Powered by TypePad

« Knocking the Prosecutor for Some Loops | Main | Tuesday Pre-Game Show »

February 12, 2007

Comments

Alcibiades

Rick wrote: I'm dividing the press into two camps on this. One camp is NYT/NBC (black hats - boo - hiss), the other camp is WaPo/all others (white hats - our heroes!!). Now I'm not doing this personally (personally - "Smythe, take them all out and shoot them. There's a lad.") but I do believe that I'm seeing this dichotomy even in some of the reporting. That may be one of the reasons that the AP Apuzzo/Sniffen team (a giggle if you know where to look) has been shooting relatively straight.

Is anyone else seeing this?

Yep. Nicholas Kristof and Pinch seemed to have had a very amateurish understanding of Washington culture - which shows why they were so eager to take the charlatan Joe Wilson seriously. That and they were simply desperate to impeach the Iraq war on whatever lie they could find. Though I think that Kristof is better than that - just foolishly naive about Washington. And so, when a cabal of Joe Wilson's friends got together and ran a bunch of shiite past him, they lapped it up.

More seasoned reporters such as Novak and Woodward understood they were being spun. Even Pincus didn't sign on to Wilson's spiel, and he's usually willing to do anythig he can do to get the Bush Admin.

I don't think Russert precisely signed on either. He was more cautious. But Andrea Mitchell was sure playing a shoddy game. Perhaps the reason that Armitage would not give her an interview is because she was still presenting extraordinarily biased reports for Hardball and NBC at the time, even though she knew better.

And Mitchell's behavior throughout this episode has made Tim Russert and NBC vulnerable.

However, one must look, too, at who Russert chooses as his immediate subordinates, David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell, neither of whom is precise nor judicious nor mature in their reporting. They simply parrot the herd mentality of the press corps.

Ralph L.

Rocco, makes you wonder how this scandal got of the ground. Why didn't the White House point out the obvious, since the press wouldn't?

topsecretk9

Lesley

I agree with you tres astute fashion critique.

I wasn't going to bag on Fitz's attire, but 2 mentions of seersucker in DC winter and I just thought Dang man! Sign up at e-harmony if you just can't tear yourself away! A girl touch would be suggesting a few new suits for the high profile trial in snooty tooty DC might be in order)

It may be indicative of his "image" he'd like to portray, but one of his college professors noted that while he was very bright and a go to with his peers - his appearance was always noticeably geekily and/or mismatched.

topsecretk9

You go Rocco!

RichatUF

from Lesley...
In Jane's case, I wouldn't doubt she was wearing a designer dress - tres chic appealing to a hip, fashion conscious audience.

maybe eurotrash chic-wonder if she has her out to france after the trial is over?

from TSK9...

When I heard that Armitage was slightly starting to cough (illustrates the casual) and laugh (illustrates the hilarity) at the same time.

Armitage looking to toss under the bus the CIA-he's jumping up and down, telling the Powell coutier, see look, they had to get a has-been diplomat to poke around when we knew the story was sh## to begin with...

question: I'm sure its been stated before but is the date on the tape 11 June 2003 (first pressing of the INR memo) or a later conversation? I'm still trying to catch up on the days proceedings

RichatUF

clarice

Thanks, OT, I'll pass.
It's odd I was sitting and working with my back to the door but suddenly felt an odd chill ,turned around and there he was,,He moves like those cossack dancers where you just see the body moving, the feet take small gliding steps and it looks creepy, like they are propelled by magic.

I am not making this up.

dorf

Clarice: I wonder if will be allowed in with a wooden stake?

MayBee

I want to ask this again, for whatever reason:

Woodward apparently had Wilson's Wife on his card of questions to ask Andrew Card.
Do you think he did?

JM Hanes

Clarice:

"I am not making this up."

Maybe not, but I think you, too, have a future in novels!

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

It's interesting to me how the DC-Node-Circle works.

When Russert testified it was "standing room only." And, the best of the in-crowd, crowded into the small courtroom theater. (Thanks to Kristinn's post at FREEPERS. I know, too, that the "home team" left crest fallen.) Having been at a hockey game, where the Candian Maple Leafs were playing the New York team (in New York. Where you could hear the snow crinkling under your feet as you walked into the stadium. YEAR? 1979, if I had to guess.) And, New York LOST.

I was amazed that 60,000 or so people, walking to their cars could be so silent.

Men invest a great deal in "games." (Which is why they were so popular with Greeks and Romans).

Also means that Russert was a disaster on the "live stage." And, not in his set at MTP.

Today? Seems Clarice, and others, weren't discussing the "A-CROWD" being "THERE" at all. Hmm. For Woodward. And, the opening of the DEFENSE. THey probably got enough watching RUSSERT "go down." (Was he the Great White Hope of heavy-weight fame?)

I think? Behind the scenes, actors are changing clothing. Perhaps, to come out and "appeal more to the mainstream?" They won't come out wearing life preservers marked "Titanic," though. Because if they did? They'd be pushed overboard.

This trial, if Borat wanted to? Has the makings of his next movie.

Rocco

That op-ed was published July 6, 2003, on the eve of the President's trip to Africa. It was timed to catch the administration off guard and worked exactly as planned.

July 6 is also the date on one of the forged documents. It's also George Bush's birthday. Coincidence?

Sue

Who is first up in the morning?

topsecretk9

RalphL

--Why didn't the White House point out the obvious, since the press wouldn't?--

Juror asked Cathie martin (paraphrasing)

When you would try and tell the media something and they wouldn't believe you, would they just print a lie?

She answered

YES.

So it it pretty disgusting listening to Howie Kurtz try and explain the media credibility and integrity and crappy "practices" --as Admin manipulating them and also the poor, poor media's fear of appearing as if they are the administrations lapdogs.

It's insulting, stupid and stunningly insulated to an unhealthy degree.

You know that reality switching places show? Where ritchie rich moms traded places with the middle class normal family for a week? I think it should be mandatory for beltway and NY media uber snobs. They'd find most people hear their gripes and throw up.

verner

Alcibaides--I think you're being too kind to them.

Let's not forget that little breakfast in May with Joe, Val and Kristof, and the Kerry campaign angle. Kerry was their man, and they were going to use the "Bush Lied" meme to sweep him into the WH. It also gave Kerry the excuse to waffle on his vote in support of the War.

Until Joe had to admit under oath that he was a liar.

Another thought--how many people on the Kerry Campaign FP/NS team knew about Val working at the CIA?

JM Hanes

Hi verner! ::waving::

azaghal


Rick,

My wife and I have been off at our exercise class. Re Eckenrode's testimony, clarice and Skip probably have it about right, but let me add a few thoughts.

Obviously, it's going to depend on where he's coming from, how cooperative he's willing to be. That's a question of degree--he doesn't have to be totally one way or another, and if he adopts a non-confrontational, honest attitude the cross could go fairly smoothly. It's hard to predict what his attitude will be, but this passage cited above struck me:

Kevin O'Connor, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, where Eckenrode worked from 1999 to 2002, said, "The consensus is that Jack is a rising star in the bureau."

Since when do rising stars in any line of life go into obscure retirement voluntarily? No, there's a story there, and it could happen that he might be surprisingly helpful to the defense for reasons of payback.

Re his notes, Wells and his team have shown a lot of patience in other areas, so it's possible that they may do the same here. What the patient approach would entail could be something like this. First go over the standard procedure for dealing with interview notes. These notes have to be produced as evidentiary exhibits at trial, so there will be standard procedures that should have been followed.

This is a two-edged sword, it seems to me, and both edges, if handled right, cut against the prosecution. On the one hand, if the standard procedures were followed there is no reason for those notes and those notes alone (which tend to impeach the prosecution's star witness) should have gone missing. That is a very suspicious circumstance. On the other hand, if standard procedures were not followed, that is suspect on its face. There are some potential pitfalls, such as that the SC demanded that different procedures be followed, but I think that unlikely.

A simple but effective line of questioning might be to demand why copies of notes were not maintained with working copies of interview summaries (302's). No matter what the answer, I think the prosecution loses when the jury is presented with such a common sense question.

Another line that Wells would definitely want to pursue would be why E. didn't interview some of those defense witnesses that we saw today, what he thought of the Woodward/Armitage conversation when it was brought to his attention. I'm too lazy to figure out whether such a line of questioning would be allowed--I doubt it--but our practicing trial lawyers here will be more familiar with the possibilities. Obviously any excursion into this area is bound to be a total trainwreck for the prosecution--you could simply kiss any hope of a case goodbye. I wouldn't be surprised to see Wells try some strategy none of us have thought of to broach some of those issues, even if he knows it's a longshot.

Another area of interest should be who else was present when E. called Russert. Did they take notes? I'd be willing to bet that an attorney was present. Now his notes might be considered work product--almost certainly--but he would nevertheless be a witness. If E. claims he was the only person present Wells might press him on that, because it would make this interview unique in that respect--another suspicious circumstance. Perhaps those exhibits are available online and someone can tell us about that angle.

It seems to me that Wells, by calling Eckenrode, is demonstrating not merely aggressiveness but also tremendous confidence. I think he has a strong hand based on the discussions we've all engaged in over the last few days, but there remains the possibility that he has other reasons for confidence that we don't know about yet. Should be very interesting.

Finally, several posters have noted that Walton seems fuzzy on some essential facts. I think TM nails it, that Walton's hesitations about Mitchell's testimony seem to be based on a poor grasp of what has already transpired. Hopefully the Novak testimony and the Armitage/Woodward tape opened his eyes.

Rick Ballard

Alcibiades,

Thanks. That's the main element that is driving what I believe I'm seeing. You've done an excellent analysis. I still need some on point examples.

MayBee,

I think Woodward did have it on the card. He propably updates those cards very regularly and Wilson was a known element of the story. A very peripheral player to be sure but still an element.

clarice

It's enough that the jury thinks Woodward might have and he said he might have mentioned it to Libby.
Neil Lewis plays it straight today. Is TM making progress or is it time for the NYT's readers to prepare for the acquittal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/washington/13libby.html?ei=5094&en=761ed25920196c76&hp=&ex=1171342800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print>He didn't tell nobody

As for Kurtz (and Huff and FDL's thesis of the press as an Administration tool, --and--OTOH we are supposed to see them as smart, wise, truth seekers? Pick. Either there's no reason to listen to them or a reason to. Can't play it both ways.

MayBee

I believe he could have had that card with him when he talked to Libby. But I am certain they said it was definitely on Andrew Card's card, to ask him. Do you think Woodward brought up Wilson's wife to Andrew Card?
Just asking.

Ralph L.

They'd find most people ignore them.
Which they'd hate even more.

But Rocco' point was so obvious to me 3 years ago, I just can't fathom the delusion or mendacity required to sustain the Wilsonians. Is it life in an echo chamber?

ghostcat

Clarice -

Indulge me, please. Did the jury hear the unbleeped tape? And what was Novak's answer that seemed to startle Walton?

clarice

Woodward said he had the Card questions and the Cheney questions w/him when he telephoned Libby and when he met with him. (these weren't cards..they were lists of questions. On the list for Card was "joe Wilson's wife [CIA or somesuch}" on the Cheney list were tone of questions about the uranium, wmds etc.

verner

Hi JM!

Clarice:

"It's odd I was sitting and working with my back to the door but suddenly felt an odd chill ,turned around and there he was,,He moves like those cossack dancers where you just see the body moving, the feet take small gliding steps and it looks creepy, like they are propelled by magic.

I am not making this up."


I believe you. Sid most certainly has a dark side. Just ask any of the women Clinton abused. But his most tragic flaw (along with thinking that the end justifies any means) is thinking that he's just sooo much smarter than anyone in the room.

Take for example his nasty book, that closes with a tribute to Bill Clinton taken from Whitman's "Leaves of Grass." Too cheeky by half--as if we wouldn't notice! I wanted to throw up when I read it.

Sid is a piece of work. And a joke.

RichatUF

from Rocco...

Those 16 words the President used in the SOTU, were not then, are not now, and never will be a lie! I won't rest until I find out who forged those Niger Documents.

Rocco-I thought it was you...you did it for money! That's what I read in the press? Does anyone know which office did the investigation-same group here or was it tasked out to Dion (counter-intelligence)?

RichatUF

MaidMarion

"Two quick questions, guys: (1) did the jurors hear the unbleeped Armitage/Woodward? and (2) what was Novak's response to the juror question that seemed to startle the judge?

The jurors heard the bleeped version and read redacted text of the Armitage/Woodward conversation. This seemed to be the first time the Judge had heard about Novak's conversation with Harlow.

clarice

ghostcat, the tape was bleeped as I recall and the jury told it was profanity.
Novak said he called Harlow to confirm the Plame story.

ghostcat

Thanks, Maid Marion.

ghostcat

Ditto, Clarice.

I had hoped they heard the unexpurgated version. Redacted, it loses a good deal of its piquancy.

MayBee

I just think it's interesting that Andrew Card would then know that reporters were talking about Wilson's wife. He would also have known that Woodward had the information while the investigation was pretty much ignoring him. Did he say anything to anyone?

I don't know if Woodward would have told him who had fed him that little tidbit, but it is interesting nonetheless. Maybe only to me...

james

This seemed to be the first time the Judge had heard about Novak's conversation with Harlow.

Question for the lawyers - is this a typical performance from a judge? He comes across as rather inept, but I don't have a standard for comparision.

topsecretk9

Yeah, good point Clarice.

I found a quote of Andrea Mitchell' during the Clinton drama -- she just felt sooo bad for all these poor people who had to go out and hire lawyers and it was all so sad and for what?

Yeah, the media have never worried or fretted over the Democrat lapdog charge. Suddenly this is a big concern. Says it all, really.

Ralph L.

Why won't it remember my personal info? Is that a subtle hint to go away?

Ghostcat, my mother turned against Nixon over the expletives. And she was married to a sailor.

ghostcat

Since Woodward was doing his share of the cussin', it's probably just as well it was bleeped.

clarice

Well, I heard the tape and Armitage sounded like a thug on it even with expletives deleted. By contrast on the gj tapes Libby sounds quiet, polite, very gentlemanly, if that means anything.

topsecretk9

--Sid is a piece of work. And a joke.--

Sid Vicious wrote a forward to Wilson's paperback addition. There are cut from the same cloth and tight. I would not be surprised if Vicious fingerprints were on this from day one. Sid is the architect of personal destruction.

He's damaged.

Ralph L.

Woodward was Navy, Armitage retired Army.

clarice

Oh, ts--he and Corn and Isikoff are very thick together--of course, he's in this.

clarice

When Sid sued Drudge he subpoenaed 2 friends of mine ( a husband and wife) who he wrongly thought were Drudge's source for a bit of slander against him. His counsel asked the wife what she thought of Sid: she said w/o reservation she hated him.

MaidMarion

Maybe,

"Woodward apparently had Wilson's Wife on his card of questions to ask Andrew Card.
Do you think he did?"

Hhhhmmm... I don't have anything written down about this in my notes. I kinda think that Woodward didn't ask and/or did ask but got zero reply.

ghostcat

Ralph L -

I think Armitage was Navy ... Intelligence.

Ralph L.

My respect for C. Hitchens took a hit when I learned during impeachment that he had been friends with El Sid. At least he quarreled with him in the most public and permanent way.

JM Hanes

Speaking of Hitchens, has he had anything to say on the trial to date?

Lesley

Thanks Topsy :)

I've read the similar thing(s) about Patrick but, on some level, I think he digs that press image and cultivates it.

(OT Best fashion history book of the season: QUEEN OF FASHION - What Marie Antoinette Wore to the Revolution, Caroline Weber, Henry Holt & Co. 2006. Even Weber's footnotes are outstanding!)

MayBee

Thanks MM, I remember him saying that about Libby.

I guess on 2nd thought, there isn't much Card could have said to anyone about Woodward knowing if he didn't know who told Woodward.

topsecretk9

Lesley nailed Sid and his hermes tie compensation (like another compensator - cloth and scissors)

ghostcat

I just remembered that Armitage was a candidate to succeed Tenet. Hmmmmm.

Ralph L.

Hitchens wrote something in the fall over at Slate, IIRC. He's a Libberator, not a Wilsonian.

verner

Ralph: At least he quarreled with him in the most public and permanent way.

Sad to say, but sometimes it takes people like the Clintons to find out a "friend's" true nature. Power baby, Power...

MaidMarion

Sue,

Don't know who's up first tomorrow. Mitchell will probably be in the afternoon...

Pofarmer

Why didn't the White House point out the obvious, since the press wouldn't?

How? One of the great weaknesses of our system right now is that none of the press wants to appear friendly to the administration, for one reason or another. You can't get a straight story out of any of them.

Rick Ballard

MM,

Try for a seat with a clear view of Fritz tomorrow. If Azaghal and Clarice are correct (and one of my very fond dreams comes true) you may be able to report some great reactions. Something involving "a keening wail" or "deep moans and sobs" is kind of what I'm hoping for. "I could hear the pencil snap very clearly." would be fine too.

windansea

ghostcat, the tape was bleeped as I recall and the jury told it was profanity.


2:22 ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know [freakin] Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody.

Ralph L.

Was there a Friend of Bill that wasn't diminished or soiled after 8 years? Or splattered?

ghostcat

Ice storm tomorrow.

RichatUF
That op-ed was published July 6, 2003, on the eve of the President's trip to Africa. It was timed to catch the administration off guard and worked exactly as planned.

July 6 is also the date on one of the forged documents. It's also George Bush's birthday. Coincidence?

heh...The Wilson's gift to Pres. Bush? You could almost hear Wilson saying,"Africa, George, you don't know anything about Africa..." And the point that the op-ed was timed with the Africa trip, I've made the same connection (re: the Dickenson Fleischer stuff). It gave the Wilson version of "truth" for a week then Time published "War on Wilson" (colored in with Corn's cayrons). By the time the Admin. got the Tenet mea culpa (July 11) and was responding to Wilson's charges (July 12)-the whole business of super-agent Plame was unfolding...

Also, it might not be that important (but could go to Mitchell's notes)-Russert claimed that he saw the Wilson op-ed on the advanced wires? I'm not in the press business so I was curious about this-was it some sort of abstract with word count and when did it hit the wires (buzz for the story is coming)? Also did the Wilson op-ed get more circulation than just NYT-did other papers drop it into their editorial page that day?

Re: Mitchell, it goes to show prep (and Russert as NBC Washington Bureau Chief)...Russert asked and answered these questions but I find it hard to believe MTP would prepare their Sunday brodcast on Friday night or Sat. morning and that Russert would be totally out of the loop even if he was getting his stuff ready for a vacation...

Pofarmer

Kevin O'Connor, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, where Eckenrode worked from 1999 to 2002, said, "The consensus is that Jack is a rising star in the bureau."

Agree with Azhghal.

The guy just suddenly retires?

windansea

The Wilson/Kerry/MSN Cabal forged the Niger docs and forced Hamsher to wear a moo moo

Ralph L.

Pofarmer, I was thinking about 2003. Was the outing frenzy an intentional diversion by the MSM because they realized Wilson's report bolstered, not debunked the sixteen words? Looks like someone would have explained that to Wilson, or are they all kooky?

RichatUF

Speaking of Hitchens, has he had anything to say on the trial to date?

Posted by: JM Hanes | February 12, 2007 at 08:27 PM


He did an interview with Hugh Hewitt last week (?) or thereabouts. Sorry I don't have the link but someone here commented that he didn't seem up-to-speed on the trial. I think he would pay more attention if Wilson got called-some of that might be priceless.

RichatUF

Larry Jones

Libby's folks will have a tough time challenging Eckenrode's credibility given that Tate praised Eckenrode's "honesty" in that news article.

MayBee

Oh, ts--he and Corn and Isikoff are very thick together--of course, he's in this.

Do you think Joe Wilson has promised Jane Hamsher the movie rights to Val's book or something? There is some hard-core dedication there.

windansea

There is some hard-core dedication there.

or stupidity...maybe some Soros money

Two or three years ago it was just another snake cult.


RichatUF

from Rick B.

"I could hear the pencil snap very clearly." would be fine too.

lol...

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: LARRY JONES

Shakespeare's dealt with "faint praise." Marc Antony couldn't get on stage, alive, in Juilius Caesar, Act II, if he didn't "praise Brutus. And, the other thugs."

With word games, be careful.

Because "faint praise" sometimes is NOT.

And, leaks can confuse minds who think in terms of information is good. Leaks are pipes that spritz water.

And, Fitz never had a case!

If Walton is S-L-O-W, and I think he is, he still got a V-8 moment today. When a juror asked Novak "who was his second source." And, the reply was HARLOW. Wells didn't ask the question! NOte that a juror did. And, Walton ALLOWED the question to be asked out loud to Novak, too.

Walton won't be played for a patsy.

Walton won't be Marlon Brando, in back of the car in "ON THE WATERFRONT," crying "I could'a been a condendah," either. MARK MY WORDS. "ATTENTION MUST BE PAID" (Death of a Salesman). American playwrites score points for showing you through fiction, what Shakespeare did for "his time." And, all time, too.

Pofarmer

Pofarmer, I was thinking about 2003. Was the outing frenzy an intentional diversion by the MSM because they realized Wilson's report bolstered, not debunked the sixteen words? Looks like someone would have explained that to Wilson, or are they all kooky?

The MSM was looking for anything that would make the administration look bad. Full steam ahead. I don't think any of them ever stopped to think, period.

ghostcat

Larry Jones

No prob. A few simple questions will establish what he is. Then we can talk price.

windansea

For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts. This you can trust.

[Points to sword]

owl
2:22 ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know [ ] Joe Wilson’s 2:23 been calling everybody. He’s pissed off because he was 2:24 designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So, 2:25 he’s all pissed off
.

If the MSM had creds....this would front page on all of them. After all, this is their baby.

So who all was Joe calling? Armitage must know since he knows he's calling. One thing about it....they all end up on NBC....the one that hears, sees and speaks Nada.

Other Tom

Armitage was US Naval Academy class of 1967, a year ahead of Ollie North and Jim Webb. He did some time in-country in Vietnam as an advisor to the Vietnamese riverine forces--don't know how much action he saw.

Although it's the ultimate in tea-leaf-reading futility, I'm pretty sure that I am much more pleased than Fitz is about the jurors' questions up to this point.

Was Sidney Blumenthal involved in the wife-beating lawsuit thing? Wasn't he forced to settle his suit against Drudge in an exquisitely humiliating fashion? I seem to recall that Drudge refused to agree to the terms of the settlement (in which he paid nothing) unless the reptilian one paid for the cost of the deposition that was then in progress. Sid paid up and slithered away, as I recall it. I do know that the whole saga gave me goose-bumps of joy.

Christopher Fotos

By the way, those coding bastards at Washingtonpost.com have done it again: as of right now, the link that pointed to the story filed at 5:22 today now points to Tuesday's story, which is rewritten significantly and, for example, does not include their gaffe about Andrea Mitchell not testifying.

Alcibiades

Sid Vicious wrote a forward to Wilson's paperback addition. There are cut from the same cloth and tight. I would not be surprised if Vicious fingerprints were on this from day one. Sid is the architect of personal destruction.

He's damaged.

Why did I never think of it this way before?

Sid Vicious a perfect Dickens character.

He is just like one of those characters Charles Dickens who oozes bad vibes and evil and oil all the novel long.

Carol Herman

FM: CAROL HERMAN
TO: PROFARMER

The reason 2003 is so critical to this story is that Dan RaTHer wasn't the only "media player" using his amplifiers to "halp" Carry win.

If Bush lost in 2004. None of this story would matter.

It seems, though, the "players" (inside, the government), and the press, had different agendas.

I'd guess the press that swallowed Wilson thought like Monica did, about her "encounters with Bubba in the Oval Office." Monica was in love! She thought the sex was great. And, that the president loved her! And, loved her in ways he did not love his wife!

Monica was BRAGGING when she found Linda Tripp and "devulged all."

Well, Monica's saga begins when she delivers pizza, turns around, and shows the president the thong strap on the back of her ass. Which she cleverly snaps. And, Bill was "hooked."

Wilson, too, manages to throw out stuff that hooked a lot of gullible reporters.

Alcibiades

Whoops, next time edit before you post, not afterwards:

Sid Vicious is a perfect Dickens character.

He is just like one of those Dickens characters who oozes bad vibes and evil and oil all the novel long.

verner

MayBee:"Do you think Joe Wilson has promised Jane Hamsher the movie rights to Val's book or something? There is some hard-core dedication there."

Is that book ever going to get published?

No MB, What we're dealing with is more in tune with a religious cult--clinging to the faith in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary--more like the Church of Hatebushology (with Val playing the Virgin Mary role, and Joe as the crucified martyr.)

It's hard to give that stuff up, especially when dollars keep trickling into the collection plate. They'll always have a following.

Carol Herman

FROM CAROL HERMAN

For MOTIVE, as to why the press kept Wilson's story alive, you have to imagine they decided. Since Bush won by a healthy enough margin the lawyers couldn't put on another 2000 freak show ...

That okay. They'd make Bush's life so miserable they'd turn his 2nd term into chopped liver.

Ahead, when chopped liver is served, it will be made by the parts that fell off the Monty Python knight in Holy Grail.

Called it: HOLY TALE

Or? Tale full of holes.

I don't care. The press bought Wilson. On par with buying ENRON stock just because you were a greedy fool. (I didn't touch that stinker with a ten foot pole.)

ghostcat

verner -

Where's Janet Reno when you need her?

RichatUF

from RalphL.

Pofarmer, I was thinking about 2003. Was the outing frenzy an intentional diversion by the MSM because they realized Wilson's report bolstered, not debunked the sixteen words? Looks like someone would have explained that to Wilson, or are they all kooky?

The question is not addressed to me but I wanted to add-it was not just the WMD (or 16-words) that was being attacked at this time. It was the al Qeada-Iraq connection-(sometime June 9th pops into my head) the NYT writes up a front page article about the debreifing of KSM and aZ, both "denied" cooporation. Hayes at the Weekly Standard did a pretty good write up on this-a paraphrase from one of the grafs:

The press by and large does not believe the Administration on the Iraq War in its evildoer, WMD, or terrorist formulations.

Was the outing frenzy an intentional diversion by the MSM... It was probably the Wilson's to cover their tracks as Wilson abused the press and Valerie Plame-Wilson abused her access to Intelligence Committee staff, IG's Office, and CIA General Counsel's Office as she tried to present herself as a "whistleblower"

Libby's comment "like hearing it for the first time..." he realized who one of the CIA leakers were-Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame-Wilson

RichatUF

clarice

Chris, sorry--think of yourself as an unpaid WaPo factchecker. Jeez--they have 2 people there at all times and still can't do it right.

topsecretk9

Owl

--So who all was Joe calling? Armitage must know since he knows he's calling. One thing about it....they all end up on NBC....the one that hears, sees and speaks Nada.--

Oh Wilson said he called many in State in his book and interviews - Walt k., Marc Grossman to name a few

Only he did what he does best and lied about his call. He said he called as a courtesy at first to help the amdin - but as he said - it became clear they were just never going to correct the record and with his name now circulating among the press with speculations and lies he realized his "anonymity was going to be sacrificed at the alter of the story" he was forced to go public

Seriously. No joke - he wrote that cribbed from Saving Private Ryan drama ( Abe Lincoln's letter). Type A, indeed. Actually, I'm surprised he didn't quote the great philosopher Garfield the Cat with a straight face or something, it's that smarmy.

Kazinski

This is off topic but I saw it on FDL when browsing transcripts. Joel Klein after getting roasted by lefty commenters on his blog like so:
Also, snivelling about burning heretics and "attacks on poor old me". Aren't you the little bitch who not two weeks ago so prissily and primly intoned:
"I hope General Petraeus succeeds. Can the intellectually myopic, insecure take no prisoners Left say the same?"

Yes you are.

Bitch.


Joe figures out why they are so vitrolic, its Rush Limbaugh's fault:

It's obvious that the current level of vitriol on the left is a reaction to nearly twenty years of sewage emanating from Rush et al.


Rick Ballard

Alcibiades,

Blumenthal = Pecksniff

RichatUF


fixed...

Rick Ballard

Alcibiades

I realize of course that Pincus' slant is always anti-Bush and that his sources are from his left leaning old CIA days.

But I wonder if he was more anxious about testifying than he was letting on in court what with preparing for the trial. Because it turns out that infamous article published over the weekend that was dead wrong on Feith - it turns out, according to his coauthor that the mistake was all Pincus and the editors' fault.

That's rather an egregious mistake - seems like a mood indicator.

topsecretk9

--It's obvious that the current level of vitriol on the left is a reaction to nearly twenty years of sewage emanating from Rush et al.

--

Well Jeff could lecture them about personal responsibility!

Lesley

Rick LMAO a truly inspired choice!!!

Christopher Fotos

Chris, sorry--think of yourself as an unpaid WaPo factchecker

Right on both counts!

clarice

Alciabides, Pincus looked about 100 yrs old on the stand. Besides his bias one must factor in that he is well past retirement age.

TexasToast

left-leaning CIA ?

If our parents would read this ......

topsecretk9

EW thinks that it's inappropriate for Libby to have been talking to journalists.

Are the media types in the media room, really down with her? I mean if it's inappropriate for a COS to have contact with reporters at any time let alone critical times - do they have a job?

So future COS, when a reporter calls? Just tell them Emptywheel might think this is inappropriate.

Good lord.

pete

Libby Lubbers

Get a new idol. Preferably one that wasn't so stupid as to let himself be the fall guy.

ghostcat

peter

Tom Maguire

Libby testified in March 2004 that this conversation took place July 11.

IIRC, in one of the two appearances they take some time with that - he claimed to have spoken with Rove late in the day of the 10th or 11th, and Rove was gone by mid-day on Friday the 11th; hence we presume it was late on the 10th.

However, I suppose it could be mid-morning on the 11th, if that is what it takes for David Gregory to get his leak from Ari and call Tim.

IS the Andrea M without jurors a done deal, or just the most likely scenario, and what is the source for that info? (I saw the suggestion in one of the livblogs, but did not realize it was a final ruling).

ghostcat

I beleive it was represented here, by both Clarice and MaidMarion, as a done deal.

ghostcat

Supposedly Tuesday PM, weather permitting.

clarice

The mock trial of Andrea is a done deal for tomorrow. After that the judge will decide ir it makes it to the jury, TM.

JM Hanes

Larry Jones:

"Libby's folks will have a tough time challenging Eckenrode's credibility given that Tate praised Eckenrode's "honesty" in that news article."

Gee, I wonder if the fact that Eckenrode was Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Philly office might have had something to do with Philly lawyer Tate's public endorsement? Not to mention, heading up the investigation of his most high profile client.... Hellooo?

JM Hanes

In re Mitchell testimony: Will it be videod and then presented to the jury if Walton allows? Or will they do an entirely new run through? Doesn't seem quite kosher for the witness to get a dress rehearsal.

Road Dog

Azhghal - I agree that Eckenrode not showing up as a prosecution witness is very curious. OK, very very curious. But I still think that E hitting mandatory retirement age (coupled w/ a good post-retirement job which may not have been there if he stayed on the Fitz project) is the likeliest scenario for his retirement. This case has enough conspiracies.

The FBI doesn't keep a lot of people past their "sell by" dates. They try not to keep SACs who hit mandatory retirement. It hurts morale for those wanting to move up the ranks. I suspect that Fitz keeping E off the stand (as his witness) was tactical because E interviewed too many people (including journalists) and the risks of too much coming out on cross outweighed the benefits of his testimony. Now that Russert's testimony is in disputing the 302 summary, the defense has little downside to calling Eckenrode. He'll either contradict Russert or admit the FBI notes are faulty. The defense makes points either way.

clarice

JMH, it won't be videotaped.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame