Must Read: Joe Wilson on Blitzer’s Show
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, The War On TerrorismFrom the comments I’ve been reading on the blog so far, a fair number of you think Joe Wilson is a liar. I don’t. I think he’s telling a lot more truth than this administration is. However, I’m willing to concede there are some fuzzy points in this whole affair.
So for what it’s worth, I’d like to show you what he said yesterday regarding all the accusations levelled at him from the right-wing on ‘Wolf Blitzer Reports’
On the topic that Dick Cheney suggested him for the job:
BLITZER: But, basically, you still hold to the notion that the whole idea of sending someone to Niger originated in the Vice President’s Office?WILSON: No, no, no, no, no. The idea of sending someone to Niger originated in response to a request from the Office of the Vice President. That’s how I was briefed. That required an answer.
The decision was made by the operations people at the CIA, after a meeting that I had with the analytical community, to ask me if I would go and help answer some of the questions that still remained so that we would better understand the situation.
And let me also say that raising the question was perfectly legitimate. Indeed, it was an important question to raise. The vice president would have been derelict in not raising it.
Had, in fact, there been evidence of uranium sales from Niger to Iraq, it would have demonstrated conclusively that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. The fact that there wasn’t evidence to that effect should have reassured the U.S. government that, at least on this side, there was no evidence.
BLITZER: All right. So at least you agree — and I know you have in the past as well — that the vice president never directly asked you to go or asked that anyone go, namely his staff just wanted some answers and it was the CIA’s decision to then send — dispatch — someone to try to get some firsthand information?
WILSON: That’s correct. And I’ve said that in my op-ed, and I’ve said it in an interview here, and I’ve said it every time since.
On the topic that his wife suggested him for the job:
BLITZER: Now, the Senate Intelligence Committee report, as you well know, suggested this and I’ll read to you what they say: “Interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip” — Counterproliferation Division over at the CIA.And you’ve denied that your wife was the one who came up with the idea to send you
WILSON: It’s not so much that I’ve denied it. It was the CIA itself that denied it a week after the Novak article came out, well before I was ever in a position to acknowledge that my wife worked for the CIA.
And indeed, regrettably, the staff at the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did not call the CIA to find out their official position. But a year before, Newsday reporters, Knut Royce and Tim Phelps did, and this is what the CIA told them:
“A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked alongside the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment.
“They — the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story — “were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising. There are people elsewhere in the government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up for some reason. I can’t figure out who it would be.”
On Wilson’s participation in the Kerry Campaign:
BLITZER: You know, you’re being accused of being a political hack, a Democrat, a supporter of John Kerry, someone who is simply seeking to score political points.WILSON: Well, let me tell you, I reserve the right to participate fully in the selection of my country’s leaders. That’s a right that every American has.
Let me make a couple of points.
One, I was a George Herbert Walker Bush ambassador.
Two, I made my trip out to Niger because I was asked to investigate a national security matter.
Three, my trip out to Niger took place eight months before I ever spoke out on the Iraq war.
And four, when I did speak out, in an article in October of 2002, I acknowledged that weapons of mass destruction were the thereat. I offered my views based on my two and a half years in Iraq, including as charge d’affaires in Baghdad during the first gulf war.
And as a consequence of the article I wrote, I received a letter from the first President Bush. Let me just read part of it to you, if I may.
BLITZER: This was a letter you received when?
WILSON: I received this on October 25th, 2002, at the very beginning of the serious debate on what U.S. policy toward Iraq should be, eight months after I made a trip to Niger, and eight months before my wife’s identity was compromised.
He says, “Dear Joe: I read your fascinating article, and I agree with a lot of it. I am not sure Saddam Hussein will back down in the face of this latest challenge, but I certainly hope he will. Further, let me conclude by saying thank you very much for your letter. Further, I have great respect for you and for your service to our country. I hope you know that. Warm regards, George Bush.”
Decide what you will, but I think this guy has served our country admirably and his wife didn’t deserve to be called “fair game” by Rove.
This entry was posted on Friday, July 15th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 15th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
It’s not an either-or situation. Both Wilson and Rove could be partisan hacks with agendas beyond the common good of America.
