By popular request (in an indirect way).
Reader Interactions
144Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
I was promised a recession.
If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.
That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.
Let’s not be the monsters we hate.
The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.
Optimism opens the door to great things.
Black Jesus loves a paper trail.
After roe, women are no longer free.
When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.
The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.
Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.
A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals
Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?
Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?
T R E 4 5 O N
We still have time to mess this up!
They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.
Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard
A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.
Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.
The willow is too close to the house.
You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.
I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.
Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.
Darrell
Wow, my name in lights. Is this what it feels like to be on Broadway?
Andrew J. Lazarus
Reposted from Plame Step 4 thread.
Darrell, an even better version of the Committee Report is here, where it is text PDF (hence searchable) and not a graphic. So I typed in your alleged direct quote “admitted that he had no direct knowledge”, and the only match is on page 455 (physical pages as numbered in PDF). The following paragraph is (my emphasis)
Now, is there any doubt in your mind that your quote does not represent a finding of the bipartisan commission? Four pages earlier, the section in which this quote is found is labeled Additional Views of Chairman Pat Roberts joined by Senator Christopher S. Bond, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, that is, a minority even of the Republicans on the committee.
So I think we are on notice: you can no longer pretend to be an innocent dupe when coppying the GOP Talking points that Wilson was found to be a liar by a bipartisan committee. From now on if you choose to make such statements, we know you are a goddam liar. Clear enough?
ppgaz
Darrell!
Darrell, Darrell,
Bo, Barrell,
Banana, Fanna, Foe, Farrell,
Fee, Fie, Moe, Marrell.
Darrell!
Vladi G
Can I call I him a dumbass on this thread, or is that still restricted?
Mike S
John Cole
This is the flame war thread- all bets are off. Well- most. Nothing that is deeply personal, and avoid the obvious references to heritage, ethnicity and race, sexuality, religious preference, and what not.
Darrell
Uh Andy, I didn’t copy any “GOP talking points”, I cited and linked to a Washington Post news article on the Senate intelligence committee findings, and posted verbatim quotes from that article.. if you would like to rebut specific points from that quoted article which you believe to be in error, please do so with citation
Tim F
Darrell, the “committee” didn’t find these things. A minority of Republican committee members tacked them on the end over everyone else’s objections. Please modify your rants to reflect that.
JC
Darrell,
(This is not John Cole) – that Washington Post article got a lot of things wrong. If you compare it with the actual report, the points don’t hold.
I would think that quoting the WashPost article, then quoting again the text refuting your points, would be tedious at best.
John Cole
BTW- I should point out, the point of this thread is not to flame Darrell, but to provide a forum for all the off-topic chatter. Anything that is just a pointed comment aimed at anyone ius going to be deleted.
John Cole
And Darrell- that includes you- no more insults in the other threads.
ppgaz
Forgot …. apologies to Laura Branigan.
Okay, Darrell, I got my Doritos, my raspberry iced tea, I got my wifebeater shirt on, I got the All Star game going over there on the tube, I got a three-day growth of beard, I got my sports page, I got my Mustangs and Fast Fords magazine, I got my police scanner going, I got my feet up on the desk.
Let ‘er rip, baby. Showtime.
Darrell
I gave several examples from the Washington Post news story. What, specifically, are you alleging was erroneous in the WP report? One or two substantive examples will do
You all seem to be suggesting that the WP news story I cited was largely incorrect. If you’re gonna make claims like that, then back it up
Vladi G
He just did, you fucking moron. You’re sitting there implying that the “verbatim quotes” are findings of the committee. They’re not! They’re additional remarks by a few partisan Republican members of the committee. They are not finding of the committee.
The article you post is about the committee report. The quotes are allegedly verbatim. But they are not, as you have implied again and again (either because you’re a lying sack of shit, as has been established repeatedly, or you are one of the stupidest persons alive, as you continue to establish with each subsequent post) “findings of the committee”. Now run along and do a little research to find out exactly what the difference is.
Thanks, John. That felt good.
Tim F
Murray Waas has a scoop up over at his blog. Apparently Novak cooperated with prosecutors, but they don’t believe him. Fitz thinks that Novak and his admin source collaborated to make a cover story, and Fitz wants Cooper and Miller so that he can expose the perjurers. He apparently got the Miller-Plame connection from Air Force One phone records.
Interestingly, Mr. Plum Scoop filed his post from a public library while the comcast guy activates his internet. My friends, the blogosphere in a nutshell.
Vladi G
And before I get deleted, please note I was posting it while after you had initially given permission.
Darrell
BTW- I should point out, the point of this thread is not to flame Darrell, but to provide a forum for all the off-topic chatter. Anything that is just a pointed comment aimed at anyone ius going to be deleted.
Posted by John Cole at July 12, 2005 09:12 PM
He just did, you fucking moron
..either because you’re a lying sack of shit
Andrew J. Lazarus
Darrell, let me try to explain this more slowly.
The quotes that you have taken from the Washington Post do not come from the Committee Report. It does not matter if the Washington post said they came from the Committee Report. They do not come from the Committee Report. The Committee Report is available online. If you search the text of the Committee Report, which is available online, you will find one of your quoted passages on page 451 in a section entitled Additional Views that was endorsed only by three GOP Senators. It does not matter if the WaPo said this material came from the Committee Report, because it does not and you can see for yourself. The material comes from the Additional Views (of a small number of Republicans) that was attached to the Committee Report. The Committee did not agree with the additional views. Only three Republican Senaators agreed with the additional views. See Spot run. See Jane run. See Dick run. Run, run, run.
