Looks like the Joe and Valerie Wilson Show hit another dead end today:
WASHINGTON, Aug 12 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday dismissed former CIA analyst Valerie Plame’s lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney and several former Bush administration officials for disclosing her identity to the public.
The Court of Appeals in Washington dealt another setback to the former spy, who has said her career was destroyed when officials blew her cover in 2003 to retaliate against her husband, Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.
But it was Joe and Valerie who destroyed her CIA career by exploiting the opportunity she got him through her employment to try to publicly undermine the President’s case for war against a legitimate enemy. They doubled down on their stupidity with their disloyal liberal crap —and it’s gotten them nothing but the good opinion of people whose judgement isn’t worth the third bar piss of the night. People like the lunatic Larry Johnson and the anti-car tosser Duncan Black.
Guess it’s off to Hef’s mansion now, eh?
John Hinderaker observes:
Every NIE is, by definition, supposed to represent a “consensus” of all of the intelligence agencies. Yet those who actually write the report obviously exercise great influence, and when the “consensus” of seventeen agencies does a 180-degree U-turn, it is reasonable to shine a spotlight on the authors.
This is the same thinking that invited the scrutiny of Robert Novak and others into the backstory of Joe Wilson’s notorious excretions in the New York Times. Who, exactly, is writing this stuff is of great interest to all and I think more should be said about it.
Remember Alger Hiss? He was exactly who Richard Nixon said he was.
ABC News’ Jonathan Karl writes:
On Nov. 2, 2005, the Washington Post detailed the CIA’s secret prison program known as “black sites.” It was November 2005 that the CIA destroyed the tapes.
[Director of Central Intelligence Michael] Hayden said the tapes were destroyed because “they were no longer of intelligence value” and that they posed “a serious security risk” because if leaked, they’d reveal the identity of covert CIA agents.
That was probably a good move for Hayden, considering that nothing exists for Big Media anymore if it cannot be seen and, thereby, believed. And when there’s an agenda to be pushed, the anonymous leak of such a video would have been inevitable. But, in response to Hayden’s rationale, the old liberal stalwart Ted Kennedy observed:
“That excuse won’t wash … How is it possible that the director of the CIA has so little faith in his own agency?”
That’s some glib bidness, Teddy. Have you already forgotten George Tenet’s many failures? How about farming out the intell gathering to the loudmouthed spouse of a supposedly undercover agent? How about nutjobs like Michael Scheuer and the other shit-stirrers dropping the dime to whichever Big Media organ is ready to go with their latest [whistleblowing]?
Do the leakers know when to stop?
John Dean’s telling Josh Marshall that (emphasis mine):
Nixon was under deep suspicion of covering up the true facts relating to the bungled break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate, not to mention widespread rumors that he had engaged in abuses of power and corrupt campaign practices. Today, Bush is under even deeper suspicion for activities far more serious than anything Nixon engaged in for there is evidence Bush has abused the laws of war, violated treaties, and ordered (or approved) the use of torture and political renditions, which are war crimes.
In dwelling on their unquestionable fetishes for talking about torture and all the Constitution-trampling and Reichstag-burnings going on in Amerikkka, the anti-American Left cannot meet the demands of the rhetoric because they have already shot their wad —morally, logically, and linguistically. They cannot top themselves. They cannot plausibly out-Nixon Nixon with Bush —but damned if John Dean won’t try! After all, Americans have long been taught that Nixon is the epitome and definition of the super-corrupt warmonger and Imperial President. I can’t imagine how this sell-out could have found himself trying to rehabilitate Nixon by comparison. Nixon must now no longer be the ”war criminal” he always has been to the Democrats because, fancifully, Bush the Younger is an even worse one.
These Leftists fall into such rhetorical outhouses because they have too little character to drop the cudgels they wrongly believe have gotten them this far. These issues they fetishize —Valerie Ghraib, Abu Plame, Gitmo, “warrantless wiretaps” — are only fundraising and propaganda tools. That needs to be understood absolutely. These filthy cowards will smear anybody with any lie they can think of if they have some partisan advantage to gain from it. They believe they won 2006 that way —and they think they’ve got the Bush Administration saddled with the worst reputation in the history of this country. But just look at what they’re doing! They’re losing in both houses of the Congress to someone they say is a war criminal! These heroes of the Mandate of 2006 must be wretched liars to persist with their worthless condemnations if they can’t even defeat Bush.
Never mind that other Presidents besides Bush have authorized torture and rendition and whatever else. There’re elections and headlines and taxpayers’ money to be won! These historically ignorant hypocrites on the anti-Bush Left have got a lot of extra [outrage] and [dissent] and [moral revulsion] to burn, but don’t go without pants just yet, folks! The truth will hunt you down.
Our country is, in fact, becoming burdened by a Leftist element that believes in nothing but hatred, contrarianism, anarchy, and degeneracy. Every now and then, someone like John Dean will come along and whore himself out to that sentiment because he’s doing penance. But the people at that end of the spectrum don’t really believe in what America stands for. They just want to tear things down and spread ignorance.
Y’know, Dr. Black, you wouldn’t have to ban me if you just had a better grade of groupie. Ones that don’t feed off of each other in a pathetic cycle of consumption and regurgitation of hatred for The Other. But these clowns? Their purpose is to confirm to anyone who happens by your site that the state of mindless rejectionism and anti-Americanism among the Left today is fully pathological. Dissent in your little opium den? Not a chance. There’s not a half-dozen legitimate thinkers among you.
See you next Wednesday.
Larry Johnson, the ex-Company man who’s cashing in on his resume with the anti-Bush Left on a Plame-like scale, is so mad at New York Times columnist David Brooks that he has published a photograph of a very conspicuous object in front of Brooks’ residence —a residence which Johnson makes sure you understand is literally in his own neighborhood.
As I told Johnson, if I were Brooks, I would take that as a threat.
UPDATE: Hat tip to Eschaton, where ad hominem shit like Johnson’s is tolerated.
UPDATE No. 2: Johnson writes me with this:
There is no address, no picture of his house. What in the hell are you talking about? Putz!
Far be it from me to argue with a man who shares a barber with Prince Valiant, but the suggestion behind publishing the photo is clear, Larry. I’m not saying you put a horse’s head in Brooks’ bed; I’m saying you’re a chickenshit who’s obviously run out of ways to excuse the Wilsons’ self-aggrandizing and hypocritical behavior.
(Thanks to Protein Wisdom for the linkiness.)
In the January 2004 issue of Vanity Fair:
In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq; one of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him.
That’s because Wilson was putting a down payment on a piece of real estate in the same neighborhood of the paper where Kristof himself opines.
And it was one mullet of a deal: business up front and a party in the back.
Were Plame’s disclosures to Kristof on that morning in May 2003 authorized by her employer? If it was left to George Tenet —who’s a miserable bastard— then, yeah, probably.
On 6 May 2003, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof, in whch this piece of intelligence is shared:
I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
Keep in mind that these words were printed in the most influential newspaper in the United States two months before Joe Wilson’s own, notorious op-ed piece was run in that same paper.
There’s no question that the “person” and the “someone” mentioned by Kristof were none other than Wilson and Plame —feeding Kristof and other reporters intelligence details in a bid for the A-list on the Leftist celebrity cocktail circuit. How did they divulge to Kristof the circumstances of their knowledge? How much leg did they have to show to land an op-ed piece in the Times? Why hasn’t Wilson been made to answer for his lies?
The anti-Bush Left are trying to keep their hysteria in full flower over the already-epochal Libby Commutation —and here’s what Steve Soto’s doing to water it:
Bush’s intent was to obstruct justice by preventing Democrats from getting around a Libby Fifth Amendment dodge and compelling testimony under oath from a defendant whose pardon negated that Fifth Amendment claim.
I don’t understand this. The Fifth Amendment is a hugely important civil liberty —you know, the kind that we’ve been losing with every new martyr sent to the concentration camps all over Amerikkka since Bu$hitler took over— but it’s not so important when a conservative invokes it. Then it’s a dodge.
But, beyond the hypocrisy, one must note the rather glaring error in Soto’s assertion: Libby didn’t get a pardon! The conviction stands. Instead, he had a ridiculously punitive prison sentence lifted. (Goddamned Sandy Bergler repeatedly stole and destroyed eyes only documents from the National Archives and got a $50,000 fine and the back pages. You’re telling me that Libby’s so-called lies, by comparison, merit years in prison? Get serious.)
In any event —convicted, acquitted, pardoned, or imprisoned— how is Libby’s Fifth Amendment right “negated”? It may technically be true that double jeopardy wouldn’t attach where Congress might compel Libby to testify, but that is essentially what one would have in making the Congress into the mere setter of a perjury trap —a notion that strikes me as a partisan insult to the Bill of Rights. Is Libby no longer entitled to his civil liberties because his prison sentence was commuted? Anyhow, Conyers and Schumer are wall-eyed craphounds if they think they’re taking this somewhere.
To the extent that the American People know about this case or could even pick Scooter Libby out of a line-up, it is important to note now that the narrative has already hardened into “Libby was convicted for outing Plame.” It becomes one of those shorthand bumper stickers of a thought that rattle around your average Democrat’s head —like “No War for Oil” and “When Clinton Lied, No One Died.” Never mind that it’s false and that Joe Wilson is a far more plausible violator of the IIPA than Libby ever was. Never mind that this story is only useful as anti-Bush/anti-Cheney propaganda. If it’s something for Keith Olbermann’s audience to mutter and splutter about, then that’s what it will be.
Fuck a litmoid existence. It must be hell.
I fully endorse the President’s commutation today of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence. It was a just response to an absurd and nakedly political hit on a powerful member of this Administration —and I commend George W. Bush on his exercised sense of right.
Of course, this travesty will not be fully ended until Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are convicted of their own actual crimes —both literally and in the eyes of History.
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »