« Hezbollah Captures 2 Israeli Soldiers; Israel Strikes Back | Main | There's another born every minute »

Defining "News" For the Mainstream Media

In just the few hours the Novak column has been available, the media spin has been stunning. If you read the column there are basically 5 pieces of information worth discussing.

  1. Novak inadvertently learned Wilson's wife sent him to Africa from a still unnamed source.
  2. Novak learned Plame's name from Joe Wilson's own entry in Who's Who.
  3. When Novak asked Rove, he obliquely confirmed Plame's identity.
  4. Bill Harlow of the CIA also confirmed Plame's identity when asked.
  5. We learned various bits and pieces about Novak's legal entanglements that don't add to the bigger story.

Of these 5 things which are news?

  1. We first learned tidbit #1 back in October of 2003. This is hardly news.
  2. We learned that today. This is officially news. And big news, people have been speculating for 3 years about where Novak got Plame's name.
  3. We "knew" this earlier but a year ago the Washington Post ran this story:

    Rove Confirmed Plame Indirectly,
    Lawyer Says Bush Aide Said Columnist Told Him Name
    By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A01

    White House senior adviser Karl Rove indirectly confirmed the CIA affiliation of an administration critic's wife for Robert D. Novak the week before the columnist named her and revealed her position, a lawyer involved in the case said last night.

    The fact Rove indirectly confirmed Plame's name was news a year ago. His lawyer said so. The Washington (and others) reported it at the time. So this is not news.

  4. We learned this a year ago too. Not news.
  5. To the extent Novak's previously undisclosed legal wranglings are news, then this is new information.

To sum it up, the only news in this column is where Novak got Plame's name.

But you'd never know that from the media. Consider these google news searches:

Novak Rove Source Plame 618 hits and counting

Novak Plame "Who's Who" 23 hits and most of those were either his column or something here on Wizbang.

Do you think the media is a little obsessed?

The only news we got from the Novak column is that he got Plame's name form Who's Who and the only thing the media wants to talk about is Rove.


Whatever you call the mainstream medias coverage of Novak's column... Please don't call it news.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Defining "News" For the Mainstream Media:

» :: Political Musings :: linked with Fitzmas Denied (Epilogue)

» In Search Of Utopia linked with Wizbang goes full tilt on the Plam suit...

Comments (58)

Actually, #2 isn't really n... (Below threshold)
Thim:

Actually, #2 isn't really news either. It's been noted before that Valerie's name was in Who's Who. Maybe we didn't know for sure that Novak looked it up there, but lots of people speculated that he could have if he wanted, so how the hell could she be covert?

So, where to put the blame ... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

So, where to put the blame for leaking the name of the dame Plame? Or is there no blame? Is that what you claim? That the name of the Plame dame was all a head game?

--|PW|--

PS: Is this the end of the... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

PS: Is this the end of the game of blame over who gave the name of the dame Plame? Such a shame.

So the headline is?<p... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

So the headline is?

"Plame's Name Blame Game up in Flames"

Paul:Sorry to hija... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

Paul:

Sorry to hijack your thread for cheap rhyming puns.

Vagabond:

I think you've got it. By George, I think you've got it.

--|PW|--

Thim... True.PW an... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Thim... True.

PW anytime

As to point #3.Sho... (Below threshold)
Rance:

As to point #3.

Should Rove have confirmed however "obliquely" the name of Plame to Novak? Isn't the correct response to Novak "That would fall under the area of classified information and I have no comment on that"?

How did Rove know that Novak wasn't phishing for information?

"I have given a name to my ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

"I have given a name to my pain . . . and it is Bat... err, Rove"

-The Jokers in the MSM.

Not exactly accurate:... (Below threshold)
NeilS:

Not exactly accurate:
"Novak inadvertently learned Wilson's wife sent him to Africa from a still unnamed source."

The unamed source is said not to be a political hack. This might be true, but of course we only have Novak's word for it. Once the investigation began, the source later said that the admission was 'inadvertent'. Again we only have the sources word for this and it may or may not be true.

"Novak learned Plame's name from Joe Wilson's own entry in Who's Who."

