Rove Rage
I very much like what Juan Cole has to say about Karl Rove. He deftly cuts to the core issue, pushing aside all the temporizing we now hear from the die-hard apologists of All Things Bush. Here are the money graphs:
Plame was undercover as an employee of a phony
energy company. She was actually investigating illegal proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. When Rove blew her cover to the US press, everyone who had
ever been seen with her in Africa or Asia was put in extreme danger. It is said
that some of her contacts may have been killed. Imagine the setback to the US
struggle against weapons of mass destruction proliferation that this
represents. Rove marched us off to Iraq, where there weren’t any. But he
disrupted a major effort by the CIA to fight WMD that really did exist.
Moreover, the whole thing only makes sense if Rove is a wild-eyed conspiracy
theorist to begin with. Why would it matter that Valerie Plame suggested to the
CIA that they send her husband Joe Wilson to Niger? Wilson had excellent
credentials for the mission, which the CIA immediately recognized.
Rove can only have thought it would discredit Wilson to associate his mission
with the CIA if he viewed the CIA as the enemy. This is the Richard
Perle line. If Wilson was sent to Niger on the recommendation of a CIA
operative, then he was not an objective ex-ambassador but a CIA plant of some
sort, attempting to undermine the Bush administration and the military
occupation of Iraq.
This theory is that of a crackpot…
I’m rather (morbidly) fascinated by the dark depths that knee-jerk partisanship has reached in American politics. Is there anyone still around who can form an actual, reasoned opinion without first checking his or her voter reg card? The same Republicans who were willing to impeach Bill Clinton because he lied on a deposition (something I thought he should resign over) cannot bring themselves to see absolutely anything awry whatsoever with the Bushies. Torture? What torture? Fabrication of intelligence? Certainly not. Character assasination by Karl Rove while toying with national security? Oh, heavens no. Who will be the first prominent Republican to cut bait on Karl Rove? Will there be one?
On the other side, we see Democrats who suddenly love the most anti-democratic procedure of all, the fillibuster. Or Democrats like the yik-yaks on Air America who defended the leak of the Pentagon Paers but today were gloating over Judith Miller being in jail because they didn’t like her reporting on Iraq.
It’s not hard to figure out why Americans hate politics. Why 100 milliion don’t bother to vote.
July 12th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
You reap what you sow.
July 12th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
I heard the conspiracy theory while listening to the Lars Larson show when driving through the Central Valley last week.
I got to admit it. I am actually happy to see the Right come up with a conspiracy theory. It has been a while since they have had a good one. The Left has plenty right now.
Soon enough we will have a John Birch style Right against a loony sectarian Left.
Just yesterday one of my co-workers called me a “Republican” and told me to “join the Army” because I stated that I hoped the London bombers burned to a crisp. Then proceeded to say (of the bombers) “look at whats going on in their countries.” I then stated that they were most likely British and other than the bad food and warm beer, the UK is an alright place. Good old reactionary insanity on both sides. Got to love it!
I was then called a “Republican” again. I of course have and will never vote Republican.
Oh well. Eveyone is going insane.
July 12th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
Good points. It is also interesting to see the reluctance of conversatives to criticize or even question why one of their darling columnists, Robert Novak, would have revealed Plame’s name in the first place. Is Novak weak on terrorism? Or just so willing to be a Bush mouthpiece that he will do anything? Questions that need answers.
On the other side of things, however, it makes me uncomfortable to see leftists baying for Rove et al to be thrown in jail for violating what we once called the “Names of Agents” law. During the 1980s, while working for the ACLU, I and many others fought enactment of this law on the grounds that the CIA’s activities abroad were often so nefarious that they needed to be exposed.
July 13th, 2005 at 12:25 am
Apparently Rove is not the evil master mind that the left has made him out to be. You know, the real source of those CBS forged memos; the puppet master pulling the strings of the Swift Vets & POW’s; the shadow behind the take over the Senate and winning of two presidential campaigns.
He obviously is now a simple-minded fool who breaks federal laws in front of several journalists.
Or … Rove was merely telling the truth about Joe Wilson and the (un-named) wife who sent him and had no knowledge she was under cover.
The Joe Wilson who reported to the CIA, “According to the former Niger mining minister, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. “ and who also said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq — which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales.
However, if Rove lied to the Grand Jury or know about the under cover status of Wilson’s wife —- LET HIM BURN.
July 13th, 2005 at 12:42 am
The filibuster is far from “the most anti-democratic procedure of all”. It’s anti-majoritarian, for sure. In a deliberative body, it is a guarantee of full consideration of minority opinion. The Friends Committee on National Legislation points out that Quakers have always supported the filibuster for that reason, despite its use against civil rights, a cause for which they worked longer and harder than many.
I can think of several more anti-democratic procedures in the Congress than the filibuster. One that leaps to mind is the Republican abuse of the House-Senate ‘reconciliation’ process to gut bills and replace passed legislation wholesale with versions never discussed or voted on.
July 13th, 2005 at 1:45 am
Here here. It seems that our esteemed host agrees with Woody’s concept of “democracy”:
“We’ve already had the only “poll” that counted regarding future appointments to the Court–last year’s presidential election. People re-elected Bush and rejected the French candidate because the voters saw and trusted Bush’s vision of the type of justices that this country needs.”
July 13th, 2005 at 4:41 am
More on the FBI allegations of torture at Guantanamo this morning: Reprimand Urged, Nixed
“Looking into FBI reports of abuse, the investigators found multiple instances at the prison, including the use of duct tape on at least one prisoner’s face, a threat to kill another prisoner’s family, and inappropriate touching by female interrogators.”
Duct tape? Inappropriate touching?
July 13th, 2005 at 7:01 am
Josh: if you think getting called a Republican for saying intemperate things about the murderers in London is weird, what would you say about getting called a Republican for chatting with friends on your own back porch at 10:30 pm on a Friday? It happened to me back during the presidential campaign. I guess a big “Kerry/Edwards” window-sign wasn’t a strong enough sign of party loyalty.
NetOx: It’s plausible for Rove to be both things you list. He could be both a genius political apparachik and extremely naive about matters of national security. He’s only human after all. It’s also plausible that even if Wilson lied both about how he was sent to Niger and the results of his trip that Rove still committed a crime by “outting” Plame. The two facts don’t contradict each other in any way.
July 13th, 2005 at 7:56 am
Marc cannot write a piece without the obligatory hit at the Dems and Bill Clinton. Rather like those articles that have to pair some GOP felony with a Democratic Misdemeanor.
Misdemeanor? Yes. Marc and his buddies Pat Caddell and Arianna Huffington, got all upset over Bill lying about a blowjob and insisted that he had to resign over such a heinous act! Arianna even set up a websight to get signatures! THE HUFFINGTON ROAST I guess. But, oh my, the public didn,t buy it. The support of Blacks got poor Pat so down that he all but called them dumb N – but you know the rest. It was all too much like Brecht announcing that the People had lost the confidence of the Govt (or in this case all the kool kids in the media like Marc and Sally Quinn) and would have to be replaced.
Now we have Karl Rove, and others, endangering natioinal security by blowing an operation to track WMD’s for no other reason than to settle a political score with someone with the temerity to question the actions of Rove’s liegelord. The law he is alleged to have broken, the Intelligence Agent’s Protection Act, has some 1st Amdt questions. It was passed after COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLITEN outed the CIA COS in Athens who was then promptly assasinated. The roar went up on the Right from people like Richard Perle and Eliot Abrams for something to be done. I bet Novak thought so too. Now they are embroiled in it – who’d a thunk it?
No Marc this is not the same as the Pentagon Papers – that would be all those Meme coming out of Downing Street. What this was is a hit job by people too cowardly to accept the consequences of their actions. Ellsberg stood trial – he didn’r whine and he said it was his duty to inform. Rove, through his lawyer, insists he did nothing wrong but was trying to correct Miller was going to write an erronios piece. I see the difference even if you don’t. This is not a “pox on both your houses” Marc. It was political thugarry pure and simple.
July 13th, 2005 at 8:17 am
After hearing all the whining about so called journalists and their so called anonymous sources, I say screw them all. No one comments that Matt cooper is getting all buddy, buddy with Rove and redigesting White House propaganda as news, read the emails. That’s all Miller does too. They want to protect their sources so that they can continue to have access. Access to what? lies and propaganda? Marc can condemn the political parties while ignoring the complete lack of ethics by those who report on Washington. I listened to Woodward on Diane Rehm and wanted to choke the stupid, shill bastard. “Hey look at my (yet another) book on Watergate” and then shill and spin for the current Whitehouse becasue they give access (and Woodward gives something else).
July 13th, 2005 at 8:18 am
oh. and F*ck Karl Rove and the jack ass he won the election for.
July 13th, 2005 at 9:15 am
Double Super Secret Background
http://tinyurl.com/7r4pt
It’s just like regular background but with no tagbacks, frontsies or backsies, taken to infinity plus one on opposite day, circle circle dot dot now you’ve got a cootie shot….
Matty and Karl sitting in a tree,…
July 13th, 2005 at 10:16 am
“It is said that some of her contacts may have been killed.”
I’d like to read more about this if anybody knows anything.
July 13th, 2005 at 10:27 am
What Richard said, times three.
July 13th, 2005 at 10:31 am
Richard: Let’s clarify this once and for all. What I cant do is write a piece about national politics and avoid the broader context. So, yes, when we talk about the fate of Republicans it does, in the country, include a discussion of the Democrats. When we get a third party some day let me know and I can change my strategy.
As to Clinton… u continue to prove my case. Firt u check ur voter reg card and then after u charcterize his actions. So let’s set the record straight: Bill Clinton was not impeached because of a blow job. Instead, as a DEFENDANT in sexual harrassment case he lied to the court and signed a false affidavit (and was disbarred in Arkansas for this egregious ethical violation). Of course if a Republican President accused of sexual harrassment were caught cheating on a depo, the Dems would demand he be hanged. Clinton further engaged in subborning of perjury by inducing Lewinsky to lie and by having his staff hustle and find hush-money “jobs” for her. Also for the record… CLinton was “forced” to lie in the Paula Jones case when he was asked about other possible affairs… he was able to be asked that question not because Starr was on a fishing trip, but because CLINTON had rcently signed a law that he pushed allowing prosecutors to introduce the sexual history of those accused of harrassment. I do not believe that Clinton engaged in high crimes that warranted constitutional impeachmet, I do believe he was a lying scumbag trimmer who took advantage of girls less than haalf of his age under color of authority, that he broke the law by evading his responsibilities when deposed over the matter, that he used the power of his office to try and buy off the young lady and that when that failed he allowed his hatchet man Sideny Blumenthal (a la rove) to discredit Lewinsky to the press. Reprehensible and accurate mirror into the man’s soul. It’s not that his loosey goosey personal life interfered with his political career.. rather in perfectly reflected it.
July 13th, 2005 at 10:42 am
I have one gripe about your Judith Miller analysis. Judith Miller did not go to jail to protect someone who exposed gov’t abuse of power. Judith Miller went to jail to conceal an abuse of power in the White House. She is part of the cover-up, not part of the expose’.
it’s even worse because this info was peddled to her without her asking for it; apparently she didn’t want it — that’s why she didn’t use it. so she’s not even protecting someone to whom she promised confidentiality.
July 13th, 2005 at 10:52 am
It’s official. FOX News has the stupidest man alive working for it:
John Gibson: “Were you ever in any of those receiving lines where Joe Wilson brought his CIA operative wife out into public view in front of cameras to meet the president and such? If he brings her out in public to be photographed by tv, hasn’t he outed her?”
How could a “journalist” this stupid still have a job ? Of course, he’s not just stupid, he’s also dangerous and insanely partisan. Gibson also opined that if Rove didn’t “out” covert operative Plame, HE SHOULD HAVE !
July 13th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Jon.. as Bill Keller of NYTimes said, you go to court with the case you have at the moment. Judith Miller is not protecting Karl Rove… the NYTimes is rather protecting the principle of keeping anonymous sources anoynous no matter who they are, what they did or what they said. It’s an absolutist principle of an open media and an open society and must be defended without any asterisks.
As to the other posters who suggest collusion between Matt cooper and Karl Rove, you REALLY dont know what ur talking about. Hardly. If anything, it now looks like Cooper outfoxed Rove and turned his ambiguous waiver into an unambiguos release which allowed Matt to formally our Rove, avoid jail and NOT violate a promise. So much knee jerk name calling here… better to calmly read between the lines and figure out what’s really happening.
July 13th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Also, Marc…Richard DID say “Lying about a blowjob”.
For the record, I found Clinton to be the most disappointing politician in my memory – or at least since LBJ – mostly for reasons of character that impacted his politics in ways I thought were often shameful. That said, his administration had some very sharp people, they did nothing great but quite a few small, good things and he was a lot better on national security and foreign policy than he generally gets credit for. I’d take another Clinton – perhaps literally – in a minute having seen just how low the GOP can go – taking the country with it. I think Hillary is a terrible candidate for 2008 and would perpetuate some of the worst longterm problems of the Democratic Party, but she’d make a better President than Bill given her experience and – yes – her character…and that ain’t bad.
Of course, Nader could run again…
July 13th, 2005 at 11:08 am
My understanding of the release process is that Luskin was quoted in the Wall St. Journal as saying that, “If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it’s not Karl he’s protecting.” Matt Cooper and his lawyer took that to mean that Cooper shouldn’t go to jail for Rove (very clever). They used that statement and the blanket waiver signed, under some coersion, by all administrative officials as a specific waiver permitting Matt Cooper to testify and avoid jail time.
The muddy NY Times article is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/11time.html
Can anyone tell me if this is what happened? Fill in any missing details? Thanks.
July 13th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Also, I don’t get your defense of both Miller and Matt.
The truth is there’s stuff behind the curtain that none of us fully know yet. I don’t demonize Miller in this case just because I don’t much like her as a journalist, but I’m still not sure whether she’s a martyr for press freedom or in some way protecting her own reputation. Very curious case.
July 13th, 2005 at 11:14 am
Mavis, I think that to be the case in rough terms.
Reg.. one more time now.. Bill Clinton lied in a sworn deposition while he sat as a defendant in a sexual harrassment case. Imagine a Republican prez doing that and what the Democrat satellite groups would have demanded!?!?!
It also seems that Mr Clinton was a serial harrasser who didnt flinch from using the power of his office over subordinates to get what sex he wanted. That is classic sexual harrassment. We and especially you Democrats are still paying a very high price for this stumblebum’s fecklessness. There’s nothing cute nor daring about Bill’s sexual exploits. They reflect a sick man who betrayed the trust not so much of his wife but of 50 million peope who voted for him and hoped he would do a great job. He put it all at risk by screwing an intern on the table. Nice work.
July 13th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Marc…I was around during the late ’90s. I remember what we all went through. I wasn’t debating what happened, just reminding you that richard said “lying” not simpy “sex”.
And let’s not be naive about the Monica mess. She lured him. She admitted this. He, like many middle-aged men, acted like an idiot in response. As for the rest of it, its gossip or very questionably sourced. No more, no less. Crap peddled mostly by the slimiest crew we’ve seen since Nixon’s hitmen, whose motives were to deliberately run the country into a ditch and obstruct governance via the Jones law suit. Clinton was an ass and almost absurdly flawed, but folks like you and Hitch are pathological on the subject. That Hitchens hitched his wagon to wingnuts like the Olsons back then makes his current patterns not seem quite such a stretch.
July 13th, 2005 at 11:51 am
It is indeed possible that Judith Miller is convicted because she stood for an inviolable principle–that sources, once they have been promised anonymity, must be protected come-what-may. I agree that this principle is worth protecting and that the Supreme Court erred when it found that such a privilege is not to be inferred from the First Amendment.
But reg is correct in saying that there is a lot we don’t know about this story, and probably never will know because it would be felony-inconsistent for Miller or anyone at NYT to “reveal the truth” now that they have taken the absolutist position that the truth may not be revealed. Unless maybe they can get a judge to approve a “waiver” of journalistic ethics.
Let’s face it, Miller has a lot of ‘splainin’ and image-polishing to do after serving as Chalabi’s Boswell in the run-up to the war in Iraq. As some have speculated, I think credibly, she may have been the source of some rumor concerning Valerie P/W’s role. We must accept the possibility that we won’t get the whole story, at least thru official channels.
I am willing to accept Judith Miller as the sort of hero we most often find in life: the person who, for whatever reason, follows thru on the implications of the rules and ethics governing his or her profession, and accepts the consequences our civilization imposes.
July 13th, 2005 at 11:54 am
“…and accepts the consequences our civilization imposes.”
…or lack of it, as the case may be.
July 13th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Here’s what the situation was with Bill Clinton: You’re a Chicago Bulls fan. Michael Jordan is pouring them in from all parts of the court. Nevertheless, it appears as though he has committed his sixth foul, which means ejection from the game. Nevertheless, the refs allow him to continue playing. As a Chicago Bulls fan your attitude is not “Throw that hacking bum out of there!†You may regret that Jordan did something that would take him out of the game, but if there were some circumstance that would allow him to stay in the game, you’d be in favor of that. If you are a fan of the opposing team you are standing on your chair, screaming, “REF! ARE YOU BLIND! SIX FOULS! SIX! TAKE HIM OUT! OH IS THERE NO JUSTICE IN THIS WORLD!?!†The crux of the matter is, in this situation as in the old NBA, the Chicago Bulls fans were the majority of people in the country (as opposed to partisan Democrats) and the opposing fans were conservative Republicans.
The question this raises is, did Clinton commit six fouls? My answer would be, if that means did his actions justify resignation, probably. However, I think the kind of campaign that his opponents had waged against him from day one was a far greater threat to democracy than anything that Clinton did, and to allow that kind of campaign to succeed would have done more damage to the country than anything Clinton did. For me, the main reason I supported and support Clinton is that he knew how to beat the sons of bitches. This is a quality I have yet to see in any other contemporary Democratic politician. It is not so much that I “condone†his ways as that I am willing to have my hands dirty. Marc Cooper can keep his hands clean knowing that however long the sons of bitches rule he’ll still be able to surf fish in Baja. He can imagine strategies that he claims would beat the sons of bitches but he can’t prove that they can. Our Bill was a soiled dove, but there was a saving grace in him that his critics never acknowledge: He had a tremendous desire to be better than what he is.
July 13th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
I also like Juan Cole’s comment on Rove et al.:
Cole said, “In revenge, Rove tried to discredit Wilson and perhaps also punish him and his family. The purpose of such punishment is always to bully and terrorize other employees, as well as to shut up the whistleblower. Since the Bush administration has done so many illegal things, if Washington insiders started blowing the whistle, there could be a hundred Watergates. Rove let everyone in Washington know that he would destroy anyone who dared step forward. The White House also dealt with former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neil when he blew the whistle on the Bush planning for and Iraq War in January of 2001 (look at the date). They threatened O’Neill with jail time for revealing classified information, even though O’Neill had never been given any. He subsequently fell quiet. It is also said that the Bushies tried to prevent Anthony Zinni, a retired Marine Corps general, from getting any consulting gigs in Washington because he opposed the Iraq war.”
Rove has a long record of discrediting his opponents by attacking their good name.
Also, what I find interesting is that Rove’s lawyer say he’s innocent because Rove in his emails & conversations with reporters never said Palme’s name. Rove did say in the now infamous email ex-ambassador’s Joe Wilson wife was in the CIA. Now, do people think that if you out someone like Rove outed Palme by giving their well-known husband’s name you’re not actually “naming” them.
What is “naming” someone?
July 13th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
Robert, Marc has no strategy for Iraq other than increasing troops there and blaming the ‘left’ for not having a ‘plan’.
July 13th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Juan Cole is factually incorrect (again, for the thousandth time).
Wilson claimed publicly that the Vice President authorized his trip. That was false, his wife pushed him forward as he had to acknowledge under oath to the Senate. Wilson had no connections to WMD expertise, and a conflict of interest with his wife working for the CIA on WMD issues.
Further, Wilson falsely claimed that his report was a slam dunk debunking Iraq’s attempt to buy Uranium, in which CIA analysts to this day say is NOT true, that the report itself suggests there IS some evidence to support Iraq’s attempts to purchase Uranium for Niger. Wilson again had to acknowledge this under oath to the Senate, as well as what he characterized as a “mis-statement” about another document being phony since he had never seen it. Again, under oath.
Lastly, Wilson had a partisan relationship to the President, he was if you will recall part of Kerry’s campaign until so many questions about the basic credibility of Wilson surfaced that Kerry fired him.
Since Andrea Mitchell admitted on air that it was common knowledge BEFORE the Wilson affair that Plame was a CIA agent, someone long before this leaked Plame’s name. Aldrich Ames blew her cover to the Russians, so she was withdrawn from active covert status in 1997.
Cole is being well, stupid or a liar. He claimed the 9/11 Commission Report blamed 9/11 as being in response to the “Jenin Massacre.” Which was a neat trick since Jenin happened nearly a year AFTER 9/11. Juan Cole? Idiot or liar, take your pick. My money personally is on idiot.
What’s at stake here is that Rove talked to print reporters, and blew off the TV folks. His backgrounder to Cooper was factually accurate. Jealousy. The unanswered question is who slung Plame’s name all over town? Herself to promo her husband’s book and allegations? Judith Miller? Or perhaps someone senior in the National Security apparatus who didn’t appreciate being made to look like an idiot (paging Colin Powell).
I’ll have to agree with Marc’s characterization of Clinton, though I defended him from impeachment (I think it did not rise to that measure). However I think Judy Miller is protecting, well her long time source Colin Powell who fed her info on Iraq (which is why it got in the NTY). Think about it. Cooper got an explicit signed release by Rove to allow him to testify, not just an ambiguous statement. Miller could also use the “ambiguous waiver” but protecting Colin Powell’s straight from the Cabinet info is worth going to jail for. Not Karl Rove.
Also, focusing on “terrorists abused at Gitmo being forced to wear a bra or threatened?” After London shows we can be hit any time? Dems are marching right off the cliff. Most Americans would gladly take a two-by-four to Mohammed al-Qhattani. Much less duct tape him. Carl Levin, buy a clue.
July 13th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
“Wilson had no connections to WMD expertise…”
Well, maybe the wife. I’m just sayin’…
July 13th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
“Wilson claimed publicly that the Vice President authorized his trip.”
No he didn’t. Quote please.
“Iraq’s attempts to purchase Uranium for Niger… ”
That was Iran.
“Lastly, Wilson had a partisan relationship to the President, he was if you will recall part of Kerry’s campaign”
After he was smeared and attacked by rethuglicans.
Good review of today’s talking points, though. Did you get them by fax or email. or Fox News injection?
July 13th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
The sons of bitches I was referring to were Republicans. I don’t believe Clinton ever beat any Iraqi sons of bitches.
July 13th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Leaving aside the rightwing, its just a pain in the ass to sift through all the bull**** and spin of some on the left in order to get at the truth, so Marc’s main point is correct.
They cry when Clinton is busted and humiliated by a “witchhunt” but when Rove and co. are subjected to a “witchhunt” by a zealous and irresponsible prosecutor – according to the NYTimes – it’s all good.
I subscribe to the view that Miller and the NYTimes are doing the right thing and that Pearlstein and Time Inc. sold out their journalist employees and their reading consumers because leakers will now think twice before coming forward. Also prosecutors will be more likely to pursue this line of attack, but thats more thanks to Fitzgerald and the Supreme Court.
However, I hope, as Doug Ireland says, Fitzgerald has the balls to take it all the way b/c I like seeing the powerful and guilty brought low, partly because he has spent so much of taxpayers’ money and so much of our time.
Also, it is kind of funny to see the left defend Plame, a CIA operative.
The guy who used the Bulls analogy is a hypocrite and moral simpleton.
July 13th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
> What is “naming” someone?
The law says “identify”, not “name”. That it’s necessary to point this out, that people like Rove’s lawyer or Woody aren’t laughed or kicked out of the room when they say that Rove didn’t “name” Plame, shows how willing people are to be suckered by the right, and even aid and abet the right in this enterprise. And of course the right knows this, and revels in it, as when (as reported by Max Blumenthal in The Nation) Matt Labash, a former senior writer for The Weekly Standard, in a 2003 interview on the website journalismjobs.com, explained: “The conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective…. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket.”
July 13th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
> They cry when Clinton is busted and humiliated by a “witchhunt” but when Rove and co. are subjected to a “witchhunt” by a zealous and irresponsible prosecutor – according to the NYTimes – it’s all good.
Since Starr was hunting for something to hang on Clinton whereas Fitzgerald has a specific act for which he hunting for the perpetrator, this comparison is utterly absurd.
> Also, it is kind of funny to see the left defend Plame, a CIA operative.
I have not seen anyone anywhere on the left defend Plame for anything. Just what would they be defending her *for*?
> The guy who used the Bulls analogy is a hypocrite and moral simpleton.
That’s easy for you to say, eh?
July 13th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
“Also, it is kind of funny to see the left defend Plame, a CIA operative.”
What’s really funny is seeing the right dismiss the CIA as a bunch of softies who coddle the country’s enemies. The CIA fulfills the appeasment role the State Department used to play in the fevered brains of wingnuts.
July 13th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
“Wilson claimed publicly that the Vice President authorized his trip”
Let me join Anonymous, Rockford, and implore you to enlighten me with the quote. Becareful of the one listed by Mehlman GOP.com, Josh Marshall already has the goods: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006078
July 13th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I didn’t make any typos. You are just experiencing transitory dyslexia.
July 13th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
I also find it rather amusing when Andrea Mitchell is treated as though she’s simply an objective journalist with no partisan credentials. What a laugh…
July 13th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
In newsrooms they talk about the importance of “starting a conversation.” Marc not only starts a conversation, he keeps it going — even at the risk of fanning the partisan flames — by routinely jumping in to answer his critics in the comments section. This is unusual, I think, very cool, and thoroughly refreshing. A wonderful antidote to groupthink, whatever your POV.
July 13th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
I second that, reg. Rockford, you’re expecting me to take Andrea Mitchell as an objective source? That would be foolish, to say the least.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410060005
http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/30/clinton/index.html?pn=2
July 13th, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Jim Rockford makes classic adhominem attacks (attacks to the person) on people he doesn’t like and never furnishes any proof.
According to Rockford, Juan Cole is “an idiot and a liar.” Rockford tells us that Wilson makes false statements to the Senate. Rockford ask rhetorically “who slung Plame’s name all over town? Herself to promo her husband’s book and allegations?” So Rockford infers Plame outed herself.
The only problem with attacks to the person is that they are all logical fallacies.
As for Gitmo, Rockford says “Also, focusing on terrorists abused at Gitmo being forced to wear a bra or threatened? After London shows we can be hit any time? Dems are marching right off the cliff.”
I for one find the way prisoners are treated at Guatamano Bay is horrible; there’s an excellent article on mistreatment of the prisoners in this issue of the New Yorker. According to the CBS news one prisoner was made to bark like a dog, wear women’s clothing, and dance with other prisoners. According to the New York, military psychiatrists set up these humilitations.
No, I don’t think Dems are “marching right off to cliff” but are acting to save American soldiers from being tortured and are standing up for basic human rights.
It’s the Republicans who are putting U.S. soldiers at risk of being tortured by condoning the torture of others at Guatanamo. Get real. Prisoners have been nearly tortured to death there, according to the New Yorker. It’s utterly appaling what has happened. It has to stop right now
July 13th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
I thank Reg but I don’t think my comments need defending from Marc’s attacks:
1. I’m not going to regurgitate the sorry tale of Clinton vs Jones. Anyone interested can go to THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT by Gene Lyons and Joe Connason. Then and there you will find out how bogus that whole trip was (no not Linda Tripp)!
2. Jim, as usual, gets it wrong. Joe Wilson NEVER said he was sent by VP Chaney. He said he was told by CIA officials that they had been tasked by the VP’s office to find out about Niger Yellowcake and could he go. Juan Cole, cited above, has explained why Wilson had the qualifications so enough said.
3. The point I tried to make was this: there is a tendency to match offenses. Clinton’s was a misdemeanor – stupid, increadibly hurtful – but not a serious breach. What Rove is accused of has the potential to have gravely weakened the security of the US by damaging our anti-proliferation efforts. It wasn’t Wilson but the CIA that referred this to the DOJ and it was Ashcroft that appointed a Special Counsel. And by the way, has anyone noticed that not a single leak has come from Fitsgerald – rather different than the operations of a certain guy now teaching at Pepperdine, I believe.
July 13th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Look at the Wilson written editorial in the NYT:
“In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990′s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”
Wilson is lying against Cheney, and Rove is pointing out in background that Wilson is lying.
For Rove to be guilty he has to know V. Plame, or is it V. Wilson (?), is working under cover. Maybe she stopped in 1997.
Wilson’ wife, in any case, but how much does Rove know (or care) about her?
He knows it was NOT the VP.
As usual, the Left wanting blood avoids discussing the early lies: 1) Pres. Bush famous 16 words on Iraq & uranium, 2) Wilson going to Niger, 3) Wilson’s NYT written op-ed (with lies), 4)Wilson’s under oath testament (showing his prior lies),
5) the Novak column, mostly about Wilson’s lies.
When those Dems lie, as they do so often, the Left just can’t stand it. And if Rove calls them on their lies — Rove is thug! What, using the truth against big Kerry supporter Wilson??? How evil can he get?
The Dems should be proposing stronger whistleblower protection — but that wouldn’t protect Wilson from his own lies.
In the meantime we should be waiting for the investigation.
Thanks Jim Rockford, for good work, here in one of the few places where reasonable anti-Rep snark is paired with anti-Dem snark; thanks Marc Cooper for reminding Dems about Billy’s sex harrassment.
It would be really fine if you could report on an Arab prison that treated its prisoners better than Gitmo. Somehow, if Gitmo treats its prisoners better than every other Arab prison, I won’t say “What Torture”, I’ll say, abuse should stop. Each case should be investigated. If there was abuse, the soldiers should be disciplined — seems like what is happening.
Unreal Perfection is not an option; not even with fair-minded snark against every imperfection.
July 13th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
“Wilson is lying against Cheney”
Perhaps a remedial course in sentence diagramming would help; Wilson didn’t make any claim about Cheney.
“Maybe she stopped in 1997.”
And maybe the moon is made of green cheese.
“He knows it was NOT the VP.”
It’s remarkable that you know what Rove knows.
” What, using the truth against big Kerry supporter Wilson???”
Yeah, I guess that’s why they sent Wilson to Niger, because he was a big Kerry supporter. It’s handy that we can evaluate anyone’s actions based on whether they’re a Bush supporter or a Kerry supporter.
“thanks Marc Cooper for reminding Dems about Billy’s sex harrassment”
A leftist that a wingnut can love.
July 13th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
T Grey…pleas take a moment and read what you posted from the Times again. It is clear that Wilson isn’t claiming Cheney sent him to Niger, but that the CIA sent him because Cheney’s office was querying them about these reports. Nothing contradictory there. Certainly not lies. Ironic you would try to twist that thin thread to show Wilson “lied” when the clear-cut lies spun out of the White House are staring at us, black and white in huge letters. How dense are you people ????? I’ve heard this same nonsense from about three different directions now, and although it appears to be mindless doubletalk, more likely it’s a deliberate fog machine, sheer distortions hauled out because there’s really no rational defense left,
July 13th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
It’s interesting that we’re accused of being horrible partisans, when these wingnut droolers take a guy who stood up against Saddam Hussein on his own turf back during the runup to the first Gulf War and try to smear him as unqualified for a professional research mission in a region with which he was familiar becaus…he’s not a registered Republican. What arrogance ! These are the same scumbags who smeared Richard Clarke and called him a liar to cover for their Prez. What foul, filthy creatures we’re dealing with. Just as Watergate was a rorshach into the mind of the Nixon gang, this is a peek into the Bush/Rove Black Hole. Quite a little sewer our Prez crawled out of on his way to the White House. Without Rove, there would be no Bush…and Rove’s ethics are Bush’s ethics. It would be naive to seperate one of these codependent creeps from the other. Joined at the hip. If Bush fires Rove his stare will become even more vacant than it already is.
July 13th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
Reg, please wake up. Wilson’s wife, working at the CIA, got him the assignment. It was not the VP. The MSM untruth was that the VP office sent him. Rove told the truth-not VP, his CIA wife.
Try to be truthful: who got him the assignment? who did he say got him the assignment?
Didn’t Aldrich Ames out Valerie in 1997, so she stopped working under cover ? Every day didn’t she go to the CIA building? That would be not under cover anymore.
Clear-cut lies from the WH? What ARE those, exactly — really, I don’t know the words you think are lies (known untruths).
[Please no 'SH has WMDs,' which Clinton made official policy in 1998.]
July 13th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
Tom…you’re grasping at straw men. Wilson said the CIA sent him on the assignment.
The clear cut lie out of the WH was that Rove had no role in outing Plame.
As for the crap about Clinton’s “official policy” – you are a desperate man.
July 13th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
I also have to say in response to your remarkably cavalier bullshit about Plame, that while it was suspected that Ames had given Plame’s name to the Russians, her contacts in relation to intelligence on proliferation were global and by no means solely with Russians. Nobody knows what the impact of her name being made public as an operative WORLDWIDE FOR THE FIRST TIME in this case was for people she’d had covert contact with over the years in various countries. She may have been withdrawn as an active agent because of Ames but she was NOT on the CIA payroll. That would indicate that there was still some attempt to maintain a cover for her. Of course you and sleaze merchants like that psycho John Gibson at FOX know better. Foul, foul folk. Don’t run your mouth about how patriotic you are and then act like such things as Plame’s history surfacing are of no consequence to an entire chain of contacts she’d been involved with over the years. You creeps are really crawling in the mud on this one. Little surprise….
Joe Wilson stared none other than Saddam Hussein in the face and, in essence, told him to go to hell. Guys like you are really peanuts in comparison. The Keyboard Commandoes, locked in a partisan formation, are flying their true flag.
July 13th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
“These are the same scumbags who smeared Richard Clarke and called him a liar to cover for their Prez. What foul, filthy creatures we’re dealing with.”
But I was told here that they’re “decent” and “funny”.
July 13th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
3 questions for the wingnuts.
Why did the CIA consider this incident serious enough to request that it be investigated if Plame’s identity and past were mere trifles ?
Why did John Ashcroft, after looking into the merits of the case, see fit to appoint a special counsel – a man with considerable gravitas, by the way – to see it through ?
Why is this case being kept alive and vigorously pursued by a Republican special counsel who goes to the unusual length of jailing a reporter for refusing to testify – a reporter overtly sympathetic to Bush’s WMD Iraq rationales incidentally – if, as K. Mehlman would have it, this case is just some hot air being blown out of the asses of Democrats to smear Karl Rove ?
If you can’t come up with a better answer to those questions than that desperate RNC spin we’re being treated to, you would do well to sit on your hands and shut your mouth until this is over.
July 13th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson keeping a low profile.
http://www.nathanslunch.com/Nathans04%20079.JPG
July 14th, 2005 at 1:05 am
Here’s another photo, of the fellow who, during an interview of Joe Wilson, asked him about “an internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel [detailing] a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports.” He didn’t explain how he obtained that memo.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/malecorpsxx.jpg
July 14th, 2005 at 5:31 am
Holy cow! The wing nuts have vibrated loose.
July 14th, 2005 at 7:09 am
“It’s interesting that we’re accused of being horrible partisans, when these wingnut droolers take a guy who stood up against Saddam Hussein on his own turf back during the runup to the first Gulf War and try to smear him as unqualified for a professional research mission in a region with which he was familiar becaus…he’s not a registered Republican. ”
Leaving Saddam Hussein in power doesn’t qualify as “standing up” to. Also, I thought Hussein wasn’t that much of threat.
Hitchens on the origins of the anti-spy-outing law:
http://slate.msn.com//id/2103795/
“The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, notionally violated by this disclosure, is a ridiculous piece of legislation to begin with. It relies in practice on a high standard of proof, effectively requiring that the government demonstrate that someone knowingly intended to divulge the identity of an American secret agent operating under cover, with the intention of harming that agent. The United States managed to get through World War II and most of the Cold War without such an act on its books. The obvious disadvantage of the law, apart from its opacity, is that it could be used to stifle legitimate inquiry about what the CIA was up to. Indeed, that was its original intent. It was put forward by right-wingers who wanted to stifle and if possible arrest Philip Agee, a defector from the 1970s whose whistle-blowing book Inside The Company had exposed much CIA wrongdoing. The act is now being piously cited by liberals to criminalize the disclosure that someone who shuttles dangerously “under cover” between Georgetown and Virginia and takes a surreptitious part in an open public debate, works for the agency and has a track record on a major issue.”
July 14th, 2005 at 8:56 am
So Joe Wilson’s service to his country is a joke and Phillip Agee is your new best friend.
I love “Conservatism”.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Peter, as I said in my post, I have doubts about the law based on 1st Amdt grounds but the Righties insisted on it and now they are embroiled in it. I think that is called the Law of Unintended Consequences. You asked for it, you got it – now live with it.
It is a waste of time to argue with “Liberty Dad” over Mr Wilson’s veracity. I will assume he can read so there must be some other reason why he cannot parse what is, after all, a very simple sentence. Could that reason be connected with the widely circulated GOP talking Points?
There seems to be a new standard for Government service. Taking the “K Street Project” to its logical conclusion, only Bonafide Republicans – and Bush Loyalists at that – need apply.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:13 am
Best line in that incredibly disingenuous Hitchens piece (obviously drawn from cutting and pasting The Mehlman Memos and the muddles that Stephen Hayes has concocted on Saddam’s “WMD” for the Weekly Standard.)
“To say this is not to defend the Bush administration…”
No Hitch. Never.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:52 am
I must say regarding Hitchens, that he really wants to have it every which way. He affirms his alliance with Phillip Agee against the dreaded Barbara Bush and puts the CIA (or at least the careerist lapdog Tenet) through the wringer – while standing shoulder to shoulder with the Dick Cheney/Doug Feith/Laurie Mylroie tin foil hat faction of fabrication and speculation regarding pre-war intelligence. He has the audacity to mention irony in a column dedicated to trashing – for not being sufficiently hawkish on Saddam’s largely dismantled WMD threat – a man who was responsible for the safety of the last Americans in Baghdad prior to Gulf War One at the very moment Hitchens was writing peacenik columns for The Nation. This combined of course, with a glib, “The real issue, anyway, wasn’t WMDs but ‘regime change’ and it would have all come clear if I’d been writing the President’s speeches.” Not a quote but a paraphrase of what I recently heard him pronounce on NPR.
I’m sure it all fits together somehow as a comforting “I was right on Iraq!” with benefit of a good bottle of scotch.
Hitchensphiles need to get a grip. He’s become an expert at changing subjects on which he’s been rather spectacularly wrong and forging a left-right alliance out of his own brain that’s perilously close to schizophrenic. This guy is a pile of blustering ego and elaborate excuses – one that grows larger with each passing day.
That said, when it comes to discussing fiction he’s – not surprisingly – quite good.
July 14th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Sorry Peter…just linked to your blog…I thought you were a conservative…a mistake made on the basis of that first comment which struck me as typical of right-leaning folk who are completely clueless about the real debates and layers of information regarding Saddam’s alleged threat that preceded the war, as opposed to the self-serving cartoon versions used to rationalize bad judgement.
July 14th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
“Sorry Peter…just linked to your blog…I thought you were a conservative…”
What at his blog makes you think he’s not?
July 14th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
It’s an eclectic grab bag that seems to combine interest in left & liberal econ (Doug Henwood/Brad DeLong) with Paul Berman/Hitchensesque stuff on Iraq. I don’t know what to call that, but it’s hardly conservative in any known sense of the term.
I was just tweaking the guy, then realized my attempt at “irony” was off target.
July 14th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
But look at his comments here:
“They cry when Clinton is busted and humiliated by a “witchhunt” but when Rove and co. are subjected to a “witchhunt” by a zealous and irresponsible prosecutor – according to the NYTimes – it’s all good.”
“Also, it is kind of funny to see the left defend Plame, a CIA operative.”
“The guy who used the Bulls analogy is a hypocrite and moral simpleton.”
“Leaving Saddam Hussein in power doesn’t qualify as “standing up” to. Also, I thought Hussein wasn’t that much of threat.”
“Hitchens on [anything]”
Maybe he’s not a conservative, but he mouths their talking points (as quite a few non-conservatives, including Cooper, do on occasion).
July 14th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Well, at least he’s advancing the “cause”–you know, the cause! I think it has something to do with Tom Cruise, but I’m not positive.
July 14th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
According to the RepugnaCons, Turdblossom (who exposed a CIA agent in order to further a political smear campaign/vendetta as part of a concerted effort to cover up lies at the highest levels justifying the US invasion of another country under the guise destroying WMDs and of ‘fighting’ the terrorists-who-are-claimed-by-Cheney&Co-to-be-connected-to-9/11-even-tho-there’s-no-actual-connection-between-Bin Laden & Iraq-but-still-we-can-fight-the-terrorists-over-there-not-here ) is a ‘WHISTLEBLOWER’ but Mark Felt (who helped expose lies, cover-ups and corruption at the highest levels) is a ‘TRAITOR’ …
yeah, & they’re not full of hypocritical, contradictory S H * T at all …
July 15th, 2005 at 6:06 am
Marc, with commenters dropping rosepetels like “RepugnaCons, Turdblossom ” the quality of discourse is not increasing. But then the following says it all.
Clinton = it is only about sex.
Burger = he made a simple mistake
Rove = guilty as hell, hang the bastard.
(I will not that Marc C. didn’t make any of these comments except perhaps the last one – figuratively speaking of course
July 15th, 2005 at 6:08 am
“I will not that Marc C.”
should read “I will note that Marc C.”
(preview is my friend – preview is my friend)
July 15th, 2005 at 6:10 am
Rose petals
(catching more than one error at a time is my goal – catching more than one error at a time is my goal)
July 15th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
GMR – one note – so far as I’ve read “Turdblossom” is, in fact, W’s affectionate nickname for Karl.
July 15th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
Reg, interesting, I’ve not heard that. But, if it is (Bush’s nickname for Rove), it’s still vulgar and disappointing.
July 15th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
Notably, Roper feigns concern about what words are used, but is perfectly willing to clown and lie, and smear any honest person, while the security of Americans is endangered.
July 16th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
More on Turdblossom…
I was curious about this and apparently it’s Texanese for a flower that tends to blossom in cowpies.
October 30th, 2005 at 12:32 am
[...] I asked it back in July. And I’ll ask it again: Is there anybody left in the American political debate who can make moral judgements without first checking his or her voter registration card? [...]