Christspeak, Rx

Why can't liberal bloggers write about how wrong they are about Bush?

For the same reason that can't conservative bloggers like you can't write about how wrong you all are on the issue of gay civil rights once the "truth" is known that, oh, yeah... um... you really can't use your religious rhetoric to dictate public policy or other peoples' lives.

If people believe something deeply, truth hardly matters to them.
 

I'm on lunch break from jury duty, so I don't have time to go thru all my posts, but I think most of what I've written has been more in terms of news than guessing what happened or assigning blame.

You are free to put words in my mouth, and to group me with other bloggers who I may or may not even read, but it doesn't make it so.
 

Ed has a point. You accusations are vague and unsubstantiated. I read local blogs pretty thoroughly and I don't recall any of the people you mention passing along updated from Corn, Isikoff or others accusing the Bush administration of acting like thugs. Maybe if you could be specific there might be something we can talk about. Otherwise, it appears as if you are just having a nice little unjustified rant.

And speaking of vagaries, your bullet list seems to challenge the truth. Like Ed said, just because you type it, doesn't make it so.
 

Ed- you rarely opine- I was referring to you not linking or highlighting what took place in the end. You may have- and if so I will apologise- but I did search before I wrote it. If you simply google Plame and Greensboro101 you will find hundreds of relevant references.

Matt Gross's wife wrote about not being able to sleep- hoping to see Cheney in jail.

And Matt- I respect you, but not only is your cause wrong, you have lifted sexuality above spirituality.
 

"In the end"?

I don't know that it's over. I don't really know what this latest thing means to Fitzgerald's case.

I've read many "ends" to this story in the last few years. I'm waiting to see what happens.

If your standards for ascribing views to me, and lumping me in with a group are "you may have...", then I would ask you to please raise your standards, and please quit putting words in my mouth. I'm not Matt Gross's wife (I like Matt, just not in that way).
 

I thought I was clear- none of you have linked to the conclusion- but there were hundreds of links when people thought Bush had something to do with it. Why is that?
 

"I thought I was clear- none of you have linked to the conclusion- but there were hundreds of links when people thought Bush had something to do with it. Why is that?"

What? Admit they were wrong? Admit they have an agenda, and as is the case in most of the political fooolishness they post, factual truth isn't required of them?

The rules they try to apply to us don't apply to them when they're clearly in the wrong.
 

Now I see you are lying at Bubba's blog: "Ed and Roch acted like they and their friends had hardly referred to the false charges..."

See ya, Chip.
 

Chip, please provide a single example of any blog post by me, at my personal blog or my work blog, where I have "been passing along updates from David Corn, Michael Isikoff and others about how the Bush administration acted like thugs in outing Valerie Plame."

I've posted on the investigation, yes, I have, but my factual assertions have been a heck of a lot more circumscribed than that.

An apology would be in order.

I also found a total of four posts at work and six or seven on my personal blog (which dates to April 2002) that mention Plame at all. And on at least one of the work posts, a commenter brings Plame up in response to a post that was on another subject entirely. So while you might think I owe the world a post about the latest reports, *I* think that in the context of two blogs with close to 5,000 posts between them, my failure to say anything at all within four days of the news breaking is hardly surprising, let alone inappropriate.
 

Lex - if you have written anything asserting negative things about the Bush administration regarding Plame and Wilson-AND- remained silent when Bush is exonerated- you are guilty of my post. If you have asserted in any manner Bush is dishonest or misleading because of the WMDs or Plame or Niger/Uranium And ignored credible stories to the contrary- you are guilty.

No, you and Ed are not guilty of absurdity or profanity or name calling- and to the extent my post puts you in that category- I truly apologize.

I expected guys like you and Ed to readily link to the conclusion of a story like this one. I hope you see that as a point of respect from me. When I tangle with you, I am always challenged.
 

[[if you have written anything asserting negative things about the Bush administration regarding Plame and Wilson-AND- remained silent when Bush is exonerated- you are guilty of my post.]]

But that's not what you wrote above. You specifically accused me of something that was objectively, verifiably false (and provided the means for you to see for yourself).

Words have meaning, Chip.

Apology accepted.
 

thanks for accepting my apology- it is sincere.

But didn't I say above that you and the others had been passing along info from others? Shouldn't that imply that when you refered to Bush in the manner you did- you could be rightfully named as one of the detractors?

Isn't the point still correct?
 

No, Chip, it's not correct. You specifically accused me of passing along info from David Corn and Michael Isikoff (and others) accusing the administration of acting like thugs. Look through the links I provided above: I don't think you'll find anything to the effect that I have ever "accused the administration of acting like thugs," nor, to the best of my recollection, have I passed on such accusations from anyone else.
 

OK- how bout this- http://blog.news-record.com/staff/lexblog/archives/2005/07/journamalistic.html

http://edcone.typepad.com/wordup/2006/04/libby_plame_and.html
 

Chip:

You've gotten all this mumbo jumbo, and still no comment on the obit for the Plame Blame Game.

What does this tell you?

Are you surprised?
 

Chip, the post of mine to which you link says nothing about the Plame case. It criticizes the problem of news media overrelying on anonymous sources. The comment of mine at Ed's place says nothing about the Plame case per se, but points out that on a day when news presumably damaging to the administration was breaking elsewhere, the White House press corps, so often derided as liberal and therefore expected to want to try to embarrass this Republican administration, says nothing about it.

Did you post links different from those you intended to post, perhaps?

Bubba, the other bloggers can speak for themselves, but when the premise on which Chip bases his post is flawed, there's really no reason to address the rest of it. But for what it's worth, having never posted anything that presumptively stated that anyone was guilty, and seeing that the investigation remains active for whatever reason, I'm not jumping to any conclusions one way or the other.
 

Lex- I started a serious search and then it occurred to me that I beleieve you. (I also have a fulltime job) I am surprised that you were not complicit, given the tone and material in your blog, but I have to say you are right- your name had no place in this post. You neither commented or linked to any of the above. So forgive me... and thank you for being patient with me.
 

"I don't think you'll find anything to the effect that I have ever 'accused the administration of acting like thugs,'nor, to the best of my recollection, have I passed on such accusations from anyone else."

Really?

Hmmm. Remember THESE words, Lex?


"Dude, let me clue you in: The press has gone after Karl Rove because Rove leaked the identity of a nonofficial-cover CIA agent deeply involved in important nuclear-nonproliferation work. For the sake of a cheap political shot, he made the country 'nd the world demonstrably less safe, and he clearly broke the law to do so. If reporting on that is 'criminalization of political difference," there's a reason: What he did was a crime."

You said them in this post.

Ignoring the part about that statement being full of factual errors, I guess you could argue that calling Rove a criminal is not necessarily calling him a thug.

Perhaps you would care to argue he wasn't part of the Administration?
 

there you go- anyway Bubba- You and I are conservative and we aren't ashamed. If the story had alledged a Dem Pres had outed a CIA agent- and we had written about it or linked to it- we would have been glad to discover it wasn't true.

These guys seem to be holding out in hopes someone- anyone in the admin is guilty.

Its like the Clinton thing- they aren't ashamed or angry he seduced a 20 year old intern, had sex with her while talking to Arafat, harrassed Paula Jones, lied to the FBI, lied to Grand Jury. They're mad he got caught. They can't see that if Clinton lies about smaller things to keep out of trouble, he'll lie abiut anything.
 

Lex, the Almighty Lex, has been WRONG WRONG WRONG all along, and he knows it.
He knows the atmosphere of negativity he spews, the lies about Bush ("Bush is guilty of a crime") and the conservative bashing he delights in dishing out. But now, oh, yes...now...when he's been proven WRONG yet again...do we hear a real man's apology from someone who's been shown to be a fool in front of the adults?
Of course not...he twists this into something against those who point out his lies and failures.
Lex, you're a true flamin' liberal...proven WRONG and ya keep on tickin'!!

Remember..."Bush spied, terrorists died!"
 

Well Chip, I might could take you seriously if the link you pointed up to actually contained a reference to Plame or any of the other parties involved but since it doesn't you've obviously been fooled.

Go back and check your link.
 

Chip: Clinton had sex while he talked to Arafat? How come I've never read/seen/heard this? Oh wait, because... you're misdirecting again! In actuality, it was a rumor that Clinton in the middle of a sexual "show" performed by Lewinsky while Arafat waited. Just look it up. It's on a Drudge.

And I'll be the first to point out that I've never seen a Republican that would have been glad to discover something that the opposing party did that was bad, wasn't true.

That's total BS. You're elevating yourself when every other post you have about liberal bloggers says opposite. Heck, you even came up with a insulting term for it (if I remember correctly, LGBBC or something). Like every other post. Passive aggressive. Exactly the same.

All politicians are evil on the federal level. Period. They all have something to hide. You don't get to where they are without doing something that someone is angry at. If anything, it reminds me of prison societal structures. You usually don't make it if you go solo. You have to choose a side. Same with politics. The moment anyone picks a side, you've already lost in having any objectivity.

So quit thinking you're taking the high road. If anything, you're just as bad as the liberal bloggers you claim to be above.
 

Oops, sorry, guys, but I'm right: Rove was the first source on Wilson/Plame for Matt Cooper of Time Magazine, and Libby was the confirming source. That's what Cooper has said publicly and in court filings filed by Fitzgerald.

"I thought I was wrong once, but I was wrong: Turned out I was right."

Y'all have a nice weekend.
 

Funny Chip, the link in your post still doesn't link to anything about the Plame Game-- why?
 

Even funnier, you changed the link but it still doesn't work.
 

Oooppps, Rex, but you are WRONG.

Lede:

"(CBS/AP) Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the first Bush administration to reveal undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame's name, the New York Times reports."

Quote from Cooper,from Fact Check timeline:

“Rove never used her name...indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week,”

And you are a "journalist"?

Despite how you and your kindred spirits on the