Its irrelevant how he found out her name. That wasn't a state secret. What was secret was the fact that she was/had been a covert operative. This was clearly stated in Novak's first article. Some may argue that Plame was not a covert operative, but I think that the fact that the CIA forwarded a complaint to the Justice Department and the fact that Fitzgerald investigated the possibility of an underlying crime shows that is not the case.

you: "When Novak asked Rove, he obliquely confirmed Plame's identity."

from Novak:"Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. "

I don't understand why you add the word obliquely. Its not really what Novak said or implied.


"Bill Harlow of the CIA also confirmed Plame's identity when asked."

My understanding is that he also asked Novak not to reveal her role at the CIA, but that Novak did so nonetheless.

Nothing that Novak said today, nor anything we have learned since, shows that there was not an intent to out a covert CIA employee. There may not have been, but that is still undetermined.

Actually, #2 isn't... (Below threshold)
kbiel:
Actually, #2 isn't really news either. It's been noted before that Valerie's name was in Who's Who. Maybe we didn't know for sure that Novak looked it up there

Actually, we did know, somewhat indirectly, that Novak used Who's Who. At least some CNN producer did back in August. I seem to remember some brouhaha when Novak stormed off the set of some CNN talk show when he saw that the producer had placed a copy of Who's Who on the table.

NeilS"Nothing that Novak sa... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

NeilS"Nothing that Novak said today, nor anything we have learned since, shows that there was not an intent to out a covert CIA employee."

I think I follow what you are saying, despite the triple-negative.

"There may not have been, but that is still undetermined."

Glad you admit it is undetermined. You could also re-state what you said thusly : 'There may have been an intent to out a covert employee, but it is still undetermined.'
So, what the hell was all the ruckus about? It's been investigated for years now. No 'outing' has been found.

Does the admin have to 'prove' that they did not 'out' non-covert Valerie, or does the other side have to prove they did?

Which side has to do the proving? It seems to me the side doing the accusing has to come up with the proof, not the defendant.

>Should Rove have confirmed... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Should Rove have confirmed however "obliquely" the name of Plame to Novak? Isn't the correct response to Novak "That would fall under the area of classified information and I have no comment on that"?

No. Rove did not know her status at the CIA. IF he did, Fitzmas would have happened.

Les -There are two... (Below threshold)
NeilS:

Les -

There are two kinds of proof. One for a prosecutor and another for a citizen.

Fitzgerald did not find sufficient evidence to confidently bring a case to court. I respect his decision.

On the other hand, I think that as a citizen I have a right to come to my own conclusions about what occurred.

I think that there was a conscious campaign to discredit Wilson. Bringing his wife in was meant to argue that nepotism was involved and perhaps to suggest that he was a pantywaist taking orders from his wife. It also was meant to divert attention from the substantive issue of the whether what the President said was correct and if he should have known about its doubtful accuracy, and was herefore misleading the american public.

It may have also been to punish Wilson by intentionally outing his wife. I don't know if that was the case, but it would not surprise me if it was. Rove has always played hardball and I think that he would use classified government information to attack a political enemy if he had the chance.

Not exactly accurate:... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Not exactly accurate:
"Novak inadvertently learned Wilson's wife sent him to Africa from a still unnamed source."

The unamed source is said not to be a political hack. This might be true, but of course we only have Novak's word for it. Once the investigation began, the source later said that the admission was 'inadvertent'. Again we only have the sources word for this and it may or may not be true.

So far Novak has been 100% correct in everything he has said. Multiple people have tried to accuse him of lying and they have egg one their face. YES I am taking it at face value. Assuming he didn't suddenly start lying yes, it is accurate.


"Novak learned Plame's name from Joe Wilson's own entry in Who's Who."

Its irrelevant how he found out her name.

In a word, Bullshit. For YEARS now we've heard that the administration kept giving Plames info out to harm Wilson. That is a compltly bogus charge. How he found out her name most certainly is relevent. In fact, that's the whole point!!!

That wasn't a state secret. What was secret was the fact that she was/had been a covert operative.

NOPE that's been debunked. See Kevin's post from A YEAR AGO. (go to main page and look down or search.)


you: "When Novak asked Rove, he obliquely confirmed Plame's identity."

from Novak:"Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. "

I don't understand why you add the word obliquely...

ME AGAIN: Because Rove simply said something to the effect of "Oh you know about that?" That's pretty oblique.


"Bill Harlow of the CIA also confirmed Plame's identity when asked."

My understanding is that he also asked Novak not to reveal her role at the CIA, but that Novak did so nonetheless.

Your understanding is wrong. Google "correcting the CIA" (I think that will get you there) That's what Harlow said at one point and the WaPo reported it but it was later proven wrong. Google is your friend.

Nothing that Novak said today, nor anything we have learned since, shows that there was not an intent to out a covert CIA employee.

Can you read? Point out for me the intent.

NOTE: So far I take you as honest but confused. If you are unwilling to accept reality the discussion ends and you get deleted. You have a few choices.

1) Admit I'm right

2) Show me where I'm wrong (you know... a link)

3) End the discussion.

If you want to make claims you can not back I have no time for you

I have my own conclusions b... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

I have my own conclusions based on the known facts so far.

I think there was a concious campaign to discredit Bush. I think it may have started with the Wilsons conspiring to send the husband on the trip. For one, Wilson has flat out lied saying his wife wasn't involved--until the memos showed up showing she had.

Then he lied saying there had been no contact with Iraq when the Nigerians and the British proved there had.

Then he lied saying he saw some of the phony papers---somehow, miracously months before they had ever turned up.

His wife had been covert---until Aldrich Ames outed her and she was sent home to Langley to finish her career and retire. Once the Ames case broke her NOC career was over. There are simply no active NOCs at Langley. It would be stupid for them to show there.

Side note: Ames was caught via wiretaps conducted without warrants--something the Dems I'm sure would be squawking about today.

The whole yellowcake story not being true was pushed in the news by none other than Ms Mapes--the same Ms Mapes busted for coming up with phony documents trying to alter a Presidential election. BTW, the Wilsons are active political Democrats.

It simply doesn't pass the smell test that the WH would "punish" a CIA employee and her washed up diplomat husband at the end of their careers.

It does make sense that anti-Bush staffers in the CIA along with the Wilsons and and anti-Bush press would be in cahoots to create a phony story-and position the WH response pointing out the lies as a "punitive action". I believe the whole thing was cooked up and the only thing missing is who from the DNC or DLC coordinated it.

My opinion is this -- based on the facts on the whole.

I think that there was a co... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I think that there was a conscious campaign to discredit Wilson.

There was. And the no less than the Washington Post said Bush was right for doing it and that it was a good idea. Link above in fact.

Bringing his wife in was meant to argue that nepotism was involved and perhaps to suggest that he was a pantywaist taking orders from his wife.

Correct. And Bush was right for doing it. Wilson was lying and the administration was telling people his background. A Laudable goal. Even the WaPo agrees.

It also was meant to divert attention from the substantive issue of the whether what the President said was correct and if he should have known about its doubtful accuracy, and was herefore misleading the american public.

NOPE! It was the exact oppsite. It was to give people MORE information on the person saying the claims were false. (Which BTW were proven true. See that WaPo link again)

It may have also been to punish Wilson by intentionally outing his wife. I don't know if that was the case, but it would not surprise me if it was.

NOPE! This is where you go too far. There is not a shred of evidence thisis the case. It is simply a chage by Joe Wilson who BTW is a proven liar.


Rove has always played hardball and I think that he would use classified government information to attack a political enemy if he had the chance.

Rove does play hardball but contray to what the moonbats say he is not omnipitent. The reality is that Rove didn't really know much about her. -- The left can't even prove Rove knew who she (really) was much less that he used the information. -- He testified that he got her name from a journalist and I'll remind you that he ain't facing perjury charges... It's a liberal fantasy, nothing more.

Faithy just hit a home run ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Faithy just hit a home run with 2 men on base.

You say Novak is telling th... (Below threshold)
NeilS:

You say Novak is telling the truth. I say we don't really know.

Again, her name is irrelevant. Her neighbors knew her name. I imagine one could even get it from the phone book. In short, it is/was not a secret.

I'm not following some old thread. However, you haven't really addressed my argument. Why did the CIA refer the case to Justice? Why did Fitzgerald spend so much time investigating if there had not been the potential for a crime, which inevitably implies that she was covert.

How do you know what Rove said? Aren't you just making that up?

I don't know or care about what Harlow said. Novak is an old Washington hand. He knows the difference between an operative and an analyst.