Are we OK on the difference now, or do I have to draw a version with pictures?
Vladi G
I believe truth is an absolute defense.
Mike
“And if this all happened to Clinton would you all be defending him and his admin?”
And if it wasn’t Bush would Democrats be saying ANYTHING?
Darrell
All of it? Every allegation in the WP news article comes from partisan Repubs? Did Wilson really not explain that he was engaging in “literary flair”?
Which specific points that I raised do you believe to be in error and why? real simple.. you would think
Mike S
Mike
Absolutely. Unlike the current GOP we put country ahead of party.
Darrell
Yeah, notwithstanding all the ‘BushHitler’, ‘Amerikka is the real terrorist nation’, ‘Minutemen’, and ‘chickenhawk’ memes, you might actually have a point
Rick
Unlike the current GOP we put country ahead of party.
Darrell, we are in the presence of big-hearted greatness. I should be humbled by their magnanimity, but I’m sure they’ll work up a Federal requirement for it, so why should I break sweat?
Cordially…
Mike S
My God Darrell. You are such a pathetic little child that I don’t know where to start. Take your friggin head out of your ass, or Hannity’s for that matter, and acknowledge that both parties have idiots.
Or maybe you believe that Randall Terry speaks for the entire GOP.
Mike S
Ricky. You still need work on your snark.
Svejk
In 1991, the acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson, sheltered 800 Americans at the embassy in Baghdad during Saddam Hussein
ppgaz
Earth to Darrell: Bush is not the country.
One point is subtracted from your score.
Box!
JC
Darrel,
Well, let’s start with this –
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 that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address.
in the WP article.
I haven’t read the whole report (thanks for the link Andrew), but I’ve been reading about Wilson (the “former ambassador”), and nowhere in the section about the former ambassador, does it say it “bolstered intelligence”. It’s not there. Wilson received a “good” grade for his view, and he was corroborated by the current ambassador to Niger.
The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.
There is discussion about Wilson, but “harshness” isn’t there. Again, he was suggested by his wife, but it is the working group that decides on sending Wilson, and that debriefs Wilson. His wife is tangentially related.
Also, there’s quite a lot of intra-agency fight cited in the report. This Post article acts as if the report “intelligence views”, regarding Wilson is united in the perception.
Darrell
And with that bit of leftie wisdom, I bid you all a good night
ppgaz
Score: Antagonists: 123 Darrell: 1
Darrell, you can’t quit now. You’re still in the game!
Svejk
There you have it, ‘cat-pee’ is kryptonite to Darrell. It puts him right to sleep… or makes him think about all the Rolling Rock he could be drinking.
Mike S
I missed that ppqaz. A perfect example of so many in the current GOP’s belief that the party and the President are nore important than the country.
Andrew J. Lazarus
The “literary flair” comment is also only in the Additional Views (page 455 by PDF). It purports to be a direct quote of something Wilson told the Committee staff, but devoid of all context it’s hard to tell what it really means.
If you don’t mind my saying so, Darrell, as you are now batting zero for two, i’d say it’s up to you to verify your claims (i.e., the official GOP line) before presenting them again, and I don’t think you can afford my rates to be your Research Assistant.
JC
Josh Marshall says the same thing, but better:,
“This from the AP …
Rove “was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise,” said Mehlman. Cooper’s e-mail says that Rove warned him away from the idea that Wilson’s trip had been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney.
The argument, as elaborated by others, is that Rove was warning Cooper off Wilson’s phoney story because it was about to be debunked by a soon-to-be-released statement by George Tenet.
A great argument. Only Wilson never said that. He said that the CIA, following up on a query from the vice president, sent him on a fact-finding mission to Niger.
Here’s his account from his New York Times column …
“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
Rick
Score: Antagonists: 123 Darrell: 1
Thus sayeth the King County Board of Elections.
Everybody’s so serious, it’s a hoot.
Cordially…
KC
Following up with JC, it seems pretty clear that this Cheney-Wilson thing is just a GOP talking point. I’m open to contraverting evidence, of course. But compare the GOP memo at Raw Story to what a reporter has to say about GOP talking points in the press gaggled this morning and it’s tough not to see things that way.
ppgaz
Yes, Rick, your “up is down” malapropisms are always perfectly timed!
For those of you who just tuned in, please check my several posts to this thread. If you find anything serious there, please delete it.
How do you do it, Rick? Did you go to a special school for saying exactly the opposite of whatever is true? It’s a gift, man. Really, I say this in the most nurturing way possible.
Rick
ppgaz,
I’m campaigning for the Balloon-Juice Brass Ring–you’re dismissal of me as a potatohead that you just don’t trust, darn it. That will be gift enough, nurturally.
Cordially…
ppgaz
I think of you more as a flaked potato product, really, than a true potatohead.
Now, if you put your head in a jar of water, and sprout, then I’m wrong, and I’ll retract the remark.
KC
Did President Bush actually say he’d fire someone if they were involved in the leak or did he say that he’d fire someone if Fitzgerald’s investigation turned up someone guilty? There’s a difference between the two, I think. Obviously, if Bush said the latter rather than the former, all the criticism he’s getting for going back on his word is fairly worthless.
Sojourner
A twofer… Rove and Novak??? Oh the stuff dreams are made of.
JC
KC,
Good info on the talking points.
Regarding your question, I believe that Bush’s statements were very strategically worded. From the White House website:
“QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody — I don’t know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I’d like to know it, and we’ll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there’s all kinds of allegations. You’ve heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information — outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.
And then we’ll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something — leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we’ve had them — there’s too much leaking in Washington. That’s just the way it is. And we’ve had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I’ve spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are. .
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
September 30, 2003
Now, there are two ways to go with this particular quote – one “take appropriate action”. Hmm…While appropriate action seems to SUGGEST to fire the leaker, well, appropriate action for Karl Rove might be something else.
There’s another quote. can’t remember where, that Bush says he will fire the guy who is “guilty” of leaking, or some such. Here, guilty was well-used – guilty meaning legally, or simply guilty of DOING the leaking?
By the way, which one's Pink?
Jess
“But I want to tell you something — leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we’ve had them — there’s too much leaking in Washington. That’s just the way it is.”
Gawd, how can anyone read those immortal words sprung from the lips of W and think, “That’s the man I want in charge of this country.” I try to be fair–really–but reality confounds my best intentions every time.
Sojourner
Jess, which part bothers you? His lack of eloquence or his lack of truthfulness?
Phil Smith
Late to the game, but using that same copy you’re using, Andrew, here, here’s the finding of the bipartisan commission that Darrell and the WaPo are talking about.
It’s on page 45 of the report, page 55 of the pdf. I think that it qualifies as “bi-partisan” etc.
The WaPo also quotes the addendum that has you all self-righteous, but the above is definitely from the findings of the entire bi-partisan panel. It may be fair to give Darrell shit for the second quote, but the first one is legit, as the cool kids say.
It is also true that the full committee doesn’t outright call Wilson a liar. On page 44 (45 of pdf), they say
They go on to list three specific areas of inconsistency. It’s up to the reader to determine intent.
jcricket
KC wrote:
Yes, Bush said, if anyone was involved in leaking the name, he would fire them (at a mininum). Here’s a link to Bush’s exact words (and Scott McClellan’s).
On a larger point, let’s not forget that Rove is likely not the only in trouble. Novak’s original column contains a claim to have confirmed his scoop with two “senior-level” administration officials. Speculation points to “Scooter” Libby as the other official guilty of outing Plame to Novak (at least). It’s also possible (but less likely) that McClellan could be in trouble for obstruction.
Even Novak, is potentially guilty of obstruction or perjury – See Josh Marshall for more info.
People seem to forget that by outing Plame, Novak also exposed her entire “company” as a front for the CIA, probably endangering the covers (and lives) of the other undercover CIA operatives who “worked” for that “company”. Which is one of the reasons this scandal has legs.
Combine the potential damage of the outing with the fact that it’s not like Karl Rove is some rogue political operative, means that the trouble for the Bush administration runs deep on this. Remind anyone of Watergate?
Clever
Poor Darrell didn’t get flamed, he got napalmed.
Now who’s for milk and cookies?
Jess
Soj,
do I have to pick just one?
In this case, I was reacting to the sheer bone-headed simple-mindedness, the glaring case of post-alcohalic brain damage, on vivid display for the world to see. Even if one thinks the GOP is the best thing since Rice Krispies, how can anyone with a brain respect that man? It just amazes me.
Okay, I’m done ranting now. Have a good evening.
JC
JCricket,
I hear you – but check out the relationship of the rest of the quote:
Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name?
BUSH: That’s up to —
Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.
So here, Bush is referring to the LEGAL determination that Rove leaked the agent’s name – note “the U.S. attorney.
And that’s a different determination.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Phil Smith—I referenced the main section in an earlier thread, and I did say that Wilson’s statements were contradicted by others whose memories were probably more accurate. I compared this to the discrepancies in Michael Schiavo’s 911 call times. It does seem to me that Wilson hot some times off. He probably realized that the documents were forged the minute he saw them (as he would have known immediately that the names were wrong) but this episode took place much later, probably after press reports. We know perfectly well now that the summary of Wilson’s report was correct: Saddam was not engaged in an attempt to obtain the yellowcake. We know perfectly well that the principal evidence in favor of this claim was a forgery, although we’ve shown very little interest in who created it.Wilson was right. Chalabi via Cheney was wrong. And we know perfectly well that the Bush Administration punishes disloyalty as harshly as any mafia don. That’s the only plausible excuse for the leak.
jcricket
JC – Fair enough, but look at the dates on the quotes. McClellan is the official spokesperson. He clearly states (back in 2003) that anyone involved in the leak would be fired. Which answers KC’s question as the “former”. So I suppose it could be taken one way or the other, depending on which quote is applicable.
I find it more than a little troubling that a “straight shooter” like Bush hasn’t just asked Karl for the truth ;)
BTW – Here’s a fun quote from RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie back in 2003. Wonder if he, McLellan and Bush are going to have a “eat my words” party any time soon?
scs
Hey! How do I get my own flame war?
KC
Well, I appreciate the answers t0 my question concerning the Bush firing issue. Honestly though, I’m a little confused. But, I think I’m supposed to be this way. It looks to me as if the administration put out some vibes, but left a little clintonesque just-in-case wiggle room. Either way, it seems pretty clear that there is a campaign now to take some pressure off of Rove. I wonder if it will work?
AlanDownunder
Darryl etc,
It is utterly irrelevant whether Wilson was right or wrong, qualified or unqualified, serving or conspiring, liberal or conservative, lying or truthful, patriot or traitor, appointed or nepotized?
People deliberately blew CIA cover. You explain why they might have wanted to do it, but not how they were justified in doing it.
That’s like saying ‘the forging doesn’t matter because he actually was AWOL’ – and I can guess what you think about THAT.
Ridge
This ain’t a real flame war. There is no blood on the floor.
There is no back tracking of posting IP#s and net detective work. Why, there aren’t even jpegs of someone’s house!
Its just bitch slappin’ under the control of the moderator.
A real flame war would be on an unmoderated news server where anyone has the chance to jump threads, crosspost, be OT and espeically publicly “go nulcear”; killfiling a stupid SOB and blocking him from your news reader. That way you can still abuse him and not be bothered by any of his responses. Often the SOB’s head explodes from the stuttering frustration of not making you read and respond to his putrid nonsense.
Thus the sad limitations of web interfaced discussion forums, you miss out on the real fun of making friends and influencing people.
Ridge
(who has carried a pistol and straight razor into some groups)
Cliff
Andrew —
I agree that your assessment is possible. But isn’t it also possible that Wilson
– either did see (a copy of) those documents directly himself
– or spoke to someone who had
and so knew at the time the dates and names were wrong — but shouldn’t have said so, because he wasn’t supposed to have had access to the docs at that time, and so claimed he had misremembered?
Long sentence.
Cliff
Andrew: On the question of who did the actual forgeries, there’s been little reporting but some investigating by Josh Marshall and possibly others.
It is certainly interesting that the forgeries appear to be so amateurish. Two possibilities suggest themselves: 1) they were done by overconfident amateurs (now where would we find those) or 2) they were done by professionals who intended them to be found out as forgeries.
I’m curious, as are others, whether the forgeries themselves may have become a subject of the investigation.
KC
Good list of possibilities, Cliff. I hope we find out which one is the answer.
Aaron
I sure wish we could apply all this critical thinking towards Sandy Berger and what he was doing.
But I guess that was a simple misunderstanding and not like the Plame affair where a deep cover spy in the Taliban was outed.
Cliff
I think I’ve figured out what the fallback spin is here (i.e. if Rove and/or other top level WH insiders do get indicted). You can see it being floated on various blogs and comment threads, e.g. Aaron’s posting above.
The spin is: Plame was acting as an anti-Bush partisan, and that’s why she chose her husband to go, and why he did such sloppy inaccurate work*.
Note the unspoken spin, the stuff that’s under the surface here: yeah and so what if she *was* outed? She deserved it, as do all those other ****ers at the CIA who didn’t go along with the program, those traitorous sonsabitches, not to mention the whole goddamn State Dept. and those energy people with the aluminum tubes disagreement.
This spin is somewhat undermined by the fact that all those “Saddam appeasers” turned out to be right on the Nigerian uranium, the WMDs, the aluminum tubes, the nuclear program, etc., and WHIG and OSP wrong. But that won’t stop the spinners.
* Note the contradiction here. His report is spun in GOP talking points as actually supporting the uranium claims — which if he was so partisan and sent out to debunk them by his wife, why would it?
The Disenfranchised Voter
LOL!
I agree, WTF!?
Bah, false analogy. A fallicious argument you have there. Take a course in logic, please.
p.lukasiak
Has anyone else noticed the similarity between the GOP talking points, and the “facts” that John Cole is trying to get us to agree to?
Rick
No, AWOL, I haven’t.
Cordially…
Mike
“I missed that ppqaz. A perfect example of so many in the current GOP’s belief that the party and the President are nore important than the country.”
Oh please.
How can the Democrats be “for the country” when so many within their ranks hate it and blame it for all the world’s ills?
When Democrats get serious about expelling all the Leftists found on college campuses, in Hollywood, MoveOn.Org, Soros, on the net in such places as Kos, Atrios, DU, Washington Monthly, etc., THEN we’ll know the Democrats are “for the country”, and some of us MIGHT actually vote for them again.
Marcus Wellby
p.lukasiak,
I may disagree with John on numerous issues, but I would hardly accuse him of using GOP talking points.
Marcus Wellby
When Democrats get serious about expelling all the Leftists found on college campuses, in Hollywood, MoveOn.Org, Soros, on the net in such places as Kos, Atrios, DU, Washington Monthly, etc.,
Ah, when Dems become Republicans you and others will vote for them. What a strategy! I guess there is no lunatic fringe within the GOP to worry about.
Tim F
A CIA classmate of Plame’s writes an illuminating piece at TPM Cafe. Not mane linked references, but he works for the CIA and knows personally the role that Valerie Plame played in WMD intel.
Tim F
Mike, don’t play stupid games. You’re a Movement Conservative who wouldn’t vote against your tribe if it ran Kim Jong Il for president. We don’t need to appeal to fringe tribalists like you to win.
Rick
Oh the stuff dreams are made of.
No doubt some of them are damp-ish.
Cordially…
ppgaz
Democrats, unlike elephants, know the difference between “country” and “government.”
The government is not the country. It’s not only okay, it’s your duty, to question — and when necessary, castigate — the government.
It is the wont of the powerful in government to act and talk as if they are the country. As if supporting them, not questioning them, is the same thing as supporting the country. That’s why you hear them so often invoking patriotism.
The government is not the country. The president is not the country.
Republicans have never gotten this, which is why I don’t trust them.
Jim Dandy
*deletes slanders against Zorostrianism*
Jim Dandy
*deletes slanders against Zorostrianism*
Nikki
Good point. I would only add that this is otherwise known as fascism.
Defense Guy
As a Republican, I can just feel the love on this thread.
A point that will surely get flamed, but needs to be addressed anyway. In this day, perhaps like no others, the partisan battle lines have been drawn, and it seems like no one from either side of the political or bureaucratic establishment is willing to put country over party. It seems interesting that very few here can comprehend that considering the fact that Wilson was an advisor to the Kerry campaign, and the fact that Valerie contributed to the campaign, that their subsequent or even previous actions might be politically motivated. Do all you Democrats honestly believe that only the GOP and its supporters are willing to act in a partisan way?
ppgaz
Equivalency arguments are bullshit.
The GOP holds virtually every lever of power in the country right now, to an extent that I haven’t seen in 50 years.
The people in power are going to be held to the highest standard …. in fact, should be holding themselves to the highest standard.
That’s why your Liar in Chief called himself a “uniter, not a divider” when he was running for the high office. He wanted you to think that he would hold himself to that kind of standard and behavior.
He is not a uniter, he is a divider. And he is the president. He did not keep his word, and did exactly the opposite .. he uses partisan divisions to his own ends. He exploits them. He leverages them and has surrogates go out and fan the flames.
When you have a Dem president using partisan divisions to prop up support for a war, and suppress resistance to his policies, then you can complain about Dems. Right now, it’s the GOP that owns this problem.
As if their gratuitous partisanship weren’t enough, these assholes then turn around and blame a powerless minority for everything that doesn’t go their way. They should stop blaming, and start governing.
Defense Guy
Not even the argument I was making. The question still stands.
ppgaz
It’s a bullshit question. I gave a non-bullshit answer.
The better question is: Are Dems responsible for the clearly nastier partisan tone that exists today?
My answer is: Dobson, Frist, DeLay, Rove.
I think people can figure this out for themselves. It isn’t rocket science.
Tim F
Is that some sort of excuse for outing a NOC in 200#. If so it’s pretty weak.
Tim F
“…in 2003?…”
Rick
Republicans have never gotten this, which is why I don’t trust them.
*That’s* what I’m striving for!
The GOP holds virtually every lever of power in the country right now, to an extent that I haven’t seen in 50 years.
ppgaz,
Come on! You’ve forgotten completely the years 1961-1969, 1977-1981, and 1993-1995? They’ve scarred me for life.
Cordially…
Defense Guy
So you really do believe that only those on the Right are acting in a partisan manner? I kind of suspected as much. Anyone else?
Defense Guy
Don’t assign motivations for my question. Just answer it if you would be so kind.
ppgaz
Well, let’s overlook the fact that your line here is completely dishonest, and stay focussed on the point you are pretending to care about.
No reasonable person thinks that either party owns either the high road, or the low.
The question that matters is, is the party in power now taking the high road, or the low?
They are taking the low road. That’s what matters right now. It is the duty of citizens who care about such things to demand that they take a higher road.
You can spend all day trying to deflect from that, if you like, but it won’t work. The people now running this country have taken a low road of emotional appeals, hiding behind the flag and the troops, fanning the flames of religious divisions, mashing dissent as unpatriotic. That’s wrong. No matter how many times you try to deflect from it, it’s wrong.
Defense Guy
This is good to hear. I appreciate it.
You can spend all day trying to deflect from that, if you like, but it won’t work. The people now running this country have taken a low road of emotional appeals, hiding behind the flag and the troops, fanning the flames of religious divisions, mashing dissent as unpatriotic. That’s wrong. No matter how many times you try to deflect from it, it’s wrong.
Defense Guy
Oops, hit the wrong button on that last one. Let me try again.
I am in no way trying to deflect anything. The rest of what you write here is opinion, and the fact that I disagree with it in no way makes me evil. Reasonable people can disagree, even in politics.
Rick
Reasonable people can disagree…
Def Guy,
This isn’t the blog for that type of carbon-based life form.
Cordially…
p.lukasiak
I just emailed this to John…
John
Phil Smith
AJL:
That statement is unsupported by the report.
See also
“Iraq may have been trying to acquire uranium.” Not “Iraq was”, not “Iraq wasn’t”. Just “may have been”.
AJL:
That is patently false. We learn from the Senate report that
This is all on p. 125.
Darrell
Defense Guy,
Note that it took several tries for you to get even a remotely sincere halfway response. I believe it was yesterday you were accused of “hate” over, what any reasonable person would consider reasonable remarks. I’ve come to realize that is who the left is. I have not seen the equivalent dishonesty coming from the right. My very first day posting here I was accused by 4 different posters of repeating GOP/Rush/700 club talking points.
When the left has no good answers to fair questions, they are far more likely to start jumping to wild accusations. As a new poster here, you’re probably getting a sense of that. Not saying the right, myself included, has never done such a thing. But what I think you’re seeing here is that by and large, leftists as a group are not particularly honest people who are searching for truth
Defense Guy
Seemingly true. Although it does seem to be moving in a more windsofchange type direction where people from both sides of the argument come to spout off. This is perhaps good, and I am glad to see John’s comment numbers skyrocketing. If only I could convince some that that the mere fact that I am a Republican who supports this administration does not in fact make me evil or dishonest.
Phil Smith
Lukasiak:
Nikki
Now if only we liberals could convince some that the mere fact that we are liberals and/or Democrats who in no way support this administration does not in fact make us evil, dishonest, appeasers, traitors, haters, liars or any other epithet that has been uttered by Republicans and/or conservatives. We are simply citizens who don’t agree with this administrations policies.
mac Buckets
Does anyone think that Rove will really be convicted of anything? Admittedly, I’m not following this story that closely because I don’t see the meat, but from what I understand
1) I was already generally known around Washington that Valerie Plame was CIA
2) Rove mentioned in his e-mail to Cooper that Wilson’s “wife” “apparently works at the agency on wmd”
3) He mentioned this in order to discredit Wilson’s “expertise” in the area of field research, and to make his trip look like a nepotistic, and possibly partisan, put-up job
These indicate to me that a few of the necessary conditions for a crime under the Intelligence Identies Protection Act weren’t met:
1) Rove probably didn’t learn about Plame through his access to classified information, if it was common knowledge around Washington
2) Rove might not have known that she was a covert op — he never mentions such
3) Rove didn’t mention her name as an effort to explicitly expose her — he mentioned her name (well, not her name, but you know) to discredit Wilson
Hey, if the guy broke the law, throw him under the jail. But unless there’s another law at play here, I don’t see any way that anything will come of it.
ppgaz
This, from the jackass who cannot refer to any idea or assertion that he disagrees with, without calling it “lefty”.
There is nothing honest about you, Darrell. Stick to being a jerk, it’s more entertaining, and at least it would be honest. Trying to appear that you care about “sincerity” only adds “hypocrite” to the “butthead” label you already wear.
Nikki
Darn it! I just sprayed soda all over my keyboard.
Darrell
Well if you could advance plausible arguments for your position beyond “Bush lied people died” and accusing those who raise fair questions as “spouting Hannity talking points”… then we might start to believe that your side is something more than a bunch of dishonest kooks. Do I exaggerate you side’s behavior? Re-read the comments on this post and see for yourself
Nikki
Plausible arguments? Tell me, Darrell, what arguments would you consider plausible–besides those that you feel support your position? So far, the only responses you’ve ever given to opposing arguments is to denigrate them as liberal bias and lefty kookiness. If you aren’t open to considering opposing arguments, then what argument could a liberal possibly put forth that you would consider plausible?
Darrell
kinda like porn, I can’t define it, but I know if when I see it. Your earlier suggestion on this thread that the administration is “fascist” doesn’t qualify as a plausible argument imo
Nikki
Question–this statement is in no way descriptive of or relevant to the Bush administration:
Is it an adequate description of fascism? If not, how would you define fascism?
Darrell
Nikki, are you advancing the ‘argument’ that the US or the Bush administration, is “fascist”?
Nikki
Darrell, no. I am asking for your definition of fascism. Seriously.
Darrell
I think this definition from American Heritage pretty well sums it up:
A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism
your point it..??
Nikki
So, in what way is that definition different from what ppgaz said?
Defense Guy
I am curious how many people here have read the original op-ed piece by Wilson. Here is a link to a copy of it, if you are interested.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
Is anyone even slightly curious why he omitted the fact that he was approaced by a former Nigerian prime minister who stated that he was in fact approached by Iraqi officials seeking to ‘”expand [ed: mine] commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq.’, and that ‘The former prime minister told Mr. Wilson that he interpreted the approach to mean the Iraqis were interested in acquiring a form of uranium.’.
Source
If you read the link you will also find that he lied about his wife’s involvement.
In addition, in the original op-ed piece written by Wilson he makes several claims about how difficult it would have been to obtain the Uranium. Which is curious, because I would imagine it is quite difficult to get spies inside American intelligence outfits, and yet it happens time after time after time.
Darrell
Nikki, you are good example of what I’m talking about regarding the dishonesty of the left. You were clearly suggesting that the Bush administration was “fascist”.. now having been called on it, you are now trying to backpedal on what you had suggested. You did not come right out and say “the Bush administration is fascist”, but you certainly used the word “fascism” and suggested that description would be apt for the Bush administration. Anyone can re-read what was posted to see this for themselves. Be honest and admit it. You’ll feel better about yourself
Defense Guy
Just to point out the obvious. In a fascist government, the courts are not independent, neither is the legislature, and if you get to vote (which is doubtful), you can bet your ass that it will be counted in such a way as the outcome is predetermined. Cue arguments for diebold and Ohio, and omit the Oregon governor
Defense Guy
oops – replace Oregon with Washington state.
Nikki
Darrell,
I stated this at 12:27:
Your answer at 12:37:
My response at 12:40:
I honestly don’t see how this can be perceived as a smear at the administration. I am attempting to obtain a definition and you have, once again, fallen back on partisan rhetoric. The Bush administration is out of the equation. The question is now, in what way is your definition different from what ppgaz said?
gratefulcub
New line of defense/attack is popping up, and it is a good one.
IF KR did it, I’m glad he did. Somebody had to out Joe Wilson.
Fox’s John Gibson – I say give Karl Rove a medal, even if Bush has to fire him. Why? Because Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody. And if nobody else had the cojones to do it, I’m glad Rove did
Tim F
A helpful crib sheet for folks thinking that maybe Darrell has a point about something.
Darrell
If you dishonestly limit the timeline on this thread to 12:27 pm and after, then yes you would have a point. But earlier in this thread you used the word “fascism” and suggested that term would apply to the Bush admin
Regarding plausible arguments, gratefulcub makes a persuasive one. I’m disappointed that those on my side that she quotes are taking that position. They should limit their argument to trying to determine whether or not *everyone* in Washington media circles had already known Plame was CIA and pointing out how, if she was a covert(or ex-covert) agent, that she sure was an incredibly piss poor incompetent one for letting her husband make such high profile partisan hack attacks on the administration, especially when she herself had recommended him for the Niger trip. That behavior is entirely inconsistent with an agent who, if she was covert or ex-covert, SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRYING TO KEEP A LOW PROFILE.
gratefulcub
What about the old line of reasoning from the Clinton days: “It isn’t the act that is a problem, it is the lying.”
They said for 2 years that KR had NOTHING to do with this. He did. Isn’t that an ethical problem. Didn’t someone lie to the american people?
Defense Guy
We know for a fact that Wilson lied. Whether Rove (or the WH) did is currently being ascertained.
gratefulcub
No it isn’t. They didn’t say that he didn’t leak the name of a covert agent. They said, he had nothing to do with it. He did. May not have been illegal, but he did have something to do with it. Not a small part in it either.
Nikki
Ok Darrell,
At 0823, Mike said:
At 0925, ppgaz said:
At 0933, in response to ppgaz’s 3rd paragraph, I said:
At 1224, you said:
Hmmm….seems you are the only one who equated any of these statements with this current administration. And you are the only one who has fallen back on partisan rhetoric.
Ready to answer this question now?:
Nikki
To those who claimed that Wilson didn’t tell the whole truth, that the Wapo article says some in Niger told Wilson Iraq HAD tried to buy yellowcake…:
Phil Smith
1999, not 1998. Iraq, not Iran. Senate report, not WaPo. Two. Entirely. Different. Events.
Darrell
Nikki, your Washington Post correction is completely irrelevant in light of what the final Senate intelligence committee report states. As Phil Smith posted earlier on this very thread:
Page 43 of the final Senate intelligence committee report (the part endorsed by both Dems and Repubs):
Mayaki thought the Iraqis were trying to get uranium.
Oh, and this too from the report.. also posted on this thread by Phil S
Phil Smith
1999, not 1998. Iraq, not Iran. Senate report, not WaPo.
Two. Entirely. Different. Events.
Darrell
oops, in the meantime, Phil beat me to it. So in light of these bi-partisan endorsed findings Nikki, care to modify your previous statement:
To those who claimed that Wilson didn’t tell the whole truth, that the Wapo article says some in Niger told Wilson Iraq HAD tried to buy yellowcake.
I mean, if you are really honest and ‘reality based’, let’s hear it
Phil Smith
Sorry for the double post. The browser called me a “virtual brownshirt” and said try again.
Just kidding about the “virtual brownshirt”. My shirt today is a lovely bright red.
Nikki
DARRELL!
So you’re still here? Care to offer me an apology? Care to answer my question?
Darrell
Nikki, Nikki, what’s to apologize for? ppgaz wrote:
His characterization of Republicans was then described by you thusly in the following post:
Anyone can re-read the comments to see for themselves. You didn’t say that “Republicans are fascists” directly, but you damn sure suggested it. When I called you on it, you dishonestly try to backpedal out of what you wrote
gratefulcub
The wilson’s are politically motivated bush haters trying to discredit the administration with lies.
From there, you have several options about how to deal with it. Dispute his lies with facts. Show other evidence that proves that his claims are false and yours are true. Say you never gave his report credence because you had other information refuting it. Smear him (not my favorite, but unfortunately acceptable)
But, there is one thing you can’t do: Tell the world that his wife is an undercover cIa agent.
Even if she wasn’t covered by the statute in question, she still had contacts and former co-spies still in the field searching for WMD. They are all now back in washington at a desk.
If they didn’t know she was covert, or they didn’t know that outing her would endanger some (or even one) field operative…..not a legitimate excuse. They can call G Tenet and ask if they can go public, he can find out.
Sliming the Wilsons now, is completely irrelevant.
And again, they said that KR had nothing to do with outing her, and he did. Someone lied to me. If clinton can’t lie about sex, then Rove can’t lie about national intelligence and security
Darrell
gcub, you’re one of the very few (only?) leftists honest enough to admit that
Agreed, unless it can be demonstrated that many, many *already* knew she was CIA as has been alleged, because she and her husband had already played loosely and irresponsibly with this ‘secret’, which would not make it a ‘leak’ then , would it?
If that’s not the case, then slam the leaker. But if is the case, it changes everything
Phil Smith
Gratefulcub:
Here’s what I wanna know.
Who the fuck told Rove?
I don’t see how his being the President’s ‘political advisor’ grants him “need to know” on this issue. From that, I infer that the answer to the above question will be more important than any of the others.
gratefulcub
Sorry, but I wasn’t actually admitting that. I think the truth is somewhere between that, and that he was totally honest. Don’t know where in between, but my point is that it doesn’t matter.
If she wasn’t covert, if outing her had no reprucussions, then rove should have put this to bed 2 years ago. He could have said, “I did it, I would do it again, and i had every right to do it. She wasn’t covert, she is a desk jockey and no assets were compromised.”
Instead they clammed up for two years.
If she wasn’t covert, then there is no reason to slime her and joe today, just say she wasn’t covert and no law was broken. They aren’t doing that still today.
And someone, please respond to this point: they said that Karl Rove had nothing to do with outing Plame, but he did. why is that ok?
Nikki
My, my Darrell, now you are telling lies about me?
You see, I blockquoted ppgaz’s statement when I made my own, so there is NO DOUBT which one of his/her statements I was referring to:
Anyone scrollling through this thread can find that statement. The time is posted here, so there can be no doubt about the truth.
This proves that you are nothing more than a FUCKING LIAR!
I never made reference to the “Republican” statement you highlighted. I never claimed this administration is fascist. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE who ever made the association between this administration and fascism. The proof is in this thread and you can’t change that by posting lies now.
You are pathetic. You can never admit that you are wrong. You are the one who plays the partisan games more than anyone else who posts here. Thank you for clarifying to me just how much stock I can put into any future statements that come from you.
mac Buckets
It wasn’t a secret around Washington that Val Plame was CIA, from what I understand (there’s an Andrea Mitchell interview running around where she said that she and many other reporters knew). It may not have been common knowledge that she’d been a covert op, but Rove never mentions that in the e-mails. Rove himself may not have known. So the short answer is, Rove could’ve found out from a LOT of folks.
Nikki
gratefulcub
One andrea mithcell quote, that no one can seem to produce, is not proof that everyone knew. If everyone knew, why did they need to call reporters to tell them? If everyone knew, why have they kept quiet about telling reporters for 2 years?
Again, why did they tell us that Rove didn’t do it, when he did. And why lie, if there was no harm in it?
Darrell
Nikki, you have demonstrated yourself to be a hysterical kook, just like so many others on the left
mac Buckets
They asked McClellan where he got the idea that Rove was not involved and he said, essentially, “I talked to Rove.” So there’s your answer.
gratefulcub
mac buckets,
So Rove lied to McClellan? Then he must have lied to the president. And if he lied to Mc, so that he could go tell the reporters, then again…he lied to me, and he lied to america.
It’s not the crime, it’s the lying.
mac Buckets
You’re such an ing
Sojourner
Wow. By the time the Bushies go away, the Repubs will have zero credibility. Watching them gut the ethics provisions in the Congress, give away our national resources (national forests, protected wildlife refuges, clean air) for campaign contributions, defend anti-civil rights policies, defend torture, and defend the outing of a CIA agent to punish her husband for not going along with the party line is quite amazing to behold.
Needless to say, I get quite the belly laugh every time I hear a Repub talk about Clinton’s ethical limitations. The man was a choir boy compared to what these slime balls are doing. And you Repubs continue to defend them. I never thought the Repubs would be so quick to give up their values for the Bush administration.
Note: The above certainly does not include folks like John who have the guts to stick to their moral positions.
gratefulcub
MacB,
But what part of it isn’t true? They said one thing, another was true, Rove knew this. So, what part of ‘someone lied to someone, and it ended with McClellan passing that lie on to us’ is not correct?
I suppose, since calling me an ingenue is calling me naive, what you are saying is (and I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but it is the only way i can understand that statement)…. He lied, but am I so naive to think that isn’t what happens all the time. He lied, but so what.
Well then, I did not have sex with that woman.
Darrell
That’s *assuming* that she had not already been “outed” by her own actions in the past, or by her husband’s actions, or by someone else. If she was covert, or ex-covert, she was extremely reckless and irresponsible with her ‘secret’ identity, that much I hope we can agree on
Your entire point, and it’s a valid one, but it hinges on whether or not Plame had been previously outed by herself or others.
mac Buckets
Good. She was a cow, mate.
And you grasped my sentiment about paid political operatives perfectly.
Cue someone: “Rove was not under oath before a grand jury!”
gratefulcub
Darrell,
Sorry, but no it doesn’t. He said, they said, Karl Rove had nothing to do with this. They didn’t say that he didn’t do anything illegal (that is what they are saying now). They said he had nothing to do with it, when he knew perfectly well that he did. Whatever IT is, he was involved. He said he wasn’t.
McB,
First, our leaders shouldn’t have to be under oath to be honest. Sure they all lie, but that doesn’t make it ok when they get caught. Under oath about sex, and in a press conference on a subject that involves outing a CIA asset (even if it wasn’t illegal, that is what the conversation is about) are at least on even par. Nixon wasn’t under oath when he said that he didn’t have anything to do with whitewater, but that doesn’t excuse the lie.
Secondly, she was a cow. but, from what I remember from college, I made worse mistakes. ugh.
prob
Well, just here to drop off a little something I wrote…I tried to engage in the discussion yesterday, pointed out where Darrell was posting a link to an “Opinion” piece and stating that it “debunked”(which means “disproved”) something or other…I forget now what…but anyway, “Opinion” should not be substituted for fact. In reply he called me a liar…we went back-and-forth for a small bit…Each time I backed up my assertion with quotes and each time he continued to assert that I was some sort of lying “liberal” with no attempt to back up his claim. I decided it was a waste of my time to bother with him…So here is my final rebuttal (A little poem):
New writers to this blog take heed
there is this fellow Darrell
he does not care for fact or truth
so enter at your peril
I called him on his lack of proof
Response: was called a liar
this
mac Buckets
That was horrible. A thread-killer. Ugh.