It's only fitting that, as Karl Rove departs the White House (of his own free will, sans shackles or even a single indictment), news of media's failing attempts to protect anonymous sources is also in the spotlight.
While pundits argue over the "legacy" of Karl Rove, the true legacy of the Rove era is almost certain to be the media's willingness to cut its own throat in a failed attempt to "get" him. It wasn't so long ago they were hysterical over anonymous leaks, more than happy to give up their own sources, and demand government force others to do the same.
Now the chickens have come home to roost, as the same federal judge who convicted Libby has the gall to assume a precedent was set in the process. Media is in the uncomfortable position of realizing they didn't want every anonymous source revealed, just the ones that had potential to hurt the Bush administration.
Now is a good time to revisit Jacob Weisberg's warning, delivered in Slate in 2005:
Already, Fitzgerald's investigation has proved a disaster for freedom of the press and freedom of information. Reporters, editors, and publishers have been put on notice about the legal risk of using blind sources, which most consider an essential tool of news-gathering. Any ambiguity about a press privilege under federal law has been resolved, not in favor of the media. According to some anecdotal accounts, journalists' failure to fully protect their sources in the Plame case has already chilled official leaks to reporters. Should Fitzgerald win convictions under the espionage law or Section 641, any conversations between officials and journalists touching on classified information could come become prosecutable offenses. That would turn the current chill into permafrost.
No one cared back then, when getting Karl Rove was more important than anything. Now, when media asks itself "How did we get to this point?," it need only look in the mirror for the answer.
That is indeed rich...and chocolatey.
Showing posts with label Rove/Plame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rove/Plame. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Plame Lawsuit Bites Dust
Valerie Plame's lawsuit against the administration was dumped today, by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates:
"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."
Duh.
"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."
Duh.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Common Sense Missing
Ed Koch asks a good question:
Would anyone, particularly someone in high government office with an exemplary record of public service and admittedly a high achiever under these circumstances, lie, deliberately misstate the facts where his testimony would be refuted by a popular television personality certain to be asked? It defies common sense. If he were deliberately lying, he would have said, "I can't recall," or "I think it was Tim Russert," leaving the opportunity to admit error, and in neither case could he, I believe, have been indicted and convicted.
Scooter Libby said he heard Valerie Plame's name from Tim Russert. Russert's recollection is that he did not reveal the name. Libby is convicted, while nothing happened to Russert. Interestingly enough, revealing the name of Valerie Plame was not, in fact, a crime in the first place.
Would anyone, particularly someone in high government office with an exemplary record of public service and admittedly a high achiever under these circumstances, lie, deliberately misstate the facts where his testimony would be refuted by a popular television personality certain to be asked? It defies common sense. If he were deliberately lying, he would have said, "I can't recall," or "I think it was Tim Russert," leaving the opportunity to admit error, and in neither case could he, I believe, have been indicted and convicted.
Scooter Libby said he heard Valerie Plame's name from Tim Russert. Russert's recollection is that he did not reveal the name. Libby is convicted, while nothing happened to Russert. Interestingly enough, revealing the name of Valerie Plame was not, in fact, a crime in the first place.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
How Quickly They Forget
What better way to celebrate Independence Day than with a round up of Libby opinion. Let's start with Alan Dershowitz, who has the heavy breathers at HuffPo...well...breathing heavily:
This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.
The column is, in fact, an indictment of the judicial system in this case.
Jack Kelly wonders where all the "outraged" Democrats were just a few short years ago, or even a few short months ago:
...no complaints were heard from these worthies when Sandy Berger, who had been President Clinton's national security adviser, received no jail time -- and only a $50,000 fine -- for stealing classified documents from the National Archives. We still don't know why Sandy stole those documents, or why he destroyed some. The news media aren't pursuing the story.
No complaints were heard either, when Bill Clinton opened the pardon floodgates to any criminal with the ability to sign a check. Michael Goodwin summarizes the list of 140 pardons and 36 commutations:
The list of people Clinton let off the hook was a rogue's gallery of drug dealers, petty criminals and the politically well-connected. One was Bill Clinton's brother Roger, one was a college friend and another was a former business partner. Their lawyers' connections were key in others, including the lawyer for a man who laundered more than $100 million for the Cali cartel.
Some cases reeked of blatant corruption. Hillary's brother, Hugh Rodham, collected $400,000 from two big-time criminals who got pardons. When the news of the payments broke, the Clintons claimed surprise and demanded Rodham give the money back.
But Bill Clinton never gave Denise Rich her money back. The former wife of disgraced financier Marc Rich gave $450,000 to Clinton's presidential library and raised and contributed more than $1 million to campaigns of the Clintons and other Democrats. Her husband, who had fled the country rather than fight charges of massive tax fraud and trading with Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis, suddenly received a pardon.
Let's remember, Libby will pay a $250,000 fine, serve two years of probation, and has been publicly disgraced, for having a different recollection than reporters in a case that had already been solved by the special prosecutor, and in which no one was charged with a crime. Now, Democrats are outraged. Interestingly enough, not about overly aggressive prosecutors, a bullied media, the CIA's undermining of an elected official, or a judicial system playing politics.
This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.
The column is, in fact, an indictment of the judicial system in this case.
Jack Kelly wonders where all the "outraged" Democrats were just a few short years ago, or even a few short months ago:
...no complaints were heard from these worthies when Sandy Berger, who had been President Clinton's national security adviser, received no jail time -- and only a $50,000 fine -- for stealing classified documents from the National Archives. We still don't know why Sandy stole those documents, or why he destroyed some. The news media aren't pursuing the story.
No complaints were heard either, when Bill Clinton opened the pardon floodgates to any criminal with the ability to sign a check. Michael Goodwin summarizes the list of 140 pardons and 36 commutations:
The list of people Clinton let off the hook was a rogue's gallery of drug dealers, petty criminals and the politically well-connected. One was Bill Clinton's brother Roger, one was a college friend and another was a former business partner. Their lawyers' connections were key in others, including the lawyer for a man who laundered more than $100 million for the Cali cartel.
Some cases reeked of blatant corruption. Hillary's brother, Hugh Rodham, collected $400,000 from two big-time criminals who got pardons. When the news of the payments broke, the Clintons claimed surprise and demanded Rodham give the money back.
But Bill Clinton never gave Denise Rich her money back. The former wife of disgraced financier Marc Rich gave $450,000 to Clinton's presidential library and raised and contributed more than $1 million to campaigns of the Clintons and other Democrats. Her husband, who had fled the country rather than fight charges of massive tax fraud and trading with Iran during the 1979 hostage crisis, suddenly received a pardon.
Let's remember, Libby will pay a $250,000 fine, serve two years of probation, and has been publicly disgraced, for having a different recollection than reporters in a case that had already been solved by the special prosecutor, and in which no one was charged with a crime. Now, Democrats are outraged. Interestingly enough, not about overly aggressive prosecutors, a bullied media, the CIA's undermining of an elected official, or a judicial system playing politics.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
HIllary Plays Pretend
We don't have a pardon yet, but today Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence.
Of all the reactions, this is the most stunning:
"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
Is that a joke? Or, is she being serious?
Of all the reactions, this is the most stunning:
"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
Is that a joke? Or, is she being serious?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Interesting Bedfellows
In "The Runaway Train That Hit Scooter Libby," Richard Cohen makes a very fine point:
For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.
Not to mention, the CIA became a heroic underdog to the same people who spent the last 40 years trying to get rid of it. That was the most hilarious part about this whole fiasco to me; watching the Democrats (and the media) get in bed with the CIA and essentially endorse a low grade coup of an elected official by career spies.
No wonder they don't talk much about democracy anymore.
For some odd reason, the same people who were so appalled about government snooping, the USA Patriot Act and other such threats to civil liberties cheered as the special prosecutor weed-whacked the press, jailed a reporter and now will send a previously obscure government official to prison for 30 months.
Not to mention, the CIA became a heroic underdog to the same people who spent the last 40 years trying to get rid of it. That was the most hilarious part about this whole fiasco to me; watching the Democrats (and the media) get in bed with the CIA and essentially endorse a low grade coup of an elected official by career spies.
No wonder they don't talk much about democracy anymore.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Libby Sentenced
Scooter gets 30 months for having a bad memory, in a case where no crime was originally committed.
Any bets on how long it will take Bush to issue a pardon? Personally, I don't have much faith that he is going to.
Any bets on how long it will take Bush to issue a pardon? Personally, I don't have much faith that he is going to.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
The Un-Scandal
Regarding the Libby conviction, Joseph Wilson, and Niger, Mark Steyn is not seeing the forest for the trees:
The real scandal has always been that the world’s most lavishly endowed intelligence agency’s idea of an investigation is flying in a politically-motivated tourist for a long weekend.
Since the only goal of Wilson's trip was to use the power of the CIA to embarrass the Bush administration, it's not a scandal, it's mission accomplished.
Previous Libby conviction posts here and here.
The real scandal has always been that the world’s most lavishly endowed intelligence agency’s idea of an investigation is flying in a politically-motivated tourist for a long weekend.
Since the only goal of Wilson's trip was to use the power of the CIA to embarrass the Bush administration, it's not a scandal, it's mission accomplished.
Previous Libby conviction posts here and here.
Democrats Don't Mind a Little Coup Once In a While
Fallout from the Libby verdict is about as predictable as one might imagine. Harry Reid has to take the cake though:
"It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said.
Huh?
Joe Wilson provided absolutely no such evidence of a "campaign to manipulate intelligence." In fact, the CIA felt his report was in agreement with other intelligence that Iraq had sought to purchase yellow cake uranium:
In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.
When Wilson wrote his now infamous op-ed in the New York Times, he wasn't just a "war critic," he was a dishonest one making a false case claim he later admitted he never had any way to back up. Given the climate at the time, and the implications for national security, it would have been irresponsible for the Bush administration to neglect setting the record straight.
Nancy Pelosi also makes a false claim:
The testimony unmistakably revealed - at the highest levels of the Bush administration - a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information...
But, by Joe Wilson's own words, this isn't true:
My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
In fact, according to other sources at the CIA, there was nothing sensitive about Plame's job:
A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
Even major media, while reporting Plame as "clandestine," were arguing in court that the opposite was true.
The deep, rich, chocolate irony of this case is that Democrats are celebrating the ability of non-elected, non-accountable officials to dishonestly undermine an elected president. They have been against allowing duly elected officials to rebut false charges by employees of a clandestine organization from the very start.
Basically, anti-administration officials at the CIA attempted to use their power to dishonestly kneecap an elected president, and Democrats have no problem with that.
That should scare the shit out of every man, woman, and child in the country.
As to Libby, I agree with the National Review. Bush should pardon him before he does a single day of jail time.
UPDATE: Via Instapundit, Susan Schmidt reports on a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report issued yesterday:
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence...
"War critic," Mr. Reid? Or just plain liar?
Elsewhere, James Taranto offers advice for anyone interviewed in the course of an investigation:
...Libby could have avoided indictment and conviction if he had simply said "I don't remember" a lot more during the course of the investigation. Therein lies a lesson for witnesses in future such investigations--which may make it harder for prosecutors to do their jobs when pursuing actual crimes.
Now arises calls to impeach Dick Cheney, but no sign of any call to action to try leaker Richard Armitage, whose "crime" after all, is what the left was so cheesed about in the first place. "Rule of law" just doesn't seem important anymore, without Chimpy W. McHitlerburton on the other end.
"It's about time someone in the Bush administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said.
Huh?
Joe Wilson provided absolutely no such evidence of a "campaign to manipulate intelligence." In fact, the CIA felt his report was in agreement with other intelligence that Iraq had sought to purchase yellow cake uranium:
In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.
When Wilson wrote his now infamous op-ed in the New York Times, he wasn't just a "war critic," he was a dishonest one making a false case claim he later admitted he never had any way to back up. Given the climate at the time, and the implications for national security, it would have been irresponsible for the Bush administration to neglect setting the record straight.
Nancy Pelosi also makes a false claim:
The testimony unmistakably revealed - at the highest levels of the Bush administration - a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information...
But, by Joe Wilson's own words, this isn't true:
My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
In fact, according to other sources at the CIA, there was nothing sensitive about Plame's job:
A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
Even major media, while reporting Plame as "clandestine," were arguing in court that the opposite was true.
The deep, rich, chocolate irony of this case is that Democrats are celebrating the ability of non-elected, non-accountable officials to dishonestly undermine an elected president. They have been against allowing duly elected officials to rebut false charges by employees of a clandestine organization from the very start.
Basically, anti-administration officials at the CIA attempted to use their power to dishonestly kneecap an elected president, and Democrats have no problem with that.
That should scare the shit out of every man, woman, and child in the country.
As to Libby, I agree with the National Review. Bush should pardon him before he does a single day of jail time.
UPDATE: Via Instapundit, Susan Schmidt reports on a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report issued yesterday:
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence...
"War critic," Mr. Reid? Or just plain liar?
Elsewhere, James Taranto offers advice for anyone interviewed in the course of an investigation:
...Libby could have avoided indictment and conviction if he had simply said "I don't remember" a lot more during the course of the investigation. Therein lies a lesson for witnesses in future such investigations--which may make it harder for prosecutors to do their jobs when pursuing actual crimes.
Now arises calls to impeach Dick Cheney, but no sign of any call to action to try leaker Richard Armitage, whose "crime" after all, is what the left was so cheesed about in the first place. "Rule of law" just doesn't seem important anymore, without Chimpy W. McHitlerburton on the other end.
Cue the Benny Hill Theme
All hell is breaking loose at the Libby trial:
Juror notes in the CIA leak case suggest some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing.
It's good to know the jury has been listening.
UPDATE: Or, maybe they weren't:
Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Unbelievable.
Juror notes in the CIA leak case suggest some jury room confusion about what exactly former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is accused of doing.
It's good to know the jury has been listening.
UPDATE: Or, maybe they weren't:
Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted Tuesday of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.
Unbelievable.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Kangaroo Court
Victoria Toensing reveals the depths of the absudity in the trial of Scooter Libby in "Trial in Error."
For those who don't follow the case, Fitzgerald's behavior has been appalling. He has known that Richard Armitage was the leak since Oct. 1, 2003, and has known that Valerie Plame was not covert since December of the same year.
Toensing also lays out the disparities between treatment given witnesses. She also delves into the many lies of Joseph Wilson, the media, the CIA, and others, in the form of her own indictments. It's a good read.
The column leaves the reader with two questions: Why is Libby on trial in the first place? And, since he is, why aren't a host of other witnesses with equally bad memories?
For those who don't follow the case, Fitzgerald's behavior has been appalling. He has known that Richard Armitage was the leak since Oct. 1, 2003, and has known that Valerie Plame was not covert since December of the same year.
Toensing also lays out the disparities between treatment given witnesses. She also delves into the many lies of Joseph Wilson, the media, the CIA, and others, in the form of her own indictments. It's a good read.
The column leaves the reader with two questions: Why is Libby on trial in the first place? And, since he is, why aren't a host of other witnesses with equally bad memories?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Nicholas Lemann's Fantasy World
The AP is reporting today that Scooter Libby's attorneys are chomping at the bit to "make public" that it was the CIA that sent Joe Wilson to Niger, not the White House. Okay, but that has been public knowledge for quite some time, from the horse's mouth:
...on the August 3, 2003, edition of CNN's Late Edition, Wilson flatly stated that "it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. [then-national security adviser Condoleezza] Rice nor even [then-Director of Central Intelligence] George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger."
Maybe Libby's legal team hopes this long ago established fact will finally trickle down to New Yorker columnist Nicholas Lemann, who wrote this today:
...the White House dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger, in February of 2002, to find proof that the country had shipped yellowcake uranium to Iraq.
Fact checking is, apparently, not in vogue at the New Yorker. Actually, Lemann's outline of events in the Rove/Plame affair is nowhere near truth. He asserts that there was no intelligence pointing to Iraq's attempted purchases of yellow cake uranium, forcing Bush to create some, and that the heroic Wilson debunked the theory.
He then uses that meme to explain why the Bush administration maliciously "debunked" Wilson. Since none of it is actually true, Lemann's entire premise drops out from under him, leaving only the reckless "debunking" assertion without any basis. Along the way, claims Lemann, Valerie Plame was "unlawfully" outed. Of course, that charge too was debunked, by Wilson himself.
Nevertheless, Lemann uses his falsely crafted moral high ground to make this claim:
The problem with the Bush Administration is not that it is uninterested in hard facts. The problem is the way in which the Administration goes about marshalling those facts. Its working hypotheses can’t be falsified, because anything that contradicts them must be dismissed.
No, it is not a punchline. But it is pretty damn funny considering the source.
...on the August 3, 2003, edition of CNN's Late Edition, Wilson flatly stated that "it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. [then-national security adviser Condoleezza] Rice nor even [then-Director of Central Intelligence] George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger."
Maybe Libby's legal team hopes this long ago established fact will finally trickle down to New Yorker columnist Nicholas Lemann, who wrote this today:
...the White House dispatched former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger, in February of 2002, to find proof that the country had shipped yellowcake uranium to Iraq.
Fact checking is, apparently, not in vogue at the New Yorker. Actually, Lemann's outline of events in the Rove/Plame affair is nowhere near truth. He asserts that there was no intelligence pointing to Iraq's attempted purchases of yellow cake uranium, forcing Bush to create some, and that the heroic Wilson debunked the theory.
He then uses that meme to explain why the Bush administration maliciously "debunked" Wilson. Since none of it is actually true, Lemann's entire premise drops out from under him, leaving only the reckless "debunking" assertion without any basis. Along the way, claims Lemann, Valerie Plame was "unlawfully" outed. Of course, that charge too was debunked, by Wilson himself.
Nevertheless, Lemann uses his falsely crafted moral high ground to make this claim:
The problem with the Bush Administration is not that it is uninterested in hard facts. The problem is the way in which the Administration goes about marshalling those facts. Its working hypotheses can’t be falsified, because anything that contradicts them must be dismissed.
No, it is not a punchline. But it is pretty damn funny considering the source.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
The Armitage Libby Trial Begins
Jury selection began today for Scooter Libby, who is charged with lying in the Rove/not Rove/Cheney/Rove for sure/definately not Rove/Libby/Armitage/Plame scandal. And, despite the fact that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent protected by any level of secrecy or that Richard Armitage has confessed to being the leak, it is Libby who will now face trial...for, apparently, not lying about not leaking the name of a non-covert agent.
Crazy.
There is good news. Media has started to slowly back away from Joe Wilson:
The trial should give the public glimpses of how administration insiders responded to a high-level critic - former ambassador Joseph Wilson - who claimed the president and his closest advisers distorted intelligence and lied to push the nation into war with Iraq.
Of course, it should read "intentionally falsely claimed" but hey, at least they've stopped using "debunked."
UPDATE: The Rocky Mountain News sums up not only the trial, but this entire fiasco, which regardless of substance has captured the imagination of those addicted to D.C. politics:
The proceedings should make for fascinating courtroom drama - except that there is no underlying crime.
Crazy.
There is good news. Media has started to slowly back away from Joe Wilson:
The trial should give the public glimpses of how administration insiders responded to a high-level critic - former ambassador Joseph Wilson - who claimed the president and his closest advisers distorted intelligence and lied to push the nation into war with Iraq.
Of course, it should read "intentionally falsely claimed" but hey, at least they've stopped using "debunked."
UPDATE: The Rocky Mountain News sums up not only the trial, but this entire fiasco, which regardless of substance has captured the imagination of those addicted to D.C. politics:
The proceedings should make for fascinating courtroom drama - except that there is no underlying crime.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Why Bother?
The NYT today is trying to save face on Rove/Plame. In attempting to salvage what has become a disaster for the paper and the left, the editorial deems to hold Fitzgerald's feet to the fire. However, they fail to get one of the most basic facts of the case straight.
Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.
Wilson "debunked" nothing. In fact, his report actually bolstered the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium, and the fact that Iraq was after yellow cake has been shown time and time again by other sources - of a much more reputable nature - as well.
If the NYT is unable to publish this one basic fact, which frames the entire situation, they are just pissing in the wind and cannot be taken seriously.
Mr. Wilson debunked the claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.
Wilson "debunked" nothing. In fact, his report actually bolstered the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium, and the fact that Iraq was after yellow cake has been shown time and time again by other sources - of a much more reputable nature - as well.
If the NYT is unable to publish this one basic fact, which frames the entire situation, they are just pissing in the wind and cannot be taken seriously.
Monday, August 28, 2006
"Rove Did It" = Idiot
I have only one thing to say to all of the liberal hysterics who have been salivating for three years at the prospect of a Rove indictment/Bush administration conspiracy plot exposed regarding Valerie Plame:
Do you look like the biggest bunch of moronic infants or what?
What, no screaming for an investigation of the State Department? No allegations that Armitage revealed Plame's identity to "destroy" "ultimate whistle-blower" Joe Wilson? No calling for a public purging of Colin Powell, who knew all along?
I guess this is only fun as long as you can use the situation to demonize the Bush administration. If that's not on the table, the "leak" isn't that big of a deal at all is it?
What a bunch of hypocrits. And guess what? You all owe the Bush administration an apology for spewing misinformation and spreading deliberate lies in order to undermine the war on Islamic fascism and the commander in chief for cheap partisan gain.
Whiney losers.
Do you look like the biggest bunch of moronic infants or what?
What, no screaming for an investigation of the State Department? No allegations that Armitage revealed Plame's identity to "destroy" "ultimate whistle-blower" Joe Wilson? No calling for a public purging of Colin Powell, who knew all along?
I guess this is only fun as long as you can use the situation to demonize the Bush administration. If that's not on the table, the "leak" isn't that big of a deal at all is it?
What a bunch of hypocrits. And guess what? You all owe the Bush administration an apology for spewing misinformation and spreading deliberate lies in order to undermine the war on Islamic fascism and the commander in chief for cheap partisan gain.
Whiney losers.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
And In This Corner...
Under the title "My Leak Testimony," Robert Novak gives account of his role in the Rove/Cheney/Libby/Rove for sure/definately not Rove/Plame investigation.
Along the way, Novak discloses something that illustrates exactly how ridiculous this whole episode has been:
I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."
You gotta love the Wilsons. The undisputed world heavyweight champions of having it both ways.
Via Power Line
Along the way, Novak discloses something that illustrates exactly how ridiculous this whole episode has been:
I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."
You gotta love the Wilsons. The undisputed world heavyweight champions of having it both ways.
Via Power Line
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Justice Week
It's hard to imagine that this week could have been any better.
First, Zarqawi gets his long overdue justice.
Then, justice if finally done regarding the ridiculous Karl Rove/Valerie Plame circus and now the Left can direct its full attention to other actual intelligence leaks, like the NSA program. (Because national security is a very serious business, right?)
Now I learn that long overdue justice is being done in Colorado:
A majority of the University of Colorado committee leading an inquiry into Ward Churchill recommended today that the ethnic studies professor be fired.
I may have to rethink this whole atheism thing. It's starting to look more and more like there is a God after all.
Incidentally, via Tim Blair, Bull Dog Pundit has the best Rove line of the day:
Perhaps the most despondent person in America today is Joe Wilson, who said he dreamed of seeing Rove “frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs”. Sorry Joe, you’re just going to have to settle for the Vanity Fair photo shoot, the big book deal you and Valerie got, and the adoration of moonbats everywhere.
I almost feel sorry for him. In fact I would if he wasn't such a lying revisionist more interested in partisan gain than national security. Instead I'll feel sorry for the nation that has had to put up with him for the last couple of years.
First, Zarqawi gets his long overdue justice.
Then, justice if finally done regarding the ridiculous Karl Rove/Valerie Plame circus and now the Left can direct its full attention to other actual intelligence leaks, like the NSA program. (Because national security is a very serious business, right?)
Now I learn that long overdue justice is being done in Colorado:
A majority of the University of Colorado committee leading an inquiry into Ward Churchill recommended today that the ethnic studies professor be fired.
I may have to rethink this whole atheism thing. It's starting to look more and more like there is a God after all.
Incidentally, via Tim Blair, Bull Dog Pundit has the best Rove line of the day:
Perhaps the most despondent person in America today is Joe Wilson, who said he dreamed of seeing Rove “frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs”. Sorry Joe, you’re just going to have to settle for the Vanity Fair photo shoot, the big book deal you and Valerie got, and the adoration of moonbats everywhere.
I almost feel sorry for him. In fact I would if he wasn't such a lying revisionist more interested in partisan gain than national security. Instead I'll feel sorry for the nation that has had to put up with him for the last couple of years.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Another Irrelevant Columnist
Of all the unhinged theories on the Cheney incident, this one takes the cake.
Barry Saunders thinks Cheney was sending an intentional message to Scooter Libby.
Just as surely as a fish wrapped in a bulletproof vest means "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes," that shotgun blast to Whittington's face was meant to convey that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had better bite his tongue and forget about testifying against Cheney, his former boss, in the Valerie Plame spy case.
***
Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, recently told a grand jury that leaking Plame's identity as a spy was authorized by his superiors who were angered by Plame's husband's public criticism of the war in Iraq.
That revelation had many questioning how low this administration would go to quash dissent.
Now we know.
Yes. Now we know. Now we know that Barry Saunders is a complete idiot.
I'm going back to the Olympics. Somebody come get me when the left matters again.
Barry Saunders thinks Cheney was sending an intentional message to Scooter Libby.
Just as surely as a fish wrapped in a bulletproof vest means "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes," that shotgun blast to Whittington's face was meant to convey that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had better bite his tongue and forget about testifying against Cheney, his former boss, in the Valerie Plame spy case.
***
Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, recently told a grand jury that leaking Plame's identity as a spy was authorized by his superiors who were angered by Plame's husband's public criticism of the war in Iraq.
That revelation had many questioning how low this administration would go to quash dissent.
Now we know.
Yes. Now we know. Now we know that Barry Saunders is a complete idiot.
I'm going back to the Olympics. Somebody come get me when the left matters again.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Try Libby Now!
Daniel Henninger has a great colum at Opinion Journal about the hole the DC media has dug for itself in the Rove(er)Libby/Plame affair. Libby's trial, if there ever is one, could get pretty good.
Pretty...pretty good.
...Mr. Libby himself will be a sideshow compared to what his lawyers are likely to display to the public about the practice of journalism. It has been reported that his lawyers plan to make wide demands for reporters' notes. One can imagine them issuing subpoenas for the pen-and-pencil reporting notebooks of Matt Cooper, Judith Miller and others, having a hand-writing expert transcribe the notes, and then asking the reporters to read--or try to read--their notes on the stand against a transcript onscreen. That won't be pretty. Unless these reporters have the handwriting of nuns and recall of Garry Kasparov, they will look like fumbling fools. Any of us would.
Henninger almost has me hoping it does go to trial. It would be a Perfect Storm of Sideshows.
Pretty...pretty good.
...Mr. Libby himself will be a sideshow compared to what his lawyers are likely to display to the public about the practice of journalism. It has been reported that his lawyers plan to make wide demands for reporters' notes. One can imagine them issuing subpoenas for the pen-and-pencil reporting notebooks of Matt Cooper, Judith Miller and others, having a hand-writing expert transcribe the notes, and then asking the reporters to read--or try to read--their notes on the stand against a transcript onscreen. That won't be pretty. Unless these reporters have the handwriting of nuns and recall of Garry Kasparov, they will look like fumbling fools. Any of us would.
Henninger almost has me hoping it does go to trial. It would be a Perfect Storm of Sideshows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)