Plame is not a covert agent... (Below threshold)
robert:

Plame is not a covert agent and never was.

Covert agents do not drive to Langley every day and enter by the front door. Similarly, when she was Embassy staff, Plame could not possibly have been covert. Embassy staff are known to everyone.

robert --If what y... (Below threshold)
NeilS:

robert --

If what you say is true then why did the CIA refer the case to Justice, and why did Fitzgerald spend so much time investigating?

You say Novak is telling th... (Below threshold)
Paul:

You say Novak is telling the truth. I say we don't really know.

THAT NOT WHAT I SAID. WARNING Quoting me incorrectly will get you delted.

Again, her name is irrelevant. Her neighbors knew her name. I imagine one could even get it from the phone book. In short, it is/was not a secret.

YOU DID NOT FOLLOW THE LINK. WARNING TWO> Rehashing your same arument wihtout providing supporting evidence will get you delted.

I'm not following some old thread.
Then I don't mind deleting you. If you choose not to bothed by those inconvient things called facts you are not welcome to comment.


How do you know what Rove said? Aren't you just making that up?

LAST WARNING. No I'm not making it up... That's what you are doing. I provide links. If you chose not to follow them then you have to freaking clue what you are talking about.

I don't know or care about what Harlow said.
Of course not, facts get in your way.

Novak is an old Washington hand. He knows the difference between an operative and an analyst.

Frankly you should save your time replying. The odds it will survive are slim. Unless you want to come here and debate honestly you're done.

I guess you don't li... (Below threshold)
NeilS:


I guess you don't like debate.

Please delete my comments. God forbid anyone should be subjected to ideas different from your own.

I think the CIA handed to t... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

I think the CIA handed to the Justice Department because it might be construed that they are biased investigators since Plame worked for the CIA.

To be fair, your Novak R... (Below threshold)
mantis:

To be fair, your Novak Rove Source Plame Google search includes all the articles from early June about Rove not being indicted.

Paul, God forbid you get ti... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Paul, God forbid you get tired of people arguing their feelings rather than what actually happened. It hurts their feelings and they go all "goodbye, cruel world!" on you.

The fact the CIA confirmed Plame worked for them ends it, flat out.

Neil, stating an opinion ba... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf:

Neil, stating an opinion based on lies is just spreading lies. If you want to BS, go over to Kos. The truth is not relevant over there There is none so dumb as those who will not learn. Does your mind track or did you hear the lie often enought for it to become the truth to you? Which CIA called for an investigation. Name the person? Link it please. The Clinton admin. used to talk about a vast right wing conspiracy when Willy was in hot water. They really attacked their "enemies", the truth there was not relevant. Bush adminstration uses truth to fight the lies of the left and is called a liar for it. You have no ethics, morals or honesty.

Didn't uncertainty in our s... (Below threshold)
chilois:

Didn't uncertainty in our security services have the niger reference pulled and wasn't it added back because Britain was convinced of its accuracy? If so why doesn't that point get referenced.

1. "Novak inadvertently lea... (Below threshold)
Herman:

1. "Novak inadvertently learned Wilson's wife sent him to Africa from a still unnamed source." -- Paul

Complete, unaldulterated, crap. Wilson's wife merely metioned reasons why Joe Wilson might be qualified for such a mission. It was those top-level CIA bureaucrats who had the authority to do so that sent Mr. Wilson off on an unpaid trip to Africa.

So Fitzgerald knew there wa... (Below threshold)
bill:

So Fitzgerald knew there was no there there since the beginning -- so what responsibilty does he have to the public to say so. What exactly was he doing for three years? He should have stopped long ago, the Libby breathless account, with the begrudging acknowledgement there was no there there, should have tipped even the moonbats off, their heads were soon to explode.

Seems like the three years were spent trying to entrap someone into making a testiminoy process mistake. A political hack is a political hack, even if he is the prosecutors prosecutor. Fitzgerald is just another in a long line of Democrat hacks.

Goodbye fizzmas, maybe they will fire you now.

1. "Novak inadvertently lea... (Below threshold)
Thim:

1. "Novak inadvertently learned Wilson's wife sent him to Africa from a still unnamed source." -- Paul

Complete, unaldulterated, crap. Wilson's wife merely metioned reasons why Joe Wilson might be qualified for such a mission. It was those top-level CIA bureaucrats who had the authority to do so that sent Mr. Wilson off on an unpaid trip to Africa.

Posted by: Herman

OK, so she didn't make the final decision. She brought up his name. She gave his "qualifications". She set up the meeting. Maybe she didn't press the rubber stamp marked OK on the authorization form, but she did hold open the lid on the ink pad.

^Agreed, her connections in... (Below threshold)
tarheelcon:

^Agreed, her connections in the CIA got him on the trip the same way having a friend at some company can get you job. The friend does not do any of the official hiring, interviewing, and decisionmaking but his influence or reference could give you the edge.

Seems like the three yea... (Below threshold)

Seems like the three years were spent trying to entrap someone into making a testiminoy process mistake.

Amen...

NeilS,What I say i... (Below threshold)
robert:

NeilS,

What I say is true:

Plame does work, rather obviously, for the CIA at Langley - she is an analyst. This is not a covert agent. Do you doubt this?

Prior to that Plame worked as Embassy staff, I think, in Greece. I refer you to the book "Spycatchers" by Wright, former director of British MI-5. The book is banned in Britain for revealing too much. In there, you will find that MI-5, and all other counterintelligence agencies, maintain books of all Embassy staff, worldwide. They are routinely followed.

No "real" agent would be caught dead talking to an Embassy employee, much less being one. Real agents are run by other real agents, dead drops, radio or the Internet. Do you doubt this?

Fitzgerald, early on, determined that there was no primary violation of this law, there have been no indictments of its violation, and there will not be. Do you doubt this?

Referrals are made all the time, most without effect. Did the CIA referral come from a political motivation? I don't know, but it is equally likely that the CIA employee is not well versed in the law.

Herman, you mean the same "... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Herman, you mean the same "CIA bureaucrats" who (BTW, they did pay and did so on her recommendation per the memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002) who were longtime friends and buddies of all these involved parties?

Follow the links between Jenkins and Sen Rockefellar and Wilson and Mary McCarthy and Valerie and all the ties they have and it really looks suspicious.

For instance, did you know it wasn't Joe's first visit to Niger and there are some rumors the reason he was sent was to try and hush the Nigerians up about other shady deals he and his college buds had been cooking up from his time in Gabon.

If the Times or even a mildly competent journalists would take some time away from their anti-Bush obsession there is a great big story waiting to be told around Wilson and company and it wouldn't even come close to involving Bush and Iraq...

This thread illustrates, on... (Below threshold)

This thread illustrates, once again, why "dialogue" between left and right is impossible in today's America.

Well I recall the early '80s, when I could engage my liberal friends in discussions on issues at parties or over lunch. Disagreements were earnest and often, but we were all serious people.

Today's left is no longer interested in the truth at all. They have devolved into caricatures of their Soviet antecedents, inventing their own set of "facts" and holding to them against all proof otherwise.

The moonbats can't be rational. It just isn't in their nature. Fortunately, the more they are seen by the public at large, particularly independents and whatever remaining Democrats have any sense, the better for our side.

I wouldn't delete a thing. Let the moron's own words hang him, as they have.

I guess you don't like d... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I guess you don't like debate.

No asshat, I like debate. I hate people who just want to sling shit around that is untrue.

Herman you make a point- to... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Herman you make a point- to a point.

How much "she" sent him is still up for debate. And to that extent I overspoke but in reality you are highlighting a difference without distinction.

But calling it complete crap is WAY overselling your hand.
-----

mantis good point as always - Still if you just google the exact healdine the AP used (with Rove's name in it) you get 3X the number of citations that "Who's Who" got.

So you're right but it doesn't change my point.

----

I wouldn't delete a thing. Let the moron's own words hang him, as they have.

Absolutly. He wants it deleted because I busted him spouting nonsense then admitting he didn't care about the facts. Typical liberal troll.

The difference is that now I react WAY differenly than I did a few months ago. I used to try to be polite to a fault. No more. Now it's piss or get off the pot. If you've got something to say, link it or hit the road.


Joe Wilson is everybit the ... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

Joe Wilson is everybit the liar that Dan Blather tried to be.

That sums up the whole fitzgerald waste of money investigation. Wilson is the one who should be investigated for trying to undermine our national security the same way Blather did in trying to get Kerry the job He was obviously not qualified for..

Stupid, kettle, pot, Lee. n... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

Stupid, kettle, pot, Lee. not necessarily in that order.

"And to that extent I overs... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"And to that extent I overspoke..." -- Paul

Is this BushSpeak for "I lied"???? Well "to the extent that you overspoke," can we expect an apology???

"Rove did not know her status at the CIA." -- Paul

Wrong conclusion. Likely all we know is that Fitz believes he cannot establish that Rove knew beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, in order to get a conviction.

But let's, for the sake of argument, assume that Rove didn't know her "status at the CIA."

Okay, Paul and all you conservatives, a hypothetical question for you:

Say you as a federal official know that a particular individual works for the CIA but do not know if the individual is covert or not. Do you tell a reporter???

Think about the potential consequences before answering the question!! (Conservatives, FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIVES THINK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES of a particular action before undertaking it!).

If you answer that you should go ahead and divulge the fact that the individual works for the CIA, then you would have no problems with other federal officials divulging the employment of other CIA employees, and indeed, we may as well have a list published of all current CIA employees, with people being able to make their own conjectures on who is covert and who is not.

Just what would that do to our nation's security???

The point of the matter is that if you don't know whether or not a CIA employee is undercover, then you KEEP YOUR [EXPLETIVE-DELETED] MOUTH SHUT, for the sake of national security, you see. (This is especially so for you conservatives, given how paranoid you are about "national security."). Doesn't that make sense to you Paul??? If so, you have more intelligence than Karl Rove.

"IF he did, Fitzmas would have happened." -- Paul

Fitzmas did happen, and at this point, we got a Scooter for Fitzmas (possibly more later on when Libby's trial gets underway). This is much more than I ever thought we would have gotten, especially after Abu Gonzales cunningly gave the Bush Administration a "heads-up" call, providing them with foreknowledge that a criminal investigation was coming and thereby allowing them to destroy incriminating documents, get their stories straight, etc.

*******************

As Neil has pointed out, it was Bush's CIA itself that sought prosecution for the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson. Bush's Justice Department agreed that something criminal had occurred in deciding to pursue prosecution. But many conservatives do not seem to understand the implications here. Let me pose it all to you in the form of a choice for you all to make:

1) Bush's CIA knows more about which of its employees are covert than I do,

or

2) I know more than the CIA does in this regard.

Choose either 1) or 2) and let me know what you choose!!

But if you are thinking about choosing 2), you may wish to consider what Bush himself had to say (from Wikipedia):

Bush - June 10, 2004 (Responding to a media question which asked "do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have . . . leaked [Valerie Plame's] name?"): "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."

Of course we now know, however, that Bush's declaration that he would fire any leaker was just another of his lies.

he point of the matter i... (Below threshold)
NorthwestNeocon:

he point of the matter is that if you don't know whether or not a CIA employee is undercover, then you KEEP YOUR [EXPLETIVE-DELETED] MOUTH SHUT, for the sake of national security, you see.

Unless, of course, it's the NY Times and it damages Republicans, then it's hunky dorey.

Fitzmas did happen, and at this point, we got a Scooter for Fitzmas

Jihadists get more at Christmas than the Left got at Fitzmas. Scooter Libby? That's a "victory"? No wonder the Left is out of power, they have no concept of what a "victory" is or might be considered. Or even what it looks like. They are the Tampa Bay Devil Rays of politics: losers, year after year.

HEY!!! Old "pucker puss" (l... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

HEY!!! Old "pucker puss" (lee lee) ain't deceased after all. Shore did take him a long time to get his head back down to size so he could spread the BS again.O well we can always send the flowers to someone else. Tsk tsk to bad.

Herman you are irrational a... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Herman you are irrational and unhinged.

Tens of thousands of people work for the CIA. I have news for you.. The number of people in DC who work for the CIA or who have worked for the CIA is quite high.

Saying that nobody should never mention that anyone ever worked for the CIA -no matter their position- is frankly a juvinille reply.

If you'd like to speak like an adult I'll debate you. Rambling nonsensical jibberish will be ignored.

Paul completely avoids answ... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Paul completely avoids answering the question that I posed. This doesn't surprise me. He provides this specious argument:

"Saying that nobody should never [sic] mention that anyone ever worked for the CIA -no matter their position- is frankly a juvinille [sic] reply."

I never said that no one should ever under any circumstance mention the name of a CIA employee, did I now, Paul???? [Expletive-deleted] DID I????

This is your lucky day, Paul. I'll give you a second chance with the hypothetical question:

Imagine Paul that you're a high-ranking federal official and you know that a certain relative of someone you don't like works for the CIA. But you don't know if the person is undercover or not, you don't know her "status," to use one of your own words. (your specious argument left out this condition). Do you mention to a reporter that the individual in question works for the CIA???

Are you going to answer this time, Paul??? Or are you going to chicken out???

Ugh, this whole "Fitzmas" t... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ugh, this whole "Fitzmas" thing is so retarded. Listen, if people break the law they should be prosecuted. When Cunningham went down it was not a victory for the left. When Jefferson goes down (I think we can safely say he's guilty) it will not be a victory for the right. That Libby is alleged to have perjured himself and obstructed justice is not some gift to the left. Justice is bipartisan, or at least it should be. Can't we all just be pleased when corrupt politicians or unscrupulous operatives are prosecuted for their crimes?

I remember a time, not so very long ago, when most people were happy when the "fatcats" in Washington got what was coming to them. It was not so much left vs. right as it was us vs. them, with them being the bloated corrupt and otherwise intractable Washington institution. Now it seems that everyone is a partisan operative, joyously proclaiming victory for their side whenever a politician in the other party is indicted yet vigorously defending anyone from their own party under the same circumstances.

Ok, so maybe I'm exxagerating the lack of partisanship when it came to corruption in the past, but come on people. When the government runs wild doesn't it hurt us all?

NorthwestNeocon,Wh... (Below threshold)
Herman:

NorthwestNeocon,

Who's the most powerful man in the world right now?? It's Dick Cheney, isn't it??? (No, it's not Karl Rove as his purpose is just to babysit George "Is-Our-Children-Learning-Yet?" Bush, to make sure The Chimp stays out of trouble). So if Dick Cheney is the most powerful man in the world, nailing Dick Cheney's no. 2 is something we can all be happy about.

And as I stated before, we may eventually get other presents besides a Scooter. We'll just have to see what comes out during Libby's trial.

Imagine Paul that you're... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Imagine Paul that you're a high-ranking federal official and you know that a certain relative of someone you don't like works for the CIA. But you don't know if the person is undercover or not, you don't know her "status," to use one of your own words. (your specious argument left out this condition). Do you mention to a reporter that the individual in question works for the CIA???

Seeing how Fitz knows the person's name --- Fitz (who isn't shy about ridiculously extreme prosecutions) doesn't see a problem.

Somebody told Novak that Wilson's wife got him the job. The person (who, again, Fitz knows) He learned her name from "Who's Who". He asked the CIA for verification of her employment and the person he spoke to said yes. He asked Rove if she recommended Wilson for the job. Rove said yes.

Nobody revealed anything illegally. Again, since she WORKED AT LANGLEY, she couldn't do covert work.

And, mantis, there are differences between legitimate prosecutions and illegitimate ones. You didn't see Republicans defending Cunningham. If the rumors about Ney are correct, nobody will defend him, either. Most liberals don't defend Jefferson (only that idiot Hastert, Pelosi, and the CBC are doing so). Those are LEGITIMATE prosecutions and these slugs getting their balls nailed to the wall is beautiful.

But when the prosecution appears to be little more than a partisan witch hunt (the Delay case thus far; the Plame investigation) and it becomes tiresome. I don't feel that the investigation of Clinton focused on his serious wrongdoing (the campaign finance scam --- and while nothing can be done about it, him apparently selling pardons is horrendous) but on the minor issues that Reno knew he'd be able to deal with (perjury; sexual harrassment, etc).

If there are any present similar investigations of Dems, I am unaware of them and that is why they are not being listed here.
-=Mike

No, sorry to disappoint.... (Below threshold)
mesablue:

No, sorry to disappoint. Paul has taken to deleting my comments again in his usual, childish way.

No, he's sparing us from your idiocy. You filled your quota long ago.

Thank you Paul.

I don't disagree mantis... ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I don't disagree mantis...

But (from my chair) there is a continual assult on the things that have made and continue to make this country great. As such I feel obligated to get involved.

I'll tell you a secret -- and I tell it to you because I genuinly believe you have the intelect and the demenor to appreciate it.

I'm not a conservative. I'm a correctionist.

As such, in the modern era I'm on the conservative side of the see-saw. 30-40 years ago I'd probably be on the other side. 20 years fromnow, who knows if we go too right wing, I'll play for the other team.

If you look at my "respectfully disagreeing" and my "defending" posts you'll see it is not unusual for me to agree with the the liberals... When they get one right... It's just that they are usually wrong. lol.

Thanks Mike... He bored me.... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Thanks Mike... He bored me.

and mantis, ditto Mike's co... (Below threshold)
Paul:

and mantis, ditto Mike's comments re: legitimate prosecutions vs partisan dumbshit.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but I was really going after the "Fitzmas" crowd. It was this quote from Herman that set me off:

Fitzmas did happen, and at this point, we got a Scooter for Fitzmas (possibly more later on when Libby's trial gets underway).

While cute in it's own way (scooter for fitzmas, ha ha), it reveals what I was talking about before. If someone on your side gets indicted, we're getting a gift. A politician who's convicted of a crime is two things, a sad reminder of the state of our society and government, and a warning to the other crooks in Washington, all of them. If anything it should be bittersweet, and not a victory for either side.

I agree about "legitimate prosecutions vs partisan dumbshit". I gotta run, but I'll be back to think about correctionism.

Lee You dont have to... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

Lee
You dont have to feel left out? instead of commenting, just type LEE and leave the rest blank, its the same tripe everytime anyways..

I might delete that anyway.... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I might delete that anyway. lol

I like to wear women's clot... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I like to wear women's clothes.

(Psssst--"pucker puss" (lee... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

(Psssst--"pucker puss" (lee lee) maybe if you showed you had just the smallest of a brain that Paul would let you troll around every once in awhile) (By the way don't let on that I gave you this advice.)

Sorry Lee, Now I understand... (Below threshold)
virgo1:

Sorry Lee, Now I understand. no offense I hope?

PaulHow many of th... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Paul

How many of the people who attack Wilson are you deleting because they don't provide links? Or is that a burden you only demand of Wilson supporters? You have so many innacuracies in this thread it's almost impossible to know where to begin. For starters, continually citing a WaPo editorial (that's editorial, as in opinon, not news reporting) as if it somehow proves something is just ridiculous. I believe the subtext to all of those who cite that editorial is that we are all supposed to buy the supposition that the Post is a left wing rag, so anything they say supporting Bush carries extra weight. However, the Post is a left wing rag only to right wingers. Their editorial opinions mean nothing to me. Nice how right wingers either cite or condemen the MSM, depending on which argument is being made. You say "the Washington Post, no less" as if their editorials have some extra credibility.

And I don't know which of Kevin's posts you're referring to from a year ago, but the idea that Plame's role was a secret has never been "debunked." Please name the people who have said they knew beforehand that Plame worked for the CIA. So far it's been two right wingers. And I'll save you the trouble of citing Andrea Mitchell. She blurted out that "a lot of us knew," but as soon as she was called on it she backtracked and admitted that in fact she didn't know. Since you're ridiculously self-congratulatory about your alleged use of cites, please cite some names.

As for Who's Who, that is most assuredly not the main story. Why can't you get the simple logic through your head? Valerie Plame's name was never a secret. The fact that she was Joe Wilson's wife was never a secret. What did they do, have all of the guests at their wedding klled so the secret wouldn't get out? The fact that she was a CIA operative WAS a secret, and has never been shown to be otherwise. As for all of the claims about her driving to Langley every day, thay may be true, but how do we know? It's become such an article of faith on the right that no one has ever bothered to source that information. What credible source has provided evidence of that fact?

And Bill Harlow of the CIA has never wavered in his story that he did not confirm Valerie Plame's identity to Wilson. He reiterated that fact after Novak's recent column came out. So as proof that he's wrong, you cite a Novak column? Really? Novak says one thing, Harlow says another, so as "proof" you cite a Novak column in which he basically says "no, really, I'm right." That's pathetic.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy