Joseph Wilson is not helping his credibility nor his claims of non-partisanship by appearing at press conferences with Chuck Schumer, with Schumer calling for Rove to be fired/have his security clearance revoked.
*** Update ***
Oh, good grief. Three dimensions of source credibility are competence, trustworthiness, and goodwill. Competence speaks to the expertise an individual is perceived to possess. Trustworthiness gets to the appearance of character. Goodwill gets to the appearance that the subject has my or your best interests at heart. All of these are subjective evaluations that viewers formulate when viewing the communication behaviors of a particular subject
When Joseph Wilson appears at a podium with a known political operative, in this case Charles Schumer, it strikes directly at the dimension of character/trustworthiness. Meaning, it hampers his credibility. It makes it much more difficult to refute charges by some in the GOP that Wilson is a political hack and a fierce partisan. In other words, Joseph Wilson is not helping his credibility nor his claims of non-partisanship by appearing at press conferences with Chuck Schumer…
It doesn’t change the fact that Wilson may or may not have been telling the truth about any specific event, but it damn sure does affect his overall credibility.
In fact, maybe some of you reality-based community members should ask yourself this question:
“Does Joseph Wilson appearing on stage with Charles Schumer make it EASIER or more DIFFICULT to persuade people that Wilson is non-partisan?”
Then, when you are done, you can ask yourself a whole series of questions, like, “Why might an attorney warn his/her client not to say ANYTHING in public before a trial or while under investigation?” Or, “Why would an attorney tell their client not to appear publicly with a known criminal?” Could it be that it might be used to impeach their credibility in trial?
Really, guys. Get a grip. I didn’t say Joseph Wilson is the root of all evil or that Rove is a saint, or anything of the sorts. I made a non-controversial statement that, if you would put your passions and your complete convictions that Rove is Satan and Wilson is the Savior on hold, you would see is not a smear or an attack but the simple truth.
*** Update ***
And, as if on cue, Rush Limbaugh:
“Rush’s final words at the end of the show (referring to the Press Conference scheduled by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) to happen shortly): “Chuck Shumer is Joe Wilson’s ‘handler’ in this agency plot to bring down the President.”
If you want to fight the narrative that Wilson is partisan and you want to keep insisting that partisanship is not an issue, then Wilson should not be appearing in news conferences that will be painted as nothing more than partisan exercises.
Schumer wrote the talking points himself on this one…
Kimmitt
Of course Wilson is partisan; as the Republican wagon-circling around Rove has shown, interest in national security is now a partisan issue.
I wish a lot that it weren’t so, but it is.
Davis
When did Wilson ever claim to be non-partisan. He worked for Kerry. No Democrats should ever be allowed to go on sensitive missions. He and his wife deserve everything they are getting.
John Cole
When did Wilson ever claim to be non-partisan. He worked for Kerry. No Democrats should ever be allowed to go on sensitive missions. He and his wife deserve everything they are getting.
Beating… Head… Off… Desk…
Keith
This must be the same Davis that used to comment at confirmbolton.com. He must get all of his news watching Ann Coulter talk to Sean Hannity on Fox.
John S
I thought Davis was attempting sarcasm, but I’ll join you in beating my head if he’s serious.
Stormy70
I’m rapidly becoming Plamed out! I pointed out he and his wife’s partisanship all last week. I believe I called them partisan hacks. Now he is appearing with the ultimate in partisan hacks, Schumer, for a press conference? Hee, hee, hee! It’s too sublime for words.
John – I will concur that red jello is an acceptable summer treat. Especially with vodka in it.
Defense Guy
Wilson is, without a doubt, his own worst enemy. Any Democrat that is not already guaranteed to win re-election needs to shun him at all costs. On second thought, maybe they should appoint him to run their campaigns.
capelza
I don’t know guys. Caught him on the Today show, the rest of the U.S. who said “Rove who?” these past few weeks saw Wilson presented in a sympathetic light on a show more probably watch than any punditfest or blog…
Isn’t this the guy who worked under more than one Republican administration, and as I have read elsewhere, contributed to both Bush and Gore in 2000?
The “partisan hack” theme might backfire if pushed too much, as may the RNC “Why Joe Wilson is slime” tack. Instead of focusing on the case, all this could be construed as “blowing smoke” by the general public. Just a thought.
Plus, if you want the guy fired (not that I blame him) and need some firepower to it done having a Senator helps. I’m sure there would have been Republican ones as well…oh wait, never mind.
Capriccio
Unless the Special Prosecutor has a real bombshell in store for all of us…neither Wilson’s credibility nor his partisanship is at question here…though the stable of monkeys feverishly try rewriting the script to make it so.
To paraphase the spy who loved me: It’s Rove. Karl Rove.
Pudentilla
I don’t know. I suspect Wilson be equally peeved if a Democratic party operative had destroyed his wife’s career for the sake of partisan politics. And we all know how the Republicans would lionize him were he defening his own reputation and his wife’s career from a Democrat’s hatchet-job. I just think the sheep who call Rove their shepherd are a bit non-plussed that Wilson came back fighting rather than weep in rage (cf. Muskie) at Republicans who stoop to attack an opponent’s wife because they know they’ll lose any argument about the issue at hand (i.e., the propriety of disclosing the identity of a c.i.a. agent to the press).
Rove responded to the Wilson (who did not hide behind anonymous sourcing’s) criticism of the 16 words by trying to trash Wilson (and his wife) anonymously. Now, Rove has admitted that he did this. And rather than evaluate the political morality of the act (much less it’s implications for national security), Rove’s surrogates are attacking Wilson again and the sheep are bleating with pleasure.
Well, if there’s any justice in this world (and there well may not be) Democrats will be eating mutton stew soon enought.
HH
Time for another edition of Wilson vs. Wilson:
Rick
Wilson is risking his life to a far greater degree than his wife’s has supposedly become. If Wilson comes between Schumer and a TV camera, he’ll be trampled to death.
Cordially…
mac Buckets
This press conference/farce is just dead solid proof that they all know they’ve got nothing on Rove. They given up hope of the “frogmarch” that Wilson so yearned for. Rove’s sure to beat this rap, so they make this pre-emptive pronouncement of guilt. It’s utterly transparent, and only the media will take it seriously, if anyone.
Sojourner
Good grief! A Republican amdinistration outs his wife and destroys her career, and you wonder why he’s now supporting the Dems?
Are you for real?
Mr Furious
Well who the hell could expect him to remain non-partisan at this point?
R J Matheson
Wilson has a talented, beautiful wife who he is overzealous in protecting. She has had her career sidetracked because of politics and has been the subject of some horrible mudslinging. Rove outed her to Matt Cooper, told Chris Matthews that she is “fair game”, and is now directing the smear campaign against her and her husband.
On this issue I am ashamed of my Republican Party.
HH
Wilson contributions
Marcus Wellby
Let the investigation run its course already! If nothing comes of it, so be it. I am sick of the spin from the right and the over analysis by EVERYONE of the same few news snippets.
Besides, should Rove be guilty, the spin will be “Activist judge, activist judge!”. I have given up hoping for anything resembling justice in this country. Its all partisan all the freaking time. Nothing matters beyond party. And the saddest thing of all — 99% of your lives wouldn’t change one freaking bit regardless of whether its your party in office or the other side.
mac Buckets
Beautiful? Let’s not go nuts…but if she were ugly, would it be different?
Has her job status changed since the leak?
Is he really? I haven’t heard him smearing anyone. I’ve heard Rove smeared BY the Wilsons, in absence of legal verdict…
I’ll wait until legal verdict before I’m ashamed of anyone. If he’s guilty of anything, then we can throw Rove under the jail.
CaseyL
Pity you didn’t actually listen to the Press Conference, John, as opposed to merely condemn it
(And why, exactly? Is any politician other than a Republicans considered “partisan” these days? Are only public appearances with GOP pols considered, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion?)
I like Wilson’s poise. I like his way with words.
I particularly liked when he said:
“I made my bones facing [down] Saddam Hussein; Karl Rove made his bones playing political dirty tricks.”
Ah, yes: those 150 “human shield” hostages Saddam wanted to hang onto, and that Wilson wouldn’t let him hang onto.
John, it’s a damn shame you’ve decided to let some kind of Party or ideological loyalty put you in the position of agreeing with the slanders of Joe Wilson. Do you really want to be claiming ideological or Party cameraderie with the people who slander a man like Joe Wilson in order to make a man like Karl Rove look a little less like today’s Alger Hiss?
Steve
There may be no greater double standard in politics today than the word “partisan.” Karl Rove is about the most partisan guy ever, but apparently, to attack him you must be non-partisan.
I can’t remember the last time I heard something uttered by a Republican described as a “partisan attack.”
wufnik
Sigh. So much nonsense, so little time. John, it’s distressing to see you falling into this trap of “let’s blame Wilson–or at least, impugn him enough so that no one believes there’s really an issue here.” All of the criticisms on Wilson’s character and integrity have been pretty well refuted, if anyone cares to look–wander over to Crooked Timber or the Sidney Blumenthal piece in Salon. Of course, this isn’t new. No one has bothered to check, that’s all–too much work, i guess. Easier to let Ken Mehlman define the debate, I guess.
Let’s, just once, pretend that Wilson is not the issue. I know it’s a strecth, but let’s try it. Do we still have anything to talk about, then, I wonder? You’re starting to sound like Charles Bird.
wufnik
Sigh. So much nonsense, so little time. John, it’s distressing to see you falling into this trap of “let’s blame Wilson–or at least, impugn him enough so that no one believes there’s really an issue here.” All of the criticisms on Wilson’s character and integrity have been pretty well refuted, if anyone cares to look–wander over to Crooked Timber or the Sidney Blumenthal piece in Salon. Of course, this isn’t new. No one has bothered to check, that’s all–too much work, i guess. Easier to let Ken Mehlman define the debate, I guess.
Let’s, just once, pretend that Wilson is not the issue. I know it’s a strecth, but let’s try it. Do we still have anything to talk about, then, I wonder?
John Cole
When you read past this post, you can come back and apologize.
And if you think appearing with Chuck Schumer press conferences helps Wilson’s credibility and perceptions he is not partisan, we just drink different water and will nbever agree.
BTW- Even though Wilson has a definite right to be angry, to assert he is as pure as, well, something pure, is fanciful.
wufnik
Sigh. So much nonsense, so little time. John, it’s distressing to see you falling into this trap of “let’s blame Wilson–or at least, impugn him enough so that no one believes there’s really an issue here.” All of the criticisms on Wilson’s character and integrity have been pretty well refuted, if anyone cares to look–wander over to Crooked Timber or the Sidney Blumenthal piece in Salon. Of course, this isn’t new. No one has bothered to check, that’s all–too much work, i guess. Easier to let Ken Mehlman define the debate, I guess.
Let’s, just once, pretend that Wilson is not the issue. I know it’s a stretch, but let’s try it. Do we still have anything to talk about, then, I wonder?
wufnik
Sigh. So much nonsense, so little time. It’s distressing to see you falling into this trap of “let’s blame Wilson–or at least, impugn him enough so that no one believes there’s really an issue here.” All of the criticisms on Wilson’s character and integrity have been pretty well refuted, if anyone cares to look–wander over to Crooked Timber or the Sidney Blumenthal piece in Salon. Of course, this isn’t new. No one has bothered to check, that’s all–too much work, i guess. Let’s, just once, pretend that Wilson is not the issue. I know it’s a stretch, but let’s try it.
KC
While Wilson would probably be wise to consider how his appearances and who he’s associated with in them are perceived (or at the very least the ease in which those working hard to discredit him will be able to portray them), ultimately I think it has less to do with partisanship and more to do with Wilson’s personal justice agenda.
Were Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill partisan? Hardly, but once they tried to speak up after being abused by this administration they were given a second helping, this time harder and in public. So when politicians and media outlets came to them offering an outlet to be heard, being able to tell their side of the story overrode perception.
Wilson appears to be taking the same path. If you look at some of the language in his book and early quotes it’s quite apparent he’s locked in on Rove and co. and wants them to pay. To him the fact it’s Schumer is irrelevant, what matters to Wilson is that an elected official wants to see Rove get what Wilson feels he deserves.
With the power Rove weilds, conservatives in the public eye have 3 options: 1. Hammer away at the WH and RNC talking points (which clearly include a full assault on Wilson’s credibility and character) no matter how accurate (or at the very least cleverly worded) they may be and regardless of them potentially coming back to haunt them (see McClellan, Scott last 3 press gaggles and) 2. Stick your head in the sand, fingers in ears and hum loudly (Paging Dr. Frist) or 3. Stray from the reservation and risk suffering political retribution beyond anything Machiavelli could conceive. I’m thinking Wilson knows he’s not gonna get any love from this side of the fence.
Wilson and Rove are in a game and have the same agenda, public humiliation of their opponent. Wilson, far less skilled in this arena as his counterpart, is taking help from anywhere he can get it. Rove, it appears, is keeping in the periphery with his hands firmly on the levers and buttons of his machine. If this were on the board in Vegas, one would have to think money would firmly be on the man behind the curtain.
CaseyL
OK, John, *are* you saying only GOP pols are “non-partisan”? Or are you saying that all Dems are not merely partisan, but automatically lack all credibility; whereas, we must always give GOP pols the benefit of the doubt?
Because otherwise I cannot for the life of me imagine how appearing with Schumer makes Wilson “less credible.”
And I still don’t know who’s saying Joe Wilson is “pure as the driven snow.”
What I, at least, am saying is that Joe Wilson is muy hombre. Because – oh, let’s say it again, just because I want to:
Joe Wilson: “I made my bones facing [down] Saddam Hussein; Karl Rove made his bones playing political dirty tricks.”
People who actually prefer Rove to Wilson are pitiable. Just pitiable.
Jeff Medcalf
As opposed to stating how gleeful it would be to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House?
jon H
HH writes: “The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. ”
Those ‘experts’ are not telling the truth.
There is no clause specifying the length of time. It’s quite clear.
The law states its definitions:
John Cole
Charles Schumer is as partisan as it comes, and Joseph Wilsonk should, for now, limit his public appearances with im.
And yes, appearing with known partisan ‘operatives,’ to borrow aterm, does make him less credible when he tries to maintain he is non-partisan.
Whether you like it or not.
Steve
It’s moronic for anyone to think that if the prosecutor is still considering charges under the IIPA (which none of us knows one way or the other) he hasn’t bothered to run down the issue of whether she served outside the country in the last 5 years. I’m pretty sure he’s not leaving that issue for last.
Jon H
“And yes, appearing with known partisan ‘operatives,’ to borrow aterm, does make him less credible when he tries to maintain he is non-partisan.”
But you’re mistaking one kind of partisanship for another.
The GOP is clearly partisan on the side of burning CIA agents out of political pique.
Wilson is partisan on the other side.
If there were Republicans in office who had some integrity, I’m sure Wilson would be happy to have them by his side. There aren’t any.
And by the way, in spite of your desire to demote him, Schumer is an elected US Senator. If you want to see a mere ‘partisan operative’, aka toady, you’ll have to look at unelected scum like Mehlman, Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity, John Gibson, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, etc.
From where I sit, if anyone’s demeaning themselves by associating with partisan operatives, it’s the GOP and their supporters.
Defense Guy
According to an article in USA Today, she has not been a covert agent for 6 years.
Nash
John, I do not understand the logic of seeing someone who is *publically* defending themselves (even by attacking others) as being less credible because they are doing it loudly and frequently.
By your logic, Rove is more credible, because he is, simultaneous to Wilson’s public appearances, been having off-the-record meetings with various of the liberal media to defend himself and attack Wilson. John Gregory is just one reporter who has said this is going on. All during an “ongoing investigation” during which there cannot be any comments.
On its face, just for that difference alone, who is more credible? The one willing to take up the sword in the arena or the one who wants to throw spears from the lockerroom?
And if you want to come back with your usual bold lettered snark that we can’t tell the difference between the times when your are opinin’ vs. jes reportin’, save it.
Oh, and I lost track of my sheet, is Schumer *more* liberal than Edwards or is it less? Just checking, so we can see who it is that Wilson can credibly appear next to. Big Bird too PBS?
Jon H
“According to an article in USA Today, she has not been a covert agent for 6 years.”
USA Today was lied to by partisan operatives pretending to give independent analysis of the IIPA law.
The paper’s ‘experts’ claimed the law requires a long-term assignment. As I post above, the law has no such requirement. By the law, an agent would be covered if they walked over to Tijuana for a 15 minute undercover meeting with a contact.
Why would they tell that lie?
It’s telling that these political operative ‘experts’ chose to lie on such a precise point.
Steve
I’ll just repeat what I said.
It’s moronic for anyone to think that if the prosecutor is still considering charges under the IIPA (which none of us knows one way or the other) he hasn’t bothered to run down the issue of whether she served outside the country in the last 5 years. I’m pretty sure he’s not leaving that issue for last.
Jon H
A last point about the false “long assignment” claim by Toensing and the other person:
It would make absolutely no sense.
If a covert agent is going to make an undercover trip out of the US, it will frequently be done in order to meet with agents or sources who *are* long-term residents. And those people might be under surveillance. Identify the US-based agent and they can identify people he or she met with.
Out a short-trip agent and you out the long-assignment agents.
So outing an agent who only made short trips is still potentially quite damaging.
Doug
I don’t know why Wilson should care about the appearance of partisanship at this point. His partisanship or lack thereof would have been relevant at the time he published his opinion that Bush’s State of the Union yellowcake claims were nonsense.
After the White House came gunning for Wilson’s wife, there is absolutely no reason for Wilson to stay on the fence. At that point, I figure the White House has made him partisan.
Now, if someone wants to make the case that Wilson was too chummy with the Democrats prior to making the point that Bush’s State of the Union statement was false, that would be relevant.
Defense Guy
Jon H
Does that change the fact that the law states 5 years and her last overseas assignment was 6 years prior to her outing? Some lie.
Jon H
Defense Guy,
Let me make it plain.
She returned from her long-term assignment in Europe in 1997. USA Today also said that Plame did not have any further long-term assignments outside the country.
But USA Today did not say whether or not Plame took any short undercover trips between 1998 and 2003.
USA Today did print a lie that short trips would not qualify under the protection law. The fact that this specific distortion was offered by GOP partisans suggests to me that Plame probably did make some short undercover missions to meet with sources, or at least that the GOP is worried that she might have.
Jon H
“When Joseph Wilson appears at a podium with a known political operative, in this case Charles Schumer, it strikes directly at the dimension of character/trustworthiness.”
Since when was it a heinous crime to participate in a multi-party democracy?
Good lord, you’d think Schumer was, say, Duke Cunningham. Or Abramoff. Or Tom DeLay.
How many ethics charges has Schumer faced?
Sorry, John, it’s the height of absurdity to demand that Wilson act like a patsy while the GOP cuts loose with a PR campaign made up of so many lies and distortions it could have been scripted by satan himself.
Doug
With respect to the updated post, I don’t think it matters whether Wilson is nonpartisan, it only matters whether he was nonpartisan prior to the White House gunning for his wife.
I mean, he’d just look like a wanker if he was sitting the fence after that.
JG
Who cares if he’s partisan? His wife was outed as an agent. Wilsons political affiliation is relevant how? Nothing excuses what was done to his wife. Answer the question ‘why does a magician wear white gloves?’ and you’ll be well on your way to understanding why she was outed and why we are now discussing how her husband is a partisan hack.
John Cole
Jesus Flipping Cripes-
I didn’t say he COULDN’T do it, I said that it was going to undermine his credibillity, and it is going to make him harder to defend.
WHICH IT WILL.
I guess in the reality based community, the tenets of human communication as understood from Plato to date just don’t apply.
Jon H
Oh, and John, I think you vastly overrate what the general populace knows about Schumer.
The FOX audience might not think much of him, but then, they’re getting fed high-quality uncut GOP koolaid about Plame, so they’re a lost cause anyway.
I doubt many people would know anything about him.
Jon H
“I didn’t say he COULDN’T do it, I said that it was going to undermine his credibillity, and it is going to make him harder to defend.”
But this is based on the assumption that appearing with a Senator from the opposition party is inherently a bad thing.
John Cole
Jon- you inadvertantly support my point.
People who do not know anything about the Plame affair will see Wilson at a platform with Democrat Chuck Schumer using heated rhetoric to call for Republican Karl Rove’s head and draw the conclusion you don;t want them to have.
John Cole
Jon- You are wrong. I am taking my ball and going home. This isn’t about whether or not it is right or wrong to appear with a Democrat, it is about the appearance it makes.
JG
Defend him? Against who? Darrell? Against people trying to make him the story? Who cares, he’s only the story to add noise and make the story easier for the talk radio and FOX news crowd to get behind.
Jon H
“People who do not know anything about the Plame affair will see Wilson at a platform with Democrat Chuck Schumer using heated rhetoric to call for Republican Karl Rove’s head and draw the conclusion you don;t want them to have.”
No, they’ll see a guy whose wife, a CIA agent, was burned by the White House, standing with some Senator guy, using some harsh but justified rhetoric calling for an irresponsible national security risk to be fired.
They’ll wonder, “I have to go through crap at the airport for “security”, and this guy gets to out WMD specialist CIA agents?”
They’ll think “His wife’s a CIA agent? Like Alias? And there’s a traitor in the White House who stabbed her in the back? Damn straight the guy needs to be fired. That’s no way to support our troops.”
But for the most part they won’t think “Charles Schumer? Why, he’s evil incarnate. Fox News told me so.”
CaseyL
“I said that it was going to undermine his credibillity, and it is going to make him harder to defend.”
Undermine his credibility? With whom?: People who prefer Karl Rove?
Harder to defend? Against whom?: The likes of Karl Rove?
John, this just boggles my mind. Really.
Wilson has to dance oh so carefully and behave oh so above suspicion… he mustn’t be seen with Democratic politicians, who are by definition ‘partisan’ in a bad way … whereas GOP politicians are either ‘non-partisan’ by definition, or only partisan in a good way.
Have I got that right?
And are you claiming that this perception is shared by all Americans? Or only by the only ones who count (i.e., members of the GOP)?
John Cole
OK- The nightly news is on in 20 minutes. I would be willing to bet this is framed in the following narrative:
“Republicans rallied to support Rove, while meanwhile Democrats held a press conference with Charles Wilson to…”
– cue film of Wilson and Schumer and flaring nostrils-
And then I laugh, because an absolutely spot-on observation has been treated as if I am smearing Wilson.
John Cole
When the whole debate has been framed that attacking Wilson’s credibility is specious on the grounds that he is non-partisan, it is not wise for him to appear as what may be perceived as partisan maneuvering.
This has nothing to do with whether or not I think Republicans are all non-partisan and Democrats are evil partisans. I think the partisan lines have been pretty clearly drawn in this debate.
Jon H
“And then I laugh, because an absolutely spot-on observation has been treated as if I am smearing Wilson.”
Here’s a clue John: everyone in the country does not have the same concept of “Charles Schumer” that you do.
As a result, they aren’t going to receive the subtexts that you get from such a scene.
It’s the same error as when Democrats thought, “Surely everyone else sees Bush as the pathetic dishonest turd he so clearly is, right? There’s no way he’ll be elected.”
JG
Round and round we go discussing whether or not Wilson is partisan. Doesn’t matter. He’s not the story. This is exactly wha tthe White House wants. Turn this into a right vs left issue and let the facts slowly sail away.
waddayaknow
C’mon John, this comment… “…When Joseph Wilson appears at a podium with a known political operative, in this case Charles Schumer, it strikes directly at the dimension of character/trustworthiness.”
Let’s see about turning that thought around and examining the platoon of “…known political operative(s)…” who are currently trying to work the spin on Faux. It seems that almost every RNC jabbering political lapdog is more than eager to go to the mat for the Roveroid.
IMHO, the spinsters are working overtime to make Wilson the issue and direct attention away from Wilson’s primary issue, that “Georgie Porgie fixed a war, sent our kids to die, and lied some more, now Georgie Porgie would have us thing that Roveroids poop pile don’t stink.”
For the record, I don’t support any side politically, but hold both in distain and almost absolute distrust. But a lie, is a lie, is a lie and the RNC machine was able to burn Clinton for years with impunity and it is about time for the worm to turn and for our fellow Americans to get to know how ugly the whole business is.
Jon H
“When the whole debate has been framed that attacking Wilson’s credibility is specious on the grounds that he is non-partisan, it is not wise for him to appear as what may be perceived as partisan maneuvering.”
The only period in which he needs to have been non-partisan was when he took the trip in 2002.
It’s absurd to criticize a man for becoming partisan, when he and his family have been treated so badly by the GOP. If he’s partisan now, it’s because they’ve earned his enmity.
Bernard Yomtov
This is infuriating.
First of all, it’s not about Wilson except to the extent Republican smear-meisters are making it so.
Second, since he is being attacked, do you expect him not to fight back? And if it is OK to fight his attackers, said Republican smear-meisters, how does he do it without seeming partisan. You know what, I bet Wilson would be thrilled to appear with a Republican Senator who would support him. Who do you think would do it?
Third, Schumer is a US Senator. He is no more or less a “political operative” than the other 99 senators. But if association with political operatives calls one’s character into question what does Bush’s association with Rove say about him?
Darrell
I love how you leftie kooks are so obsessed that you constantly bring up my name in threads where I don’t even post. This happens ALL THE TIME. You loons are *owned* by me. I’m in your head. You wake up in the middle of the night having peeed the bed fretting over my name. Why not put an end to all your pain and your ‘visions’ by drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels, then put the gunbarrel in your mouth and squeeze the trigger.. loons, it’s easy.. don’t be afraid, just do it
John Cole
Jon H- Points for not listening. No points for continuing to not get it.
I AGREE THAT IS WHAT MATTERS, BUT WHEN WILSON HIMSELF AIDS THE GOP BY APPEARING AT DEMOCRATIC PRESS CONFERENCES, IT ADDS TO THE PERCEPTION THE GOP WANTS THIS TO BE, THAT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER INSIDE THE BELTWAY.
Did you hear me saying anything about Wilson appearing by himself on TODAY? Short Answer- NO. Long answer- NO. Even longer answer- Stil, no.
But when he appears at a dias with a Democrat, he undercuts his own credibility. At some point you guys are going to realize their is a difference between persuasion, perception, and media manipulation.
Wanna bet that Wilson appearing with Schumer will not be a standard GOP talking point in the future? Wanna bet about my prediction of the nightly news coverage?
Jon H
“I’m in your head. You wake up in the middle of the night having peeed the bed fretting over my name.”
Yeah, but in our heads you look like the guys from Newhart. So it ain’t nothing to brag about.
Tulie
I agree with Mr. Yomtov on this one. Expecting someone to appear “nonpartisan” when thay have landed in the middle of a partisan political sh*tstorm is flat ridiculous.
John Cole
By appearing on the TODAY show alone. HE does not help his cause by appearing at Democratic press conferences. Again- you guys are not listening. I have never said he can;t defend hismelf, he should just do it WISELY.
Jon H
“By appearing on the TODAY show alone.”
In which case he eventually ends up looking like a sad sack without any support, and probably a crank.
The natural place to seek support is from politicians. Because the GOP is certain to fight against him in the Congress.
Who do you suggest he seek support from, given that everyone in the GOP has put their nuts in a blind trust overseen by Rove?
The Libertarian party? The Greens?
Darrell
I think it’s been pretty clearly demonstrated that Wilson, a registered Democrat, is a flamethrowing partisan hack. Those few in the ‘swing vote’ middle who haven’t already come to this realization, will have it pushed in their face by seeing Wilson at a Democrat press conference with Chuckie Schumer screaming for Karl Rove’s head before any established finding of guilt. So if they didn’t know before that Wilson is a hack, they’ll surely see it now
John Cole
And I am 2 for 2 right now. NBC news did not show the clip, but described the days events as “another day of partisan warfare, with Democrats introducing legislation to strip Rove of his securit clearnace, while Republicans…”
And ABC news framed it almost exactly as I stated, throwing in the Bush Walk with Rove to the helicopter preceded by the Wilson/Schumer press appearance.”
Wanna argue some more on whether or not this is helping Wilson’s non-partisan creds?
I understand his desire to fight, but fight smart. Notwithstanding the general naive desire here in the comments to pretend that the general public just views Democratic Senators as Senators and Repubican Senators as just Senators, the hyper-partisanship of the current political arena makes framing everything, and I will say it one more time:
Joseph Wilson appearing at press conferences with Democrats does not aid his cause.
In fact, it plays right into the narrative the Republicans want, that this is nothign more than partisan nastiness. I am done with this topic.
JG
I was pointing out that you are a crackpot. If you think that means you’re in my head then you’ve just confirmed you’re a crackpot. Have fun lovin yourself.
JG
The ‘Wilson as sideshow’ topic or have they got you to give up on the Plame topic?
Darrell
Except Joe Wilson didn’t simply “land” in the middle of the sh*tstorm.. he was the architect and grand ringleader of the sh*tstorm. 30+ appearances on talk shows, op-eds, providing fodder to other reporters and editorialists like Pincus, book deal, etc.
His partisan attacks, at least two of which have been proven to be lies (others mistatments of fact being “literary flair”).. this is what backed the Bush administration into a corner, forcing them to fight back. And no, outing of a covert agent is not right, but it has not at all been established that anyone in the Bush admin actually did out Valerie Plame.
Nope, Wilson didn’t just ‘land’ there he chose to place himself front and center in the sh*tstorm of his creation
HH
Extra! Extra! Get your right-wing talking point slanders of Joe Wilson here!
HH
Don’t ask Steve to remember anything for you.
Stormy70
This thread is very entertaining. Wilson, now with 2/3 more partisan hackery.
John Cole
Just this little debate in the comments. It reminds me of a hypothetical patient being told by a doctor they have cancer:
“But it isn’t fair!”
“You have cancer.”
“But that isn’t right!”
“You have cancer.”
“But I don’t want to believe that!”
“You have cancer.”
“But I don’t like that!”
“You have cancer.”
“You are not being fair!”
“Fuck it. You are going to live to be 100. Leave me alone.”
Don
“His partisan attacks, at least two of which have been proven to be lies (others mistatments of fact being “literary flair”).. this is what backed the Bush administration into a corner, forcing them to fight back”
Yeah, why fight back with truth (assuming your position that Wilson was a liar) when you can instead go after someone’s family? Clearly they had no choice.
Bob
Ah, treason at the top!
When Rove blew Plame’s cover he blew up the CIA front company that was up to its eyeballs in the energy business in the Mideast and Central Asia. That didn’t just hurt Plame’s career path, it put a whole shitload of agents and assets overseas in jeopardy. It blew all the work that Brewster-Jennings has done over the last two decades to track loose nukes and follow any potential overseas oil industry ass-fucking intended to adversely affect our energy. All to rat-fuck someone who pointed out that the yellowcake story was bogus. Hey, that got their war, but Rove had to make it personal, and this may finally be too much.
When you get the CIA so riled up that they go to the Justice Department for charges, the least of your worries is whether you have an apppointment with Pat Fitzpatrick. Expect Watergate II to begin soon.
And remember, if you look at Plame’s exposure and the behavior of Scooter and the Iraq group before and after, exposing Plame’s covert cover is the least of the possible charges. T-R-E-A-S-O-N.
ps, does anyone think that a dolt like Bush, in an hour-long interview with a shark like Fitzgerald, didn’t commit perjury at least once?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. May they all find a suitable replacement for Jeff Gannon behind bars.
JG
By outing a CIA agent? This isn’t treason because Wilson had the nerve to write an op-ed saying the administrations claims about Niger were unfounded?
Why would an eight foot tall wookie want to live on a planet with two foot tall ewoks. That.Doesn’t.Make.Sense.
Juliette
Now I know that I’m not alone, John. It’s comforting.
Darrell
Has it been established that ANYONE in the administration is guilty of outing his wife? No? but hey, don’t let that stop you from repeating your lies though
JG
Yes. It was Rove. His lawyer even admitted it. i thought you were more concerned with saying what Rove did wasn’t a crime. Now are you saying he didn’t do anything?
db
JC:
A’ frickin’-men
And any Democrat who wants this to gain/retain traction should be pissed as hell that Wilson is doing this. If he wants the cameras, he should have teamed up with someone other than Schumer (like McCain, Nelson, anybody with an (R) next to their name. But the best strategy would have been to remain quiet and “speak only when spoken to”. It’s amazing how that quickly that lesson from when we were five years old is forgotten and how well it would serve some people today.
Kimmitt
Again, national security is now a partisan value, and I see no reason for Mr. Wilson not to acknowledge this fact.
ppgaz
I must join a chorus here. ( tap tap tap)
Who said Wilson was, or wanted to be seen as, non-partisan?
For that matter, why should anyone, in the current state of affairs, want to be non-partisan?
If the government types who like to paint themselves with nonpartisanship are so sincere, then why have they turned the War on Terror into a partisan issue? Because they don’t give a fig about nonpartisanship, they care about themselves and their relentless self-justification.
Non-partisanhip, like patriotism, like concern for the troops, like “values” ….. all just marketing opportunities to these potatoheads.
Fuck them.
JG
If they paint him as partisan then they no longer have to defend themselves against his charges. Johns right that by being seen with Schumer he’s made himself easier for the right to dismiss or blow off. But this still isn’t the issue we should be talking about.
Pudentilla
Um, I thought that it was Karl Rove’s credibility and criminality that was in question. Ooops, sorry, that old reality based paradigm keeps messing with my sense of ethical propriety. (pause to drink kool-aid). After Rove’s previous public assertions that he was not a source for the Plame outing have been rather thoroughly proven to be utter lies, I think I’ll question Wilson’s credibility. Love the kool-aid.
ppgaz
There seems to be a theme, recently, where we decry the language of a member of the opposition, or, even sillier, wring hands about who somebody appeared with — A United States Senator, for crissakes. Don’t want to be seen with the wrong damned Senator! Oooooh, scary!
Give me a break. We’re in opposition to a bunch of thugs who tell any lie, create any distortion, use any language they like to achieve their ends …. and WE’RE supposed to be “careful” about what we say, or who we appear with?
Sorry, but that’s just bullshit.
As for Wilson, he’s a free citizen of the country. He can say what he thinks, and appear where he likes. Which is exactly why the Evil Potatoheads were out to get him …. because he had the balls to do just that.
eileen from OH
I think there are different “credibilities” involved. The first pertains to what he reported in regard to Niger. The only thing way that credibility could be questioned was if what he reported was incorrect. And the simple fact that the 16 words were acknowledged as wrong confirms that he was correct.
Not being able to destroy that “credibility” the Republicans went for another – how the trip came about. Destroy that and you can destroy the results. He hurt that credibility somewhat when it was revealed that AFTER he said his wife wasn’t involved at all, it was revealed that she WAS – if only tangentially. He had to explain that and his version has been confirmed, but any time you have to do that you lose points, credibility-wise.
The third “credibility” is now – in how he handles the Republican talking points. But the #1 Big Daddy of those talking points is that you can’t believe ANYTHING he says because it’s just a smear of Rove by a partisan hack. That’s the very first thing that those who are attacking him say, and say, and say again. In this area, I must agree with John. In fending off a talking point that says “you’re just a partisan” the last thing you want to do is APPEAR to be a partisan. Because it basically confirms the #1 talking point of your attackers. And then you have to go into the “he worked for Bush I who loved him, and he votes Republican, blah-blah-blah” defensive mode.
I have followed this thing like white on rice and I believe Wilson is emminently credible. But perception trumps reality more times than not. I would have much preferred if Wilson would have steered clear of politicians and handled this himself. Or even found a nice Republican to stick up for him. (God, I’ve got the vapors just writing that.)
eileen from OH
Jon H
“In fending off a talking point that says “you’re just a partisan” the last thing you want to do is APPEAR to be a partisan.”
The thing is, the people saying Wilson is a partisan are the same people who said McCain was not a conservative and was probably a VietCong mole, and all the rest of it.
And, as always, the media laps it up and follows the GOP talking points slavishly.
It doesn’t matter what your conservative credentials are. If you oppose Bush, you will be slandered and painted as disgruntled, liberal, pacifist, partisan, whatever. McCain wasn’t immune. Chuck Hagel got a round of this recently.
Nothing Wilson would do would decrease the GOP ranting about partisanship. Except giving up and saying something that would take heat off of Bush and Rove. Any opposition to Bush is partisan, according to the GOP.
All that matters to the GOP is the squelching of dissent and holding onto power. That’s all they stand for now.
Given that Wilson is going to get the same treatment no matter what he does, he might as well use what resources are available to him and make the best case he can.
After all, partisans are often right.
Nash
We have a winner!
Best strawman of the thread:
“When the whole debate has been framed that attacking Wilson’s credibility is specious on the grounds that he is non-partisan,”
Yep, that’s what the whole freakin debate has been framed as, John. Yep, sure.
John Cole
Do you even watch the news?
The issue is most certainly being framed as a partisan issue, with Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other. At issue, by design, is that Wilson is not credible andthat he is just a partisan hack. How many times have you seen people throw out that Wilson was a Kerry supporter. How many times have you seen his donations tossed out?
Did you read the RNC talking points? There most certainly is an attempt to shift the debate from one of who leaked the name to this is nothing more than the usual partisan nastiness.
My God. It is so clear what is happening. I give up.
p.lukasiak
When Joseph Wilson appears at a podium with a known political operative, in this case Charles Schumer, it strikes directly at the dimension of character/trustworthiness.
um….I guess it has to be pointed out to you that Rove showed up seated behind Bush (a known political operative) yesterday.
As a diplomat, Wilson served both GOP and Dem Presidents, and received the highest possible praise from GHW Bush. The President’s Chief political advisor outed his wife for political gain — and the entire GOP establishment acted like there was nothing wrong, while the Democratic establishment (and most Americans) were appropriately outraged.
Joe Wilson is an American hero — he was in Baghdad when he protected the lives of Americans living there when Saddam threatened them, and he was when he published his NY Times piece. Wilson has every right to appear with the Democrats are willing to embrace this hero, while GOP act as if he’s radioactive because Karl Rove was the scumbag behind the outing of Wilson’s wife.
John Cole
And on the ABC news, Rove was shown walking to a helicopter with Bush right after the clip of Schumer with Wilson was shown, which HELPS TO FRAME THIS AS A REPUBLICAN v. DEMOCRAT ISSUE.
Egads, this is maddening.
Randolph Fritz
“Charles Schumer is as partisan as it comes, and Joseph Wilson should, for now, limit his public appearances with him.”
John, it doesn’t matter. Wilson’s already had buckets of s..t dumped on him. His appearing with Schumer isn’t going to make any difference one way or the other.
Nash
So, when you said you give up, you didn’t really mean that, right? You are still going to try to redeem us, the terminally blind and stupid, aren’t you?
CaseyL
John, I’d buy your claim that it’s all about framing, and Wilson’s a victim of framing, if you hadn’t yourself said he lost credibility with you because he had Schumer by his side.
You said he lost credibility with you. Not with some hypothetical “heartland of America voter,” not with the media types who fawn on the GOP – but with you.
It’s not about the framing. It’s about who’s buying the frame.
You’re buying the frame.
You have bought the frame that Rove’s outing of a CIA agent is excusable because Joe Wilson wrote an OpEd in the NYT that angered the Bush Admin.
You have bought the frame that all Democrats, and only Democrats, are “partisan.”
They’re peddling toxic waste, John. Why are you buying it?
Kimmitt
John, there is no way on God’s green earth that this will not be framed as a partisan issue. The media is incapable of any other frame. The Republican Party is incapable of any other frame, and the media reports whatever frame the GOP puts forth as fact. There is no possible way that this will be framed as an issue of good governance or the excesses of the Bush Administration. It is just not possible. Ranting about how someone is enabling the absolutely inevitable is foolishness. You can’t blame Wilson for what he cannot possibly slow down, much less stop.
Nash
One last thing, John. If you cannot see how your condescending attitude is identical to the one you excoriate Wolcott for, well, hell Jeb, I don’t even want to know you.
ppgaz
Most Americans have no idea who Chuck Schumer is.
A lot of Americans have no idea who Karl Rove is.
Let’s not get carried away here. How many people watch Fox news every night? Divide by 280 million. You get the idea.
My scan of the charts out there leads me to believe that maybe 1% of the population watches cable news in prime time.
Or, if you prefer, 99% of the population does not watch it.
Rove could appear on the podium with Satan (his cousin) and most people would have no clue.
Jess
John,
Your argument would have made sense once upon a time in semi-rational world where people in politics were not routinely punished for doing the right thing. But now, according to the logic of game theory (the prisoners’ dilemma in particular), it just doen’t make sense for enemies of the Bush administration to tip-toe around the beast anymore. The best bet for is for all those in the opposition–moderate conservatives, Independents, Democrats, etc.–is to unite and fight, and quite worrying about appearing partisan, shrill, angry, traitorous, etc. There’s really no other option anymore.
Bob
Framed as a Democrat v. Republican issue. And the Republicans are the ones with Rove, the pudge who exposed a CIA agent. John, don’t worry about Wilson and Schumer, worry about Bush publicly holding hands with the Ratfucker’s student.
John Cole
Where? Where? I said that it decreases his credibility, because it WILL. When the average Joe watches the telkevision and sees him up there with Schumer, and Bush and Rove together, they are going to think it is nothing more than a silly partisan debate. Which is what the GOP wants, as they devoted damned near a third of their talking points to Wilson’s support of Kerry and his past ties to Democrats.
Now, I don’t think that Wilson is the saviour to the universe, but I don’t think anything he did or said warrants administration officals outing undercover CIA agents. How is that for a frame I am buying into?
I apologize for being condescending, but I get a little tired sometimes of uber-sanctimonious emails and comments claiming I am doing something other than I am doing. When I read 25 posts from people claiming I am ‘trashing Wilson,’ or ‘smearing Wilson,’ or ‘buying into the talking points,’ it pushes me over the damned edge.
Particularly when all I said was that JOSEPH WILSON DOES NOT HELP HIMSELF BY APPEARING WITH PARTISAN DEMOCRATS.
I didn’t say he was morally wrong for doing it. I can wholly understand why he IS doing it. Hell, I didn’t even say he was a partisan Democrat. I said that what he does feeds the narrative the GOP wants- that he is a partisan hell bent on getting Bush. Thus, appearing at a news conference when Chuck Schumer launches tirades just like his one today VALIDATES THE GOP TALKING POINTS.
It not only isn’t smart, it is stupid. I can understand Wilson’s urge to fight back, but putting himself in the trenches like this does nothing to aid the cause he is fighting for. That is what I said, and watching the coverage of the news, reading that blubbering idiots Limbaugh’s take, and, I am sure, by tomorrow, Powerline and everyone else will be using his appearance as proof he is a partisan shill.
And, if all this, and the talking points, and the discussion of how the dimensions of source credibility work still doesn’t convince you, check out point ten in the GOP BLOG’s Joe Wilson’s Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements:
John Cole
And, btw- I don;t know where this stuff about me saying it is ok for the GOP being partisan is ok, but it is not acceptable for Democrats to be partisan.
That is just projection or something. If anything, I am embarassed by the partisan nature this blog took for several years.
Jess
John,
I understand what you’re trying to say, but the GOP blog you cite suggests that the others are correct in pointing out that Wilson would be painted a partisan hack no matter what he did, so he might as well take advantage of the Dem’s support. This is like fighting terrorism–appeasement doesn’t work. Being resonable and fair doesn’t work. Being prudent without being bold doesn’t work. Wilson will alienate some people, but it’s time to take a united stand against the hostile takeover of the GOP.
John Cole
Look, if your attitude is it doesn’t matter, and that Wilson might as well let himself be framed as a Democrat and a partisan, that is one thing.
But that is quite different from saying that appearing with Schumer won’t have an impact on whether or not he is viewed as a partisan.
I think part of what is rankling people here is they are confusing how source credibility works. Wilson won’t become overall less credible because he associated with Democrats and Democrats are by nature untrustworthy. That isn’t what I am saying at all. If people think what I am saying is that Democrats are not credible, so being seen with Democrats reduce his credibility, that is not what I am saying at all. I can understand why that would piss people off.
What I am saying is that Wilson is being framed by himself and others (whether he is or not is irelevant) as a non-partisan. Republicans want people to believe he is a partisan Democrat. By appearing with a Democrat in an appearance like the one today with Schumer, he affirms the GOP narrative.
It will reduce his credibility in the eyes of some, because they thought he was just a straight-shooter who had been wronged, and now all of a sudden they will buy into the GOP talking points.
Again, if your attitude is that it matters not at this point, that is something completely different.
Doug
As someone posted above, that frame is inevitable. I’m a little surprised that Hurricane Dennis wasn’t reported as a Republican v. Democrat issue. “Attacking the Red States: Is Hurricane Dennis a John Kerry supporter?”
Novak: Hurricane Dennis, if that’s even its real name, is attacking only states that went for George W. Bush. That can’t be a coincidence. Just look, the word Hurricane comes from ‘Hurican’, the Carib god of evil which has its roots in a name from Mayan folklore, Hurakan. That means Dennis is an immigrant, and we all know the Democrats are soft on immigrants. Furthermore, Dennis will be dumping a lot of water on the Red States. You know, the French bottle water. And finally, Dennis blew over a Ten Commandments monument in Alabama. I’ll bet you it’s a card carrying member of the ACLU.
Then we’d have 24/7 coverage of Fox, MSNBC, and CNN with “discussion panels” shouting at each other “Dennis: Impartial Tropical Storm or Democrat?” Obviously the Wall Street Journal would weigh in on the side of Democrat. And then, we’d have a clip of Senator Schumer out in the storm. Well, that’d just ice it. Dennis is a Democrat. But, all the hand waving wouldn’t mean a thing. Trailer parks would still be in ruins, homes would be flooded, Niger still wouldn’t be selling yellowcake to Iraq, despite Bush’s State of the Union claims, and Rove would still be a repugnant schmuck who outed a CIA agent for no better reason than to get back at her husband who was telling unpleasant truths about Rove’s boss.
CaseyL
John, the day those RW blogs you cite look at anything except from a Bush Uber Alles point of view will be the day that Hell holds Mass.
They’ve already decided Wilson’s a liar. Hell, they’ve already decided Rove’s a *hero* for outing Plame.
Wilson could hold a press conference with Moses, Jesus, and Abraham Lincoln at his side and the GOP and its sycophants in the media and in blogdom would *still* stick to their spin.
They’re goners. They’ve sold their souls and their country, for cheap. Their opinions are worthless. Useful, maybe; in the way apparatchniks are useful. But worthless by any other measure.
I also think – hope, pray, whatever – that the spin isn’t going to work very well for them anymore. The American people aren’t buying Bush like they used to. He’s in negative terrority in every poll: even the WSJ’s poll couldn’t make his numbers look good. And that’s despite the Bush Admin’s lock on “message” and despite the news media’s subservience to that message.
Imagine how bad Bush’s standing would be if we had a news media worth the name. (Well, for onesies, he probably would not have won in November.)
John Cole
But you don’t give the undecideds out there an excuse to buy into that plot line… While this has overtaken the blogospehere, the beltway, and those in the media, this is not that big of an issue- YET.
IF casual viewers just think this is another partisan fight, they will tune out.
ppgaz
While that may be arguable (I’ve already argued against that view, but anyway …) …..
Why is this story turning into Wilson, and what helps Wilson?
The Plame/Rove story is not about Wilson.
It’s about Rove. Wilson is a bystander.
I don’t get it.
John Cole
The REAL story isn’t and shouldn’t be, which is another reason to aovid all this…
Doug
Well, I certainly get your point John, but I respectfully disagree. I just don’t think it works that way. I don’t think honest media and fair-minded viewers are going to penalize Wilson for becoming partisan after the White House started coming after him.
And I think the dishonest, disingenuous, and/or lazy media would just use something else to create the Republican versus Democrat frame they use for every other story. There will be no fact checking so the real partisan footsoldiers (i.e. not Wilson) who travel the media circuit can just make shit up if need be.
Jess
John,
you’re arguing pragmatic reality over the way things SHOULD be, and I agree with your intentions in this, but at this point the pragmatic reality is that Bush supporters are in the minority now–he and his cohorts have locked out too many Americans and are now barricaded in their besieged fortress. Now the pragmatic and realistic thing for moderates and liberals to do is to reclaim our place in the political landscape after too many years of being pushed to the margins.
Pudentilla
Looks like Rove was one of Novak‘s sources as well. That’s odd. I thought Wilson’s credibility was at issue. (pause to drink kool-aid). Whose credibility shall we attack? Hmmm’, let’s give Shumer a rest and blame Hillary for this.
Pudentilla
Looks like Rove was one of Novak‘s sources as well. That’s odd. I thought Wilson’s credibility was at issue. (pause to drink kool-aid). Whose credibility shall we attack? Hmmm’, let’s give Shumer a rest and blame Hillary for this.
Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet)
John:
I agree with you. Only three “juries” matter now on this affair:
(a)The Grand Jury, which will be solely influenced by Fitzgerald and his prosecutors. The Grand Jury will either indict someone or it won’t. The little conference today will have no effect whatever on this jury. I predict that Rove will not be indicted;
(b)The President of the United States. As with (a), the conference today will have no effect on him, either. I believe W will stick with Rove unless he is indicted;
(c) All Members of Congress and Senators who are running next year. I agree with you, John, that Wilson’s appearance with Sen. Schumer will have a negative effect on this third “jury”. The majority of “true believers” like those who have commented on this string will vote for the democratic ticket next year because they already know in their heart that Rove is a no good SOB. But with swing voters and “true believers” on the other side, by appearing with someone like Schumer who is a polarizing political figure, and a clear advocate for the left side of the spectrum, Wilson’s cause loses appeal. It appears to be a political spat. Not a matter of “justice”.
Anything that takes away from Wilson’s neutrality or bi-partisanship – – being a good soldier that fought the good fight for his country — takes away from his appeal to this third “jury”. For this reason, I predict this will have little effect on the Congressional election.
HH
Read that again, Sherlock. It appears that the Novak conversation took place before the Cooper conversation, not the other way around as we were told, and Rove heard the name from Novak (and originally heard about Plame minus the name from another reporter), not the other way around as we were told. This also all but confirms that the first person who spoke to Novak was indeed “not a partisan gunslinger.”
Sinequanon
Wilson is seen together with Schumer on a stage with a “known political operative.” (basically it could have been my 98 year old Democratic voting grandma)
Bush hangs with Rove,a “known political operative, character assassin, and alternate reality architect” all the time, they are in each others pockets.
Whose credibiility do you think, by comparison, might be hurt for the worst?
By the By: I am enjoying watching your analysis of the facts i.e. Rove-Plame-Wilson. Interesting. Reminds me of being in mediation hearings.
elf
ok, so Wilson appeared w/the Senator who introduced legislation specifically aimed at an act commited which has now revealed National Security secrets.
And yes, I agree the pundit spin is :
ALL Partisan ALL the Time…film at ten
What Republican senator has been willing to address this issue publicly with the intent of protecting ANY member of the CIA present or retired who has worked to protect the interests of this country? Just which Republican has had the spine to exclaim the outrage of the fact that not just one but many operatives lives may have been compromised by this.
Which Republican official is talking openly about the fact that a CIA operation has now been exposed, the front company for that operation is now exposed. And now it is quite possible everything Mrs.Joe Wilson worked for is now down the tubes?
So I want to know why wouldn’t Joe Wilson appear with the elected official willing to address this publicly irregardless of his own “sanctitiy”?
Not trying to be specifically snarky at you because you raise a VERY relevant point:
The public is constantly being primed to only look at “PRESENTATION”
But I would hope most of us would at least attempt to see the Big picture here.
Does anyone remember the hearing a couple years back where many former CIA agents were asked questions about this?
Do you remember how pissed off they were?
How about current CIA agents, covert or otherwise?
Do you suppose any of them are pissed off about this even tho Goss has done his best to eliminate any unwilling to drink the kool-aid?
I would hope so, cuz you can bet your ass I would be plenty pissed.
Defense Guy
That is right on the money and why your point was so dead on. What many may fail to understand is that the casual viewers represent the overwhelming majority in this country. If it appears to be more of the same, the public will see it as such.
I am a Republican, but say let the chips fall where they may so long as it doesn’t turn into a witch hunt and so long as the legal process is alowed to run it’s course.
Kimmitt
Here’s the thing — it either will appear to be more of the same, or it won’t. Either folks will buy the spin or they’ll realize that there have been an awful lot of scandals which have been painted as he-said/she-said and start paying serious attention. Joseph Wilson has nothing to do with this; it has to do with whether or not the sheer quantity of Bush Administration wrongdoing is enough to plow past the media’s incapacity to examine the veracity of claims.