Powered by TypePad

« "A Victory Of Sorts" | Main | Edwards Was For Their Dismissal Before He Was Against It »

February 09, 2007

Comments

PeterUK

Sue,
Not Scary "the Farm don't train no steenkin' analysts" Larry ?

"Larry the Analyst packed his trunk
and trumbled of to the media
off he rode with a thrumety trump
trump trump trump".

hit and run

Tom:
Look, I apologize for having responded to the American Idolist


Oh come on. You were clearly itching for a fight when you quoted and took down a commenter from FDL. ::grin::

Dan S

repest=respect, other typos more minor.

Tom Maguire

Hmm, how about a half dish of crow for yours truly? Per the LA Times and his bio, Mr. Johnson won the Cold War during his 4 years at the CIA, spent time at State, and is now a full time blowhard (my extrapolations).

Oh well, another Libby moment.

Jane

Yeah, so my source is Larry Johnson, formerly of the CIA. He's a damn fine person and I trust everything he says implicitly.

How quaint.

Another Bob

Bruce Hayden:

Couldn't agree more.

AFAIK, the professions that get special legal standing (medicine, law, engineering) all require the participants to demonstrate qualifications and submit to disciplinary organizations. Not perfect, (as Earle, Nifong and Fitz are demonstrating) but it's there.

Quote-unquote "journalism" robustly rejects all of this. Well OK then, they also reject any special legal standing. Write what you want, but you do so at your risk.

Tom Maguire

Eugene Volokh has written a lot about slippery slopes. Where does this slippery slope end? When someone leaks classified information to the press, why not just throw the reporters in jail until they identify the person breaking the law? Or when they have inside information on some crime, or ultimately, some civil matter.

I have not been following the two reporters who broke the Bonds/steroids stroy by publishing "secret" grand jury testimony, but...

although there was a clear public interest (Bush even mentioned steroids in a SOTU, IIRC), is the sports section the place to look for reporters to jail?

Well. Soon enough we may have a lib President and a lib MSM. I know that the media has a certain reflexive oppositionalism, but... what sort of environment will exist for a Republican leaker in that environment of slight press protection? Would such a person get anything like the ride, and protection, enjoyed by Joe Wilson?

Oh come on. You were clearly itching for a fight when you quoted and took down a commenter from FDL. ::grin::

Lie down with firedogs...

But you are right - the era of personal responsibility starts now! Or anyway, soon.

Retired

On July 10, 2001, 60 days before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Larry Johnson, ex-CIA guy, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled "The Declining Terrorist Threat". He claimed that Americans were "bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism" and that we had "little to fear" from terrorism. So much for him as a reliable source.

Cecil Turner

He's a damn fine person and I trust everything he says implicitly.

And I am NOT a sockpuppet!! GOOD DAY!

I'm not sure you have reached the status with him that I appeared to reach though. Has he sent you personal emails? ::grin::

I also think it's telling that he only tries that crap with the ladies. Me, he just banned after my first post. wimp.

Hmm, how about a half dish of crow for yours truly?

I was wonderin' where you were going with that one. We had a fairly long discussion about his rather thin CIA credentials a while back. And now you went and "learned it as new" all over again?

hit and run

But you are right - the era of personal responsibility starts now! Or anyway, soon.

I know you may be stupid but you ain't dumb. Friday isn't a bad day to indulge in a little baby pixel clubbing.

Patrick R. Sullivan

'In his testimony, didn't Russert say how NBC got Wilson on MTP the day the op-ed came out because they saw it hit the wires the night before? (he was on vacation, of course, it was the producers who did the booking and Mitchell who did the show).'

Andrea told Gloria Borger back in 2003 that she called Wilson when she read the Saturday night edition of the Sunday Times. She had probably talked with him before, since she also said that she'd started to track him down after Walter Pincus WaPo column of June 12th:

'But why did it take so long? July 6th, Joe Wilson comes out and discloses that he was, indeed, the secret envoy who went to Niger for the CIA, and this is an op-ed on a Sunday morning in the New York Times. Well, Saturday night, we see that this is coming, so I was substituting on "Meet The Press," and called Wilson and said, 'Would you come on?' And we had him come on the show, so he's also on television.'

She had his phone number.

Dan S

H&R,

I thought that was under seal.

Pete

You're dreaming, Pete--you claim Cheney's statement that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons was a nail in the coffin, too. Dishonest claims do not drive nails, and you're being intentionally dishonest.

Cheney's comment was wrong and he acknowledged it too.

The White House was twice warned by the CIA that the Niger information was bogus yet they kept sneaking the wording back into their speeches.

And contrary to what Clarice says - not one of our middle east allies provided troops for the effort. Bush offered Turkey billions of dollars in bribes to allow US troops passage through Turkey yet their democratically elected government refused as over 90% of their people were against the war. Bush's allies like Egypt and Jordan were openly critical of the war. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/03/1048962835005.html>Link1 http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.egypt.mubarak.reut/>Link2

And on the issue of Feith it is the Pentagon which issued the report. If there is any dishonesty, it is those in this forum who have supported and keep supporting people like Feith.

Pete

A toddler's opinion would be superior to Juan Cole's. He's about the least credible person on the war I can think of.

Keep on living in your fantasy world.

The Iraqi fantasy that you folks have been harboring is smacking right into reality. One election results are not enough to wake you up.

Dan S

Pete,

Fantasy is reality-based. That's your world. You're confused again. Keep your sides straight here!

Reality is reality.

Reality-based is not reality.

Fantasy is not reality.

Fantasy is based on reality though, or we cannot relate to it at all, thus it is a sub-set of reality-based.

Got that?

PeterUK

Pete,
What are you, dyslexic? Niger and Africa are two different words.
Africa is BIG very Big there are several major yellow cake producing countries in Africa,there are even commercially worked out mines with enough deposits to produce uranium for a nuclear weapon.

owl

Would such a person get anything like the ride, and protection, enjoyed by Joe Wilson?

Not just Joe. How many times have I now read that Libby called Russert to complain about his "colleague". Hey MSM, his name is Chris Matthews. Reminds me of trying to find Samuel Berger's name on the front page of the NYTs. No way. He was a person without a name.

Cecil Turner

She had his phone number.

Just like Judith. Yes, this "impossible" angle is a crock. Someone ought to've interviewed Kristof, Pincus, Mitchell, Wilson, and Plame, and locked down when each learned about this, from whom, and who they told. I suspect it'd have been obvious that no prosecution over leaking that little tidbit was feasible or desirable. But apparently Fitz was working backward from the conviction, and didn't see the need. So we're pretending no reporters knew about her, and that they didn't talk. Which is pretty dang close to "inconceivable."

The White House was twice warned by the CIA that the Niger information was bogus yet they kept sneaking the wording back into their speeches.

Yeah, and Tenet never approved the speech, it wasn't in the NIE, and they didn't have a report a few days before the SOTU about Saddam stockpiling uranium. Dude, you seriously need a fact-checker.

daniel galogley

do any of you people cover the trial testimony? i'm not interested in your half assed theories. i'd like to know what was said yesterday, not two bit scenarios.

Cecil Turner

Dan,

Try the little blue text on the right under "Plamaniacs." (You put the cursor over the one you want and click the left mouse button.)

hit and run

Dan - I got full assed theories and four bit scenarios if you're interested.

Pete

You guys can make fun of Juan Cole all you want, but the man is a brilliant Middle East expert who has no qualms about speaking truth to power, no matter how much those Israel-firster neocon morons in the Bush administration threaten to ship him to a concentration camp.

I was especially impressed by his unique insight that the reason Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 was because of the Jenin massacre -- you just don't find that quality of insight on any right-wing blogs!!!

Sue

speaking truth to power

I'm sorry, but that phrase makes me giggle. What the hell is it supposed to mean?

Charlie (Colorado)

Friday isn't a bad day to indulge in a little baby pixel clubbing.

Would someone tell me WTF this "baby pixel" thing is about?

hit and run

I think it was Rick Ballard who coined the phrase.

Taken from clubbing baby seals.

Feeding the trolls amounts to clubbing the poor little innocent baby pixels by using them for something utterly pointless.

Or something like that.

FREE CHARLIE!!!

Dan S

Charlie,

It's under seal, can't discuss it.

Dan S

Sue,

"Speaking truth to power" is the "reality-based" community's doublespeak for "Big Lie."

clarice

Too lazy to dig up the right thread about the Edwards bloggerettes:
"Uh, Why Is Iowahawk's Parody Showing Up on Edwards' Blog?

Greg Pollowitz, the Sixers guy, notes that John Edwards' blog is allowing user posts to go through, including someone who posted Iowahawk's parody of a memo from Amanda Marcotte to John Edwards. (Warning, graphic language. As you might expect in a parody of her.)

Greg observes, "If you're using your blog, as Edwards is, as your primary window to the world, you can't let this stuff get on. There's something broken in his campaign that allows these two to get hired in the first place, as well as allows profanity laced commentary to get posted to his site."

Ladies and gentlemen, the Not Ready for Prime Time Bloggers"

http://hillaryspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2E5ODcyMzNmMWQ3MTYzMDlkMzdjY2MxNTlhNDYzNzU=>Not ready for prime time edwards

Here's the Iowahawk (salty) blog:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/02/the_pandagon_pa.html>Pandagon

Jane

You guys can make fun of Juan Cole all you want, but the man is a brilliant Middle East expert

The man is a complete idiot who has been fisked to within an inch of his life.

Are you two related?

Dan S

It's really hard to parody the left and not end up being "salty." About the best you can do is substitute silly explitives that make them look even sillier... but that also de-venoms them, which in another way diminishes the value of the parody.

But Iowahawk is one of the best. He's not always dead on, but when he is... wow.

Dan S

Jane,

He didn't say what exactly is Cole's area of expertise, just the region it pertains to. He really is an expert in media spin as pertains to the Middle East. I won't argue that. Few can do the Big Lie as well as he does.

clarice

Iowahawk captures the mindless idiocy of the "progressives" better than any other person . His Pandagon shtick is one of the very best examples. That Edwards is so idiotic to have it on his website is beyond parody.

fdcol63

The Left is a parody of reality.

Thus .... reality-based. LOL

Other Tom

A word about trusting scary Larry implicitly: He is quite famously the author of a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat." It was published in July, 2001. That's right, folks: July, 2001. The name "Osama bin Laden" appears nowhere in the column. The abject fool spent four years in a CIA desk job about twenty years ago. Oh, he's a real expert all right.

Dan S

"So don't bother sending a termination notice, John, because either way I'll be coming in tomorrow bright and early. You'll never be rid of me, or Kos, or DU, because we were all meant to be together.

Forever."

Amen

Other Tom

Cole had a "unique insight" that 9/11 was a response to Jenin? No wonder it's unique--it's utterly full of shit. Bin Laden himself has frequently stated the reasons for the attack, which include of course the "tragedy of Andalusia" and other bizarregrievances--but no mention of Jenin.

Pete, we know you to be a dishonest person because of your claims about Cheney and Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons. You've simply compromised your credibility, and quite fatally so.

fdcol63

9/11 was a response to Jenin?

Wow. Cole is brilliant. Jenin did not occur until April 2002 ..... about 7 months AFTER 9/11.

Other Tom

Beautiful catch, fdcol63. One of the great, facial, posterizing slam dunks of all time. We can put this one in the Pete file next to Reconstituted Nuclear Weapons.

Talk about your fantasy world...

Other Tom

Sorry, but I simply can't resist: "you just don't find that quality of insight on any right-wing blogs!!!"

Wahoo!

fdcol63

Other Tom,

Google .... it's a great thing. If only our fellow "Americans" could learn to use it.

LOL

PeterUK

Pete,

"You guys can make fun of Juan Cole all you want,"

We're not,we are taking the piss out of you.

fdcol63

PeterUK said:
We're not,we are taking the piss out of you.

It's almost too easy, isn't it? But we have to remember .... lefty blogs and commenters like Cole offer "unique insights" ...... just not a lot of cold, hard facts. LOL

Tom Maguire

Mitchell had Wilson's phoine number - I love that, Patrick. In fact, that I am stickeing that into the old Andrea post here.

Tom Maguire

I was especially impressed by his unique insight that the reason Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11 was because of the Jenin massacre -- you just don't find that quality of insight on any right-wing blogs!!!

The triple exclamation convinces me that our guy pete is betraying a sense of humor.

I suppose we can get used to that...

Rick Ballard

Caution - that could be a spoofer. pete is certainly dumb enough to have done it, he's given ample evidence of that, but it's just a little too perfect.

theAmericanist

Well, this is a first: the Larry Johnson post wasn't me.

Kinda telling that our host didn't notice, especially when he's basically bragging about how much he understands all that, ya know, intelligence stuff.

Never saw somebody fake a name before, TM?

The CIA guy I mentioned was the station chief in Angola, back in the day; ran a covert war.

What he described, though, is basic recruiting technique, discussed in, well, pretty much everything I've ever read about the subject: Stevenson, Stephenson, Donovan, Dulles, etc. I wasn't giving a primer, I was just noting that our host simply (and pretty obviously) misread Priest.

She didn't say that outing Plame didn't hurt us. She said that Plame was four years out of the loop, so outing her didn't deprive the flow of information FROM her.

But, geeze, folks: if you know even jack about this stuff, the damage is obvious.

How many other ways you guys got to look stupid?


Ranger

theAmericanist,

Well, if Plame's exposure did cause damage, then maybe she should have thought about the consequences when she sugested her husband be picked to go on a CIA fact finding mission without an NDA and then let him write about it under his own name in the NYT. You would think she would have been more careful than that.

And remember, it was Richard Armitage at State who leaked her name, not Libby.

theAmericanist

Ranger, please stop muddying the waters with irrelevant facts like who actually leaked Plame's name in relation to Joe Wilson's vacation.

And don't even bother bringing up the fact that Ames outed her years ago and she's been worthless as a covert asset ever since. I'm just not interested in that.

The point is, Libby is the one on trial and therefore he's the one to blame.

PeterUK

It is truly an act of selfless munificence that Mr Maguire offers us the Friday Troll Bake.It's snowing here,open a nice bottle of claret,quite festive,

"Half wits roasting on an open fire...."

Sue

The point is, Libby is the one on trial and therefore he's the one to blame.

You're a spoof, right?

fdcol63

theAmericanist said:
"The point is, Libby is the one on trial and therefore he's the one to blame."

Wow. And here I thought the objective of the trial was to PROVE that Libby did, indeed, do that.

What happened to all that "innocent until proven guilty" stuff?

clarice

PUK's right..the Plame case is a diabolical plot to keep America's best minds otherwise occupied..LOL

Sue

It's a spoof. To see how gullible we are. I bet if you knew which blog to go to, you would see laughter at how easily fooled we are.

hit and run

Clarice:
PUK's right..the Plame case is a diabolical plot to keep America's best minds otherwise occupied..LOL


Hey some of us mediocre minds are being otherwise occupied around here too!

theAmericanist

Yeah, there's somebody using my name. Easiest way to tell us apart is, I'm the one who makes sense.

It's more or less admitting you have no argument to blame Plame (wtf?) for Cheney, et al, outing her, since (as Ranger and others have argued) Wilson wrote his entirely accurate Op-Ed. (Bush really did tell Congress something that wasn't true -- you guys haven't forgotten that part, right?)

I think I summarized the core issue in Libby's perjury trial rather well, IMNSHO: he has already admitted, and there is a ton of documentary evidence, that what he told the grand jury (that he first heard about Plame from reporters) wasn't true.

So the only question was whether he lied on purpose, or if it was an honest mistake.

A key part of his defense was naming the reporters who, he claimed, had told him.

Turns out they don't back him up.

So -- he was NOT told by the press first. He admitted that it was his BOSS that told him first.

He just somehow... forgot that, even as a systematic effort to discredit Wilson by going after his wife was going on, in which (by his own testimony, mind) Libby was a part.

Riiight.

Again, a sense of perspective, folks: this is about a President of the United States taking us to war on several false premises. (Granted, Libby's perjury trial is about the cover-up.)

So maybe the IG report today is a reasonable comparison:

"This was not "alternative intelligence assessment." It was from the start
a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it
I was not endorsing its substance." -- Douglas Feith

So these guys took us to war OVER STUFF THAT EVEN THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE????

And it gets better. The IG report explains that Feith drew on "both reliable and
unreliable" intelligence reports in 2002 to produce a link between al-Qaeda
and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence
Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration."

Dayum, what WOULD it take for you guys to see what's so bloody obvious?

Again -- a little more cooperative patriotism, and a little less incompetent partisanship, please.


Sue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40222-2004Aug27.html>Paul Donnelly a/k/a the Americanist. Now I'm confused. The person who wrote the article for the Washington Post has the same name and email address as our Americanist, with a 'c'. The one posting here is almost a joke, even when he isn't being spoofed by the Amerikanist, with a 'k'. So, is the Amerikanist spoofing the Americanist who is spoofing Paul Donnelly? ::shrug:: I'm bored. ::grin::

fdcol63

"Unreliable" intelligence reports that were "more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" ....

Oh, you mean, like the Clinton administration's DOJ indictment against Osama bin Laden in 1998, which stated:

"4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in
the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

clarice

Sue, whatever, "c" or"k" is a nincompoop.

boris

Easiest way to tell us apart is, I'm the one who makes sense.

If that's the standard then neither one of you is actually you.

Sue

Clarice,

Not arguing that. ::grin::

fdcol63

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

Sue

If that's the standard then neither one of you is actually you.

I like the way I said that better. ::grin::

topsecretk9

I noticed so much Larry-ness in this thread and I just had to repost this joke:

Had lunch today with a person who has a direct tie to one of the folks facing indictment in the Plame affair. There are 22 files that Fitzgerald is looking at for potential indictment . These include Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, and Mary Matalin (there are others of course). Hadley has told friends he expects to be indicted. No wonder folks are nervous at the White House.

back in Sept. 2005

Extraneus

Gee, the Americanist is famous? Seems he'd know what Democrats had to say about WMDs, then, but just in case, here's a brief list, taken from one of many such lists, found here by a simple Google search on "democrats wmd quotes":

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

There are also a few very nice recordings of Hillary talking about these same points, in fact lecturing Code Pink about how she knows, independent of intelligence shown to her by the Bush Admin, since she's so well-versed from her "husband's adminstration," but it's easy enough to handle the stupid and dishonest "false pretenses" claim without speding too much time on the effort.

PeterUK

Amerikonartist,

"The CIA guy I mentioned was the station chief in Angola, back in the day; ran a covert war."
Angola ,what a balls up,your man is probably wanted as a war criminal.

BTW,Places like Angola are where they send the awkward squad,post.em and forget'em.

topsecretk9

I have been meaning to say, I hope TM can working ina Joe Wilson thread some day and title it "Joe "National Command Authority" Wilson".

Thought I put it out in case one day TM is trying to come up with a catchy title.

clarice

Psst--Do not show this to TM because (a) he'll start a thread on what promises to be a decades long case and(b) who knows what idiots it'll reel into the site:
"In another bizarre twist to the case, the husband of actress Zsa Zsa Gabor, Prince Frederick von Anhalt, claimed that he might be the father of Smith's infant daughter.

Two other men are already waging a paternity battle over the little girl, who stands to inherit Smith's estate. Von Anhalt, 59, told The Associated Press he and Smith had been having an affair since the 1990s. "She wanted to be a princess," he said."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070209/ap_on_en_tv/anna_nicole_smith

I think Charlie was the dad. There, I said it. He'll just have to administer the $1.6 billion she's likely to get from her ex's estate.

Cecil Turner

I think I summarized the core issue in Libby's perjury trial rather well, IMNSHO: he has already admitted, and there is a ton of documentary evidence, that what he told the grand jury (that he first heard about Plame from reporters) wasn't true.

And if only Scooter had claimed he first heard about Plame from reporters, you'd have a point. Seriously, dude, read the material first.

kate

Hadley must have done something to poor Joe to get him so mad at him. Insinuate our Joe wasn't all that important or something.

I sat through (or rode my exercise bike through) most of Imus segment this morning with Russert. (that show has lots of commercials)

Noticed that what went unmentioned was the giddy over the indictment part. That means it really hurt. Russert looked foolish, at least he didn't wear drool, like Matthews.

PeterUK

Amerikonartist,

"Again, a sense of perspective, folks: this is about a President of the United States taking us to war on several false premises."

The Judge says not,the prosecutor didn't indict on this question,exactly what perspective are you using.

BTW,What happened to dear old Texas Toast?

theAmericanist

(nodding) FD, being as how Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shi'ite, and there is a civil war going on in Iraq between Sunni and Shi'ia, how's that alliance thing working out for 'em?

LOL -- Sue, I use theAmericanist on purpose; it has a meaning. Show some class now and again, if only for practice.

Other Tom

It would appear that our intelligence expert theAmericanist has been thoroughly, and comically, neutralized by a mole of some sort.

It would further appear that poor ol' Pete has taken the route favored by cockroaches when the kitchen light comes on.

By God, this is fun!

Sue

Show some class now and again, if only for practice.

::grin::

Other Tom

Here is something from July 10, 2001 [sic] in the New York Times:

"The Declining Terrorist Threat

By LARRY C. JOHNSON

WASHINGTON -- Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

"None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think."

Am I being unduly cruel? I think not. I do think it is important, per the now-disappeared Pete, that we be ever vigilant to distinguish the world of fact from the world of fantasy. Note that the estimable Crazy Larry sets out for the very purpose of curing us of our "fantasies." Good job, Crazy One, good job.

There's plenty more where this came from, dear readers.

Sue

By God, this is fun!

You owe me a monitor.

Other Tom

As I promised, here's more, from the source I cited immediately above:

"The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia — or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia —you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear."

Great Scott--someone stop me before I do more of this! I just can't help myself! I mean, there are all of these fish in this barrel, see, and...

fdcol63

(nods back to theAmericanist)

You pooh-poo the "alliance thing" potential between Shi'ites and Sunnis in Iraq, but it's indeed the very thing we are currently seeing, and have seen, for quite a while between Sunni Baathist Assad in Syria and the Shi'ite clerical mullahs in Iran.

A pragmatic, realpolitik "enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing.

PeterUK

"being as how Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shi'ite, and there is a civil war going on in Iraq between Sunni and Shi'ia, how's that alliance thing working out for 'em?"

Both of course are Muslim and you aren't,as for the latter made some good records but these things rarely last.

Time for the JOM song


"I make my living off the Evening News
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry

Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry

Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up
Kick 'em all around

kate

I work in DC and I can tell you that agency bureaucrats manage significant attrition rates yearly.

They have retirements of senior officers, resignations, rotations and they manage to handle this quite well.

The loss of a mid-level bureaucrat would be hardly signifcant. I would imagine this is a chance to inflate Val's importance by her and Joe's political friends.

They went too far and this does not pass the giggle test. There must be hundreds working on the Iran account in the intelligence community, if not more.

Say goodnight. Joe.

Other Tom

Cain't hep mysef, I love Larry and nobody else...

"Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority.

"I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way."

"Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist."

Sugar pie honey bunch, you know that I love you too...Cain't hep mysef...


fdcol63

OK ... technically, I know that Assad is an Alawite, not Sunni, but Syria is predominately Sunni (74% according to the CIA's World Fact Book) and my pain point was to refute the notion that "secular" Muslims (like Sunni Baathists Saddam and Assad) would never cooperate with "clerical" and "religiously zealous" groups (like Iran's Shi'ite mullahs) against American and Western targets.

cathyf

You know, I've said this before, but one of the amazing things is that the press is so blinded to their own interests by BDS. Suppose Russert got up there and said, "Look, I answered the FBI's questions exactly truthfully and didn't technically lie. Yeah, I remembered saying something vaguely soothing to Libby about how all the reporters know Wilson's wife is in WMDs and that's where he's getting this stuff. But that's not what they asked. And look, journalists got thrown in jail for volunteering stuff. I didn't volunteer, I just answered their questions, is it my fault they asked sloppily-worded questions?" And Judy gets up there and says, "Look, he threw me in jail for 85 days -- like I was going to volunteer information that made him mad? Of course I said I 'forgot' who my sources were. And I did forget -- it just wasn't very important until weeks later. But was I going to go to jail for daring to contradict Fitzgerald saying that Plame was all-important way back then? I was going to argue that he misquoted me in the indictment?"

Tell me that if Russert and Miller had testified this way, we wouldn't have had a special session of Congress the next day and a comprehensive press shield law enacted unanimously by noon! (The only delay being all the Congresscritters jockeying to get on the record as decrying the out-of-control prosecutor holding poor reporters hostages to engage in outrageous prosecution.)

Yeah, the press is so dumb that they can't even spin this into an excuse to get a shield law. Dumb. And pwn3d.

Other Tom

More Larry? You say you want more Larry? OK, Other Tom gives you more Larry:

"Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training."

There's your boy, giving us the inside scoop as of July 10, 2001--and because I love it so much I'm going to repeat that date for you: July 10,2001.

Ain't it good to know that those three named countries were reluctant to support terrorists? And Afghanistan was apparently not on cloak-and-dagger Larry's radar screen at that particular point in time, as they say.

I know that at some point a just God is going to deal with me for having so much fun at the expense of these hapless dolts, but still I can't stop myself.

clarice

I can understand most of the VIPS--leftist twits who after the USSR fell ran to the jihadis and showered their affection on them. I cann't understand Cannistraro who not so long ago was on the side of the angels.
And I can't understand what is keeping these bums afloat. They get some Soros money and probably some (well laundered Saudi money--run thru think tanks etc). How much?
Finally, it is beyond belief that they continue to have such acceptance by a credulous media.

topsecretk9

OtherTom

I have been meaning to say you are my Hero - your staying power over there eliciting LARRY'S 10 YEAR OLD LIKE RESPONSES TO YOUR COMMENTS ARE A RIOT!!!!!!!!