July 15th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
I’ve never seen anything to suggest that Wilson is any kind of hack…and since when is it a crime to be a Democrat, or to openly back a Presidential Candidate? If that’s where this country is headed then we’ve got way bigger problems than Terrorists & Iraq. A one party system is just a dictatorship. If anything we need MORE political parties…in my opinion the two party system just serves to divide us into groups that most of us don’t really fit into. Isn’t that the very reason for this blog?
Look, I’m not a fan of a whole lot of people in Washington, but if you told me Newt Gingrich was a hack just because he backed George Bush for President I’d say the same thing: our brothers in arms have died to give him the right to freely speak his mind…suggesting someone is a hack just because he sees fit to air his beliefs is a chep shot at best, and downright Un-American in my opinion.
July 15th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
I think this guy has served our country admirably.
Well, when he served as ambassador to Gabon, we had good relations with that country. At least, we think we did. So far as anybody knows.
I don’t think much of his investigative work in Niger, though. When he came back he didn’t write a report - not even a memo - and his oral debriefing seems to have raised more suspicions than it settled. Furthermore, his conclusions look more wrong all the time.
You have Wilson’s responses to the charge that he’s a liar, and people can take those answers or leave them. In my opinion, though, admirable members of the diplomatic corps don’t make egomanical public spectacles out of themselves, they don’t complain about character assassination while vigorously engaging in it themselves, and they don’t denounce Justice Dept. investigations as cover-ups.
July 15th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Joe, in his answers to Wolf, conflates voting for the candidate of his choice, every citizen’s right and duty, with using his fame and career as a platform to actively work for regime change in America. He’s not “every American” in this case. He’s not Joe Sixpack Democrat from South Philly. Seems disingeuous at best, which is my overall opinion of the man.
Does having a covert political agenda make you a partisan hack? I would say Joe Wilson did, when he all but called Bush a liar for the claim Bush made in the ‘03 State of the Union address. Wilson’s shabby work in Niger and blatant self-promotion needn’t be a product of partisanism. That could just be personality.
Lord Frederick Butler’s report, or, properly, “Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” lays out the findings on Niger uranium:
The Bush administration typically managed to flub the case by holding up the one Niger allegation that was a fake.
The Wilsons, after the Iraq War began if not before, were more interested in undermining the war than they were in determining the truth. If you think the war is a crime against humanity, of course, that qualifies them as your heroes.
July 15th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
First of all, Wilson is lying about who sent him to Niger. It was NOT Dick Cheney or DCIA Tenet. Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame suggested him and promoted him for the trip. This is according to HER boss, who ought to know. Valerie Plame is the one who wrote a memo proffering Wilson’s bona fides for the trip. Valerie Plame CONVENED THE MEETING at which his trip was discussed and planned. And Valerie Plame attended his debriefing after he returned. Wilson is just plain lying. There’s no other way to parse his words.
Secondly, Wilson is lying about the results of his investigation. He HIMSELF reported that the Nigerian Finance Minister stated that an Iraqi delegation approached him 1999 about “doing business” with Niger, and the minister took that to mean that they were interested in purchasing yellowcake uranium because he was sure they didn’t want goats, which was Niger’s only other export.
Thirdly, Wilson is lying when he says, “Three, my trip out to Niger took place eight months before I ever spoke out on the Iraq war.” He wrote against the war well before then. His arguments are classic anti-war and predate his trip to Niger.
Finally, the canard that Rove ever said Wilson’s wife was “fair game” is just that - a canard. It was asserted by ONE reporter, Andrea Mitchell, who claims Rove said it to her. Rove denied it at the time. Furthermore, the NY Times, just yesterday, revealed that Rove found out about Plame “from reporters”, and, when Novak discussed the story with him (Novak providing all the details and Rove merely listening), all Rove said was, “Oh, you know abou it.”
The press has lied about this story from the beginning and is still covering up the truth.
July 15th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Well, I see this post is stirring the nest a bit …
In all the heated mudslinging, what is being lost (which, after all, is the goal of the Bush people, RNC, et all) is that someone in the administration leaked the information …
From the fullscale assault on Joe Wilson yesterday from the Repubs, doth think they protest too much … There were nearly hourly updates (interrupted only by the half-hour updates on the definitive, today-is-the-day resignation of Rehnquist) on just what went down between Rove and Cooper … The defenders of Rove stopped short of saying that Rove helps old ladies cross the street …
In leaking the information (and for political retribution), the leaker has put in jeapordy anyone connected to Mrs. Wilson covert operation - that’s not hype, that’s fact … It has been reported that she had a successful cover operation that took 3-or-4-years to establish … And there’s a domino effect, not just for the operation and the CIA, but other nation’s agency that may have had operatives involved in some fashion …
Not intedend to say I defend the CIA and their operations, however, the politicians involved may think of this as a game and they go home at the end of the day, their world intact … For the CIA, that’s not the case, and, in particular, for the agents in the field and those involved in such covert operations …
Peace
JTD
July 15th, 2005 at 5:19 pm
Antimedia, provide links to this information and I’ll consider it. Otherwise you’re just another voice out there saying Wilson is a liar, and I have little patience for that.
And you’re wrong about the “fair game” canard. Chris Matthews called Wilson up and told him RIGHT after Rove called Mathews and told him that Plame was “fair game.” Matthews has confirmed this on numerous occasions.
From the Wash Post:
Lastly, it’s not in the press’ best interest to lie. And it would be quite a conspiracy indeed for the ENTIRE press corps to be reporting the same “lies” and uncovering new “lies” as days go by. Please, enough with the ad hominems.
July 15th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
I’m loathe to promote my own blog on someone else’s, but since you asked, go to my blog and click on the Joseph Wilson link on the right hand side, under categories. Every post I’ve written is there, and I’ve documented everything with links and direct quotes.
You’re correct about Chris Matthews being the supposed source of the “fair game” quote. My apologies for misattributing that to Andrea Mitchell. Don’t know what I was thinking of there. However, a “source” said Rove *did* deny that he ever said it and quoted him as having said that it “was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger”. Furthermore, no one has been able to corroborate Matthews’ statement. Matthews said he would “not discuss an off the record” conversation, and the source of the “fair game” quote is someone “close” to Wilson, which, given his manifest other lies, is at least suspect. (Personally, I wouldn’t believe the man if he said the sun was shining without looking outside first.)
I’m amazed that you think it’s not in the media’s best interest to lie. Of course it isn’t, but that doesn’t stop them for one minute from doing it. I have many, many documented lies on my blog. They lie so routinely that they don’t even see them until someone points them out.
July 15th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
A great part of a reporters’ life — even a small-town daily newspaper reporter’s — consists of nailing down confirmations of things he’s been told off the record, or heard second-hand.
Usually the person you have in mind is your editor. He won’t let you run your story about the county commissioners planning to sell the old farts in the senior home for rendering into cat food, because your only source for that is the janitor in the cat food cannery.
So you call the county commissioner, and he says “I can’t comment on that.”
There are ways around this. One dear little old lady I worked with used to say, at that point, “If you did have a comment, what would it be?” And half the time the source started talking. I swear to God, they were that dense.
Another reporter used to harrange them with, “If I print this tomorrow, would I be wrong?” That is gray. The person on the other end of the phone can say, “no,” and, while not confirming it, confirms it.
It’s a big, elaborate, unpleasant chapter in the insiders’ book of journalism. Here’s one I used to use when I was a cop reporter in the ’80s. There’s been a shooting. You think it was a fatal shooting (a dead body pushes the story out to page 1). But the cops won’t tell you anything.
So you call the hospital, where the victim likely was taken. Now, the nursing shift supervisor isn’t supposed to tell you anything important. There are rules about that. But if you ask her, “what was the time of death of that shooting victim from up on Price Street?” that’s the kind of routine detail she can release, and there’s a chance she’ll give it to you.
Bingo, confirmation.
Or, if I knew we had a victim but the police wouldn’t release the name, I might call someone who worked on the case and ask, “that guy who got killed on Price Street? How do you spell his name?” Act like I had the name and just wanted to get it spelled right.
Of course, if his name is “Smith” or he’s not really dead, you can look like a snake and an idiot. But nobody ever insulted a journalist by calling him a snake and an idiot.
July 16th, 2005 at 12:03 am
I said I’d leave this topic by the front door, and bygum, I meant it; but I’d just like to take this inopportune moment to say that (apropos of this post’s title) this blog has become one of my must-reads.
Fantastic stuff coming up here, regardless of ’side.’ Great job, folks - and kudos to Justin G. for his work setting this up.
July 16th, 2005 at 2:26 am
That’s great! Thanks for the kind words. I can assure you that (cliche alert) the best is yet to come.
July 16th, 2005 at 10:51 am
J. Thomas Duffy writes
We now know this is not true.
According to the Associated Press, Rove testified under oath before the Grand Jury that he learned about Plame from reporters, not the other way around. In fact, when Novak contacted him and told him what he had on the story, Rove’s only comment was, “I heard that too.”
Not exactly an administration leak, is it?
We now also know that this is not true.
Plame was under official cover and then a NOC in the 1990’s. Wilson recently admitted to Wolf Blitzer that his wife was not a covert agent when Novak published his article.
In Wilson’s book, he writes that he and Plame were married in 1997 and have resided in Washington, D.C. ever since. So the likelihood is (although Wilson refused to confirm it to Blitzer) that his wife had not been a covert agent since 1997.
Her own (CIA) (former) boss stated that, once she married Wilson, it would have been extremely difficult to maintain her cover. He also stated that she was never a deep cover agent.
All these are facts that can be easily obtained if one avoids the heated rhetoric and searches for the truth.
And just so you know, I am not a Republican. Never have been. I’m not the member of any political party, although I did pay dues once to the Libertarian Party. (Then I read their literature in depth and left in disgust.)
I don’t write about this stuff for partisan reasons. I think the truth is much more important than silly political turf wars. As Americans, we have to decide all the time who can best represent us. To do that, we have to know the truth - not what the politicians tell us and not what the biased media tells us. Both lie to us constantly. It’s up to us to sort out the truth.
July 16th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Antimedia
Thanks for your feedback …
As to the “In fact, when Novak contacted him and told him what he had on the story, Rove’s only comment was, “I heard that too.â€Â? …
The story that appeared in the NYT yesterday morning, quoting an unamed source (”someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said Thursday”) …
Perhaps this source is accurate …
To me, it sounds like something Rove would say … Spinning his own spin …
After all, early in his career, he did bug his own candidate office, blaming the opposition, the day before the election …
Peace
JTD
July 18th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
antimedia:
Despite all of your efforts to cloak yourself in the banner of the honest truthteller, I find your comments to be quite deceptive. I did visit your blog, but it only took me a couple of minutes to see that you were regurgitating the same old Republican spin. In fairness to you, the Republicans are quite good at carpet bombing false information, which then gets disseminated throughout the blogosphere until it attains the guise of conventional wisdom. Without rehashing everything, I would like to counter a couple of your assertions:
It has not been proven that Rove first learned about Plame from a reporter. That is simply Rove’s story. If you choose to believe him, go ahead, but for those of us who feel that he has shown himself to be less than truthful in this whole affair, it falls far short of the burden of proof. Particularly since he “can’t remember” which reporter told him. I can say a lot of negative things about Rove, but I don’t think he’s that dumb.
I also noticed that you say “Here’s what the Senate Intelligence Committee Report (searchable pdf) had to say about Wilson and his wife.” I think it’s more than a little deceptive that you then quote a section of the report that is in actuality Pat Robert’s comments, in which he laments the fact that the Democrats refuse to sign off on the section of the report dealing with Wilson’s trip to Niger. So what you’re really quoting are Pat Roberts’ partisan comments, not the actual report.
You also mention that Plame’s former supervisor casts doubt on her role as a covert operative. Perhaps it would be more revealing if you pointed out that this supervisor retired from the CIA in 1990. I imagine he still has contacts in the agency, but any knowledge he would have about her activities in the 90s is strictly second hand.
Another point. Wilson clearly did not tell Wolf Blitzer that his wife was not a covert operative before Novak wrote about her. His point was that her life as a covert operative ended the day Novak outed her. He may have been less than precise in his wording, but has emphatically clarified since what he meant. I would think a truthteller such as yourself would at least acknowledge that.
Also, a careful reading of the Senate Intelligence Committee report will show that the testimony that Plame arranged for Wilson to go to Niger came from a Stae Department analyst at the meeting, who was making an assumption about what had transpired before he came on the scene. Her superior has been quoted as saying that it simply wasn’t true, and that he couldn’t understand why the committee didn’t ask him.
Finally, a point that very few people seem to raise is about your vaunted Senate Intelligence Committee report. The Democratic opinion section of the report clearly states that there is a need to investigate the pressure that the intelligence agencies faced to produce intel that supported the administration position. There are credible reports that the reason Chaney never saw Wilson’s report is because it didn’t support the administration line, so no one wanted to send it to him. Sen. Roberts insisted that the report only focus on the intelligence gathering process, and that a susequent report would deal with how the intelligence agencies were pressured. Just a couple of months ago, when asked about the second report, Roberts replied that the time had passed for that, and it wouldn’t be looked into. So the Senate report isn’t quite the Bible you make it out to be.
I could go on, but this is a perfect example of why the Administration tactics succeed. I’ve wasted a lot of electrons just rebutting a few of the falsehoods that are intentionally being spewed out by the administration. They know if they keep obfuscating, the environment gets so thick that truth and falsehood become part of one big stew that no one can unravel. Not even truthtellers like yourself.
By the way, I don’t mean to make this sound like a personal attack, but I thought your portrayal of yourself as an honest broker who only wants the truth was more than a little misleading.
July 18th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
“I thought your portrayal of yourself as an honest broker who only wants the truth was more than a little misleading.”
So you think antimedia is intentionally lying? Hmmm…
Chris, I suggest you write a letter to John Rockefeller and ask him why he has joined the President in misleading the public. It sounds as though you believe he’s lying as well.
Seriously, I submit to you that anything contradicting the 24/7 drumbeat emanating from most of the media - a sort of exercise in truth-through-repetition, aka “anything I tell you 3,000 times is true” - is going to sound like “the same old Republican spin” to you, especially since you appear to be predisposed to dance to that drumbeat without really questioning it.
There are plenty of us - especially some of us who’ve actually done some intelligence work in past lives - who recognize the truth, confusion and failures clearly outlined in the Senate report. You don’t like the story it tells and choose to believe whatever contradicts it, without vetting the contradictions using anything near the effort that went into the report itself. Not a very reliable intelligence-gathering technique, IMHO.
It also sounds like you think we should believe, on the one hand, that Wilson was clear enough in his report to the CIA to get across what he claimed to have reported in his 7/6/03 NYT piece, but on the other hand, that he couldn’t formulate a clear, simple, one-sentence response to Blitzer about his wife’s status. Hmmm… again. I think it’s pretty obvious he said exactly what he meant, then backpedaled.
A generous analysis suggests that Wilson made a number of arrogant assumptions about the information he provided on Niger: its level of importance, what was assessed and how that assessment was reported. He was wrong in those assumptions. He directly attacked the Bush administration based on those assumptions and when the WH responded with the facts as they knew them, the majority of the media instantly screamed “SMEAR!!!!” instead of considering the possibility that Wilson was spreading disinformation (whether knowingly or not). Instead of simply apologizing, Wilson played the victim and has been doing so ever since. Novak’s outrageous and unnecessary discussion of Plame, in trying to cast doubt and foment more controversy, has almost completely obscured this.
All of this of course is moot at this point. We’ll get the facts when Fitzgerald decides he has all of them. Of course if he ultimately finds, say, that Wilson is the source Judith Miller is protecting, and that Wilson and Plame conspired to spread disinformation about Niger/Iraq, during wartime, for the purposes of influencing the election, you’ve already made it pretty clear that any conflicting “reports” will be the ones you’ll prefer to believe.
July 18th, 2005 at 6:17 pm
goy: A couple of responses:
“So you think antimedia is intentionally lying? Hmmm…”
I’m saying no such thing. What I’m saying is that I feel he’s approaching this with a specific agenda, and that his portrayal of himself as a neutral party is not accurate. There’s so much name calling from both the right and left on discussion blogs that I try my best not to make personal attacks.
“I suggest you write a letter to John Rockefeller and ask him why he has joined the President in misleading the public. It sounds as though you believe he’s lying as well.”
I totally don’t understand this point. Jay Rockefeller refused to sign off on the Republican findings about the Niger trip. Am I missing your point?
“Seriously, I submit to you that anything contradicting the 24/7 drumbeat emanating from most of the media - a sort of exercise in truth-through-repetition, aka “anything I tell you 3,000 times is trueâ€Â? - is going to sound like “the same old Republican spinâ€Â? to you”
This is an interesting element of this particular discussion . If you notice, one of my complaints is that the Republicans rely on the ‘if I say it 3,ooo times it must be true’ strategy. You accuse the liberals of the same thing. Oh, well.
“You don’t like the story it tells and choose to believe whatever contradicts it, without vetting the contradictions using anything near the effort that went into the report itself. Not a very reliable intelligence-gathering technique, IMHO.”
You’re right. From now on I won’t venture an opinion until I’ve held hearings and interviewed hundreds of witnesses, and neither should anyone else. Seriously, I’ve read extensive sections of the report as well as a lot of analysis from both sides, and drawn my own conclusions. Rockefeller sat through the same hearings Pat Roberts did, and refused to sign off on Roberts’ conclusions. I’m also assuming that some of the parts he did sign off on were as much a result of determining where the political winds were blowing and how much influence the minority party could have without being labeled obstructionist. I believe both sides played politics with the report, which is to be expected from any report prepared by both parties. I also freely admit that these are assumptions on my part.
“It also sounds like you think we should believe, on the one hand, that Wilson was clear enough in his report to the CIA to get across what he claimed to have reported in his 7/6/03 NYT piece, but on the other hand, that he couldn’t formulate a clear, simple, one-sentence response to Blitzer about his wife’s status. Hmmm… again. I think it’s pretty obvious he said exactly what he meant, then backpedaled.”
Are you saying that if someone makes a one sentence reply to a question during an interview, we should always expect it to be as clear and articulate as an article that has been written, rewritten and edited? I don’t even think Wilson was that unclear, I was just trying to give a little. The AP ran a correction of their initial story on the interview, BTW, that basically supports my point.
“Of course if he ultimately finds, say, that Wilson is the source Judith Miller is protecting, and that Wilson and Plame conspired to spread disinformation about Niger/Iraq, during wartime, for the purposes of influencing the election, you’ve already made it pretty clear that any conflicting “reportsâ€Â? will be the ones you’ll prefer to believe.”
I’ll wait to see how things shake out before I commit to believing anything. If the evidence shows that Wilson and Plame are the culprits, I won’t like it but I’ll accept it, and I’ll be plenty pissed at them. However, I do want to pooint out that this is a theory with absolutely no foundation in any of the facts. I’ve seen this theory gain traction on a lot of right wing blogs until its discussed as an inevitability, which completely supports my assertion about Republican spin that takes on a life of its own. Simplistic minds on the right can only thing “New York Times - bad” without realizing that although it’s a liberal paper, Judith Miller is no friend of the left. The Times had to publish an apology for its misleading reporting about WMD in the run up to the war, and although they didn’t mention Miller by name, the vast majority of the articles they apologized for were written by her. Are you saying she’s an active participant in a conspiracy designed to make her look like a fool?
I know this “Wilson/Plame did it” theory gets the Right all in a fever thinking about what sweet turnabout it would be. The only flaw is that there is not a shred of evidence (not suppositions, evidence) pointing to it being true. But right wing bloggers spend so much time reinforcing each other on this one that they haven’t bothered to ask each other if it makes any sense.
Look, I can play that game too. “If it turns out that Rove really works for al qaeda, wouldn’t that be sweet? I bet he did. Boy, are you righties going to be sorry when that comes out. Will you admit you’re wrong then? Huh? Huh?”
I have noticed than whenever I post with very specific facts, the responses seem to run along the lines of “you just won’t admit the truth.” Please respond with some facts rebutting my points. Not a “generous analysis,” facts.
July 18th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Thanks for the response.
“his portrayal of himself as a neutral party is not accurate.”
This sounds a bit like a backpedal to me. He’s either being intentionally misleading or not. You’re saying it’s not intentional? “…more than a little misleading” doesn’t sound like you believe that.
“Republican findings” - which ones were those? Rockefeller’s name is on the report as the Vice Chair. My chance to learn: the report is long and not easily searched. - do you have the page number in the document that contains his disclaimer? I’d like to read that.
“if I say it 3,ooo times it must be true’ strategy. You accuse the liberals of the same thing.”
Funny thing. If you go back and read what I wrote you’ll see that I specifically referred to the media, not “liberals”. Aside from this, you missed my point, which was that where the media creates a non-stop print, video, broadband and audio flood of the same biased innuendo, accusations, claims, mischaracterizations, lies of omission and often un-checked “facts”, the “Republicans” (Uhm, which ones, specifically, btw?) are not on the air constantly broadcasting, well, anything, are they?
“I also freely admit that these are assumptions on my part.”
Thanks. By that I take it you understand my hesitation in accepting those assumptions over what was actually published by the people who did the work. Those are what I consider to be the facts.
“Are you saying that if someone makes a one sentence reply to a question during an interview, we should always expect it to be as clear and articulate as an article that has been written, rewritten and edited?”
No, I probably worded that poorly. Wilson responded verbally to the CIA. He assumed his response was clear. He was wrong - it was not. Neither was his response to Blitzer, or so he now claims.
“this is a theory with absolutely no foundation in any of the facts. I’ve seen this theory gain traction on a lot of right wing blogs”
That’s extremely interesting. I tell you with no sarcasm or levity that I honestly made it up on the spot when I wrote it. I must be reading the wrong right wing blogs. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I really have been away from a lot of the discussion until very recently. Come to think of it, none of the blogs I read are “right wing” as far as I can tell. Where, specifically have you seen this?
“Boy, are you righties going to be sorry”
I know this was only partly serious, but you’re generalizing. Plus you’re in error if you’re referring to me personally. I certainly hold a number of opinions that I suppose are compatible with what is generally (?) considered right-wing ideology. Foremost among those would be complete support for military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, whatever the cost (and I’d love to discuss). I’m also not much in favor of abortion-on-demand, embryonic stem cell research or human cloning but, then again, I see nothing wrong with abortion-as-prescribed, placental stem cell research or jailing animal abusers. I’m not much in favor of free-for-all-enterprise and I used go boycott WalMart but don’t any longer - they carry stuff we like to buy when other stores around here can’t or won’t. I firmly believe the majority party should be doing more to fix our border security problem and doing less to incite moderate muslims by openly discussing mushroom clouds over Mecca, and I believe the minority party should be muzzling people like Dick Durbin so that we don’t lose what’s left of the two-party balance when people like him marginalize the Democrats by using offensive, disrespectful, idiotic hyperbole. I think Social Security is in big trouble, but I don’t believe the average individual necessarily has the smarts to do better in a privatized scenario. And I think my daughter’s two Moms should be able to legally marry if they wish - let them go from individually filing unmarried head of household to shouldering some of the marriage penalty burden ;-) So you see I’m not going to fit any of the standard pigeonholes (”you righties”) people are used to using in this sort of discussion. I prefer people respond to me, rather than responding to the stereotype that they believe I represent.
July 18th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
goy:
All of your responses seem to take the side of the Right in this debate, but your point that the phrase “you Righties” is making a big assumption about your politics is well taken. I’ve been commenting a lot on several different sites lately, both liberal and conservative, and I have to try not to get too caught up in the polarized world of the blogosphere.
I wasn’t backing off of my comments at all. I looked at antimedia’s blog, and I felt that he it was misleading to portray himself as a neutral observer. It doesn’t mean I think he’s “lying;” in addition to that being a more charged word than I wanted to use, it implies that I think he is cynically telling an untruth. For all I know, he may honestly feel his portrayal of himself is accurate. However, seeing how relentlessly he parrots the party line on his blog (at least the parts I read - I can’t read every word on every site I visit) I think the way he portrays himself is misleading.
As to the Senate report, I’ve got to stop referring to it because you’re right, it’s a pain in the ass to search. I have read in more than one place that Rockefeller refused to sign off on portions of the report, which is confirmed if you read “Additional Views of Chairman Pat Roberts” on Page 441. Roberts says “Despite our hard and successful work to deliver a unanimous report … there were two issues on which the Republicans and Democrats could not agree: 1) whether the Committee should conclude that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s public statements were not based on knowledge he actually possessed, and 2) whether the Committee should conclude that it was the former ambassador’s wife who recommended him for his trip to Niger.” There’s no mention in Rockefeller’s comments, so I’m guessing it’s mentioned elsewhere, but the whole thing is so heavily redacted it’s tough to get through. Part of the problem with the public’s knowledge of this report is that Susan Schmidt of the Washington Post wrote a story after the report came out headlined “Plame’s Input Is Cited on Niger Mission” without mentioning that the Democrats had refused to sign off on that finding.
Incidentally, Rockefeller’s comments are worth reading.
You said “I take it you understand my hesitation in accepting those assumptions over what was actually published by the people who did the work. Those are what I consider to be the facts.” While that seems noble, in reality what you’re sayig is that I’m compelled to believe any congressional committee, or reporter, or anyone who devotes a lot more time to researching a subject than I do, because they’re the people who “did the work.” In fact, I try to educate myself as much as possible, read critical analyses of different reports, and apply my bullshit filter to determine who I believe and don’t believe. It’s all any of us can do.
On the next point, you’re right, you mentioned the media, not liberals. I’m so used to seeing right wingers use them interchangeably that it was a knee jerk reaction on my part.
Your next point puzzles me. “…the “Republicansâ€Â? (Uhm, which ones, specifically, btw?) are not on the air constantly broadcasting, well, anything, are they?” In addition to Fox News, which I believe to be a Republican mouthpiece, the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal and a host of right wing radio talkers, the news is full of Republican spokespeople dutifully plumping the party line. Don’t tell me you haven’t seen Ken Mehlman, Newt Gingrich, Peter King and a host of others, repeating the same points nearly word for word.
As for your theory about Wilson/Plame being behind the leaks, I visit so many blogs (to the detriment of my work and family life, I’m afraid) that I lose track. But you’ll definitely find it here- http://wizbangblog.com/ and here- http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp, and I’ve read that Limbaugh has advanced the theory, as well.
Sorry for going on so long, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss an honest difference of opinion without a lot of name calling.
July 19th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Chris, if you don’t believe antimedia is intentionally misrepresenting his position, then I believe that “the way he portrays himself is misleading” might be better phrased as “the way he portrays himself is error”. It may seem a minor point but your original “more than a little misleading” implies someone is intentionally doing the leading - who else but antimedia in this case?
I will happily concede both of Roberts’ points, as he (1) is merely outlining a bone of contention regarding *conclusions* but not about the validity of the evidence presented and (2) they don’t obviate what I consider to be the more serious assumptions, made by Wilson, which led to his anonymous and then overt criticisms (please see my blog post “ASS-U-ME” for more info - I feel like I’m taking up too much bandwidth here as it is… ;-). Plame’s part in the affair wouldn’t have been an issue if Novak hadn’t inappropriately and unnecessarily dragged her into the discussion. Novak’s piece, unfortunately, not only overshadowed what I consider to be the real miscommunication that started the controversy, but made it virtually impossible to clear up as well by essentially attacking Wilson personally (through his wife) instead of just outlining why his assumptions were in error. It’s a mystery to me why Novak hasn’t been the focus of the case from the start (maybe he has).
I have read Rockefeller’s comments. As a former intelligence analyst myself, I didn’t find them impressive, let alone persuasive. It’s just too easy to wag fingers when one is armed with 20/20 hindsight, especially in the midst of a politically charged media feeding frenzy. It’s also easy to forget that other intelligence agencies were making similiar judgements about Saddam - partly because Saddam WANTED the world to fear him. IMHO, Rockefeller’s comments were designed to get him off the hook with his consituency and his party. But as you say, I’m biased on a couple of levels. ;-) Maybe that’s the inherent problem with any investigation guided by politicians…
And no, I’m not saying you’re compelled to believe any congressional committee, all I’m saying is that everyone’s BS filter is clogged with their own BS. So second-guessing or ignoring painstakingly generated, published evidence requires assertions with a very significant level of confirmation. For instance, if I thought Plame’s part in this affair really was a significant factor, I would prefer documented memos about Plame’s involvement over comments by Plame’s supervisor, after the fact, especially when that supervisor’s potential conflict of interest is a huge factor.
I have seen Fox be as critical of the Bush administration as anyone. The fact that they question the points other outlets seem to take on faith doesn’t make them a “Republican mouthpiece” IMHO. I believe they have a center-right agenda with respect to what the public sees and hears and how it’s presented, but if I thought such an agenda was inappropriate I probably wouldn’t be reading/posting here much, or posting what I do in my own space.
I honestly don’t believe the conservative viewpoint equals anywhere near the *publicly-consumed* bandwidth enjoyed by the liberal viewpoint. Most harder-core conservative outlets (e.g., talk radio) are preaching to the choir, while the MSM (sans the three you mentioned - out of 100s!) is preaching to the masses. And to be honest no, I have not seen Ken, Newt or King at all - and I’m in the peak (or maybe I should refer to it as a valley) of my bipolar attention to the news media. Guess I’m not part of the choir. :-(
Thanks for your reply!
July 19th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Grrr… should have been “the way he portrays himself is *in* error.” Justin - you guys need a Preview thingy for the comments for old geezers like me. ;-)