baseless innuendo and unsupported charges that Republicans would seize to continue trashing the Clintons. If there were anything there, Barrett would have gotten indictments, just as Fitz would have gotten them against Rove and Cheney if there were anything there. That is why I think the comparison is quite appropriate.


Thanks Clarice.


I took Clarice's point to be that this adminstration has played it open and straight and that Clinton's minions obfuscated an investigation that "went on way too long".

It is not fair to compare that an obfucsated investigation came up empty vs an unobfucsated one.


Yeah, Daddy, that was great. I was hoping you'd work that backstabbing Powell in there somehow at the next circus stop.


Exactly so, Boris.



Forgot the agent(AID?) assasinated in Jordan with the same name as Plame's old boss. He has connections to Wilson, too. Why pick him?

Apparently Plame did alot of work there.


Did the NYT's write a pathetic back--pedal or cold water editorial today?


I thought that the result of the Cisneros case is the released but heavily redacted Barrett report? Based on the contents of this report, in spite of the incomplete investigation, there's something real there (e.g., a real story). Money, time, and efforts not wasted here.

In the case of the Plame story, it appears to be a non-story. Money, time, and efforts wasted here.


Press release:

OFFICE OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL DAVID M. BARRETT 1990 K St., N.W., Suite 420 Washington, D.C. 20006 http://barrett.oic.gov
TELEPHONE: (202) 974-5440 FACSIMILE: (202) 974-5459
January 19, 2006


Today the United States Court of Appeals for the District for Columbia Circuit, Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels, approved the release of the Final Report of the Independent Counsel in re: Henry G. Cisneros. The Report can be found on the Office’s website at http://barrett.oic.gov.

This has been a long and difficult investigation. It is my hope that people will read the entire Report and draw their own conclusions. An accurate title for the Report could be, “WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED FROM INVESTIGATING.”
After a thorough reading of the Report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a coverup at high levels of our government and, it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered. Unlike some other coverups, this one succeeded.

I recommend that people begin by reading the memorandum of Mr. John Filan, Chief of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division in the South Texas District (Appendix no. 16).


Some consoervative bloggers and the Wall Street Journal editorial page continue to believe that prosecutor Barrett found some stunning, horrible conspiracy within the Clinton administration, and that those evil Clintons are keeping the report suppressed.

So exactly why has it taken two years to release this end product (which was finished in Aug 04) ?

And is this the full Aug 04 report or the version with almost half of the original report redacted ?


Clarice, how about another potential successful coverup?

Read Patterico:

Possible Redacted Path to 9/11


Neo, one answer:



I see 4 sections were redacted.


Wikipedia is wrong. Preceding the appointment of Fitz was fear. They appointed a criminal conspiracy investigator, which is how bad CIA and FBI agents are indicted.

The comments to this entry are closed.