Sue

Other Tom,

Google Scary (use his real name), Oklahoma City bombing and Jayna Davis.

PeterUK

Other Tom,
You have to admit though,Leery Larry started at the top,writing reports for the CIA,DOS,now he has assumed his rightful place,producing testosterone boosters for pubescent acne factories.

theAmericanist

To close where I started: our host misrepresented what Dana Priest said, which was that Plame's outing did no damage to CURRENT intelligence, since she was four years out of it. But TM confused that with no damage to intelligence sources and methods, which is pretty frickin' obvious. Identifying a CIA recruiter damages sources and methods by definition.

Most posters in this thread have misrepresented the issue in Libby's case, which is pretty simple: either he lied to the grand jury and is guilty, or he somehow forgot what his BOSS told him.... which, as it happens, he then proceeded to do.

Wonder why he did it, if not because he was told? Seems kind of a difficult defense: 'well, yeah, I was doing what I was told cuz it was my job, but I forgot who told me to do it altho it was my boss."

So Libby's defense, extending the idea that he forgot, was that EVERYBODY already knew it, so he kept hearing it from reporters, not they from him.

Yet not a single reporter has backed him up on that.

TM likes to be thought of as a close reader of the press. Doesn't much look like it.

Look, this isn't complex, guys: even FEITH is reduced to saying that he presented intelligence that wasn't justified, that even he didn't believe, because it was what the Boss wanted to hear.

That's basically what Wilson's Op-Ed said, noting a particular example in which Bush made a false statement to Congress.

It's a sign you guys have utterly lost sight of what this OUGHT to be about -- a misconceived war that ain't going well, run by the same guys who screwed it up in the first place -- that you're running off after ... Syria and Iran? The 1998 indictment of bin Laden? The shocking news that Saddam was a bad guy? Sheesh.

Hey, it wasn't progressives who put him in power, or supplied him with weapons. That was Reagan's guy Rumsfeld shaking his hand, not a special envoy from Carter -- or Clinton, for that matter.

TM: when Libby is convicted, how about you post all the reasons why you think it was okay to EITHER lie to a grand jury, OR to have a guy working for the Vice President too dumb to remember what his Boss told him to do?

Cuz it's one or the other: what he told the grand jury under oath wasn't true.

Likewise, what Bush told the Congress, wasn't true.

This is a WAR, folks -- and we're all Americans. Raise your standards, already.

More cooperative patriotism -- and less incompetent partisanship.

clarice

Cathyf raised a question about the pleadings going to the jury. A reader wrote to say this:
"In a civil case, ALL pleadings are admissible into evidence, so you can show the jury what you will. I regularly use this to show jurors just how outrageous a plaintiff's claims for damages are. On the criminal side, I think you can also show any of the pleadings to the jury since those pleadings define the case (in fact, indictments are often read to the jury). Further, it would likely be reversible error for a judge to allow Fitz to attempt put on evidence on a particular issue then preclude a defendant from doing so even if Fitz withdrew the relevant charge. In general, anything Fitz raises is subject to rebuttal by the defendant. Plus, Libby gets to put on evidence unrelated to anything put forth by Fitz if it supports a defense asserted by Libby. "


He's right about mostly everything except what pleadings go the jury here. The judge indicated early on that it wasn't the practice in this District to give the jury the indictment and he would not let them see it.

kazinski

Ameri[c]anist:
"...so he kept hearing it from reporters, not they from him.
Yet not a single reporter has backed him up on that."


Actually, Cooper backed up Libby in that contention. Cooper said that he brought up Plame to Libby attempting to get a confirmation.

Pete:
"The White House was twice warned by the CIA that the Niger information was bogus yet they kept sneaking the wording back into their speeches."

Whatever the CIA said or unsaid about Niger, the President's 16 words, and the substance behind them, were investigated by the UK's Butler commission and determined to be "Well founded".

PeterUK

Was that 1:39 pm post a genuine piece of progressive gibberish,or a trollbot on an ever decreasing spiral? Managed to touch all bases,even the Great Patriotic War.

Sara (Squiggler)

I posted this earlier this morning and noone commented, so I'm going to try again. [typos corrected]

If Armitage is indeed the source for Pincus, then for sure Andrea Mitchell knows a whole lot more than she is now admitting. And, the fact that we now know that the inquiry that started all this with Joe's trip came from the Defense Intelligence Agency means Judi Miller probably was on the story through her WMD/Oil for Food research and that she got her clues either from her DIA sources or State Dept. sources.

The problem with this trial and the entire story is that no one in "official" status cared one whit about the tabloid aspects of Ms. under-de-covers Plame. The MSM, on the other hand, is all tabloid media and has been since the Clinton Administration.

Why did Abramson turn down Miller's Libby scoop? I posit it is because it wasn't sexy enough for them. Afterall, what is National Security next to blond bombshells? Just look at the wall to wall coverage of Anna Nicole Smith while we take down Iranian after Iranian in Iraq. I'll bet the moonbats don't even realize that we are already at war with Iran.

Other Tom

Concerning the pleadings as evidence, they're inadmissible in California even in a civil case. I litigated this question once, and was surprised (and dismayed) to see that the weight of the case-law authority was against me. (And the judge went with the weight.) I also had a civil case in federal court in Calif. where the judge kept it out. I believe that in Calif. state court practice there may be an exception where the pleading is "verified," i.e. signed under oath by the plaintiff or defendant, in which case it's like an affidavit.

Other Tom

Loony Larry assured us, back last summer, that he had no fewer than three reliable sources confirming to him that Karl Rove had been indicted on May 13, that the indictment was under seal, and blah blah blah, right down to black helicopters at Roswell, NM. The corpulent "ambassador" was in his camp on that one.

Pete, old man, where are you?

theAmericanist

Nice try, Kaz. That Cooper tried to get Libby to confirm who Plame was is NOT proof that Libby heard of her from the press, but rather the opposite.

And if you're gonna argue that Bush was right about the case he made for the war, well: who has time to set you straight, dude?

PeterUK

Other Tom,
What can Weary Larry do,an ex Spook's hand rag,how do you get fired as a government bureaucrat? Reduced to writing Spy comics for kiddies,his only asset his imagination.

Other Tom

"Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and deputy director for counterterrorism for the U.S. State Department: 'Looking at the Jayna Davis material, what’s clear is that more than Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved. Without a doubt, there’s a Middle Eastern tie to the Oklahoma City bombing.'"

--Bizblogger, April 18, 2005

Hoo, boy!

PeterUK, I have no idea what the Loony One's 10-year-old responses are. From time to time he attempts to respond to me by personal e-mail, but I delete anything coming from him without opening it. Last year I cut-and-pasted some of his responses to me on his website (which appears to be inhabited principally by genuine lunatics, and a few sock-puppet names standing in for Loony himself), at TalkLeft, and they banned me for obscenity. Good God, I had quotes around the stuff, and credited it to the Looner, but I was duly banished.

RichatUF


from theAmericanist(?)...

Plame had been a clandestine recruiter for folks who would tell the United States stuff that we would not otherwise know. The last CIA guy I talked to about this pointed out there are only three motivations for guys like that -- they are carnal (Plame is a dish), moral (they want truth and justice), or venal (bribes).

LOL...a student of Bond, James Bond

RichatUF

topsecretk9

this is for the theAmericanist--

Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted
'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War
By Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 9, 2007; Page A01

Correction to This Article
A Feb. 9 front-page article about the Pentagon inspector general's report regarding the office of former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith incorrectly attributed quotations to that report. References to Feith's office producing "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" and that the office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" were from a report issued by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in Oct. 2004. Similarly, the quotes stating that Feith's office drew on "both reliable and unreliable reporting" to produce a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "that was much stronger than that assessed by the IC [Intelligence Community] and more in accord with the policy views of senior officials in the Administration" were also from Levin's report. The article also stated that the intelligence provided by Feith's office supported the political views of senior administration officials, a conclusion that the inspector general's report did not draw.The two reports employ similar language to characterize the activities of Feith's office: Levin's report refers to an "alternative intelligence assessment process" developed in that office, while the inspector general's report states that the office "developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers." The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

RichatUF


from OtherTom(?)

"Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst and deputy director for counterterrorism for the U.S. State Department: 'Looking at the Jayna Davis material, what’s clear is that more than Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were involved. Without a doubt, there’s a Middle Eastern tie to the Oklahoma City bombing.'"

Don't know who brought this up first (please don't come after me Fitz) but Scary Larry isn't the only one that mentions a ME-OKC connection...lots of VIPS make cameo appearences in that story-Lang, Johnson, Carranastrio [sic]...I have wondered if anyone has called LJ on that?

RichatUF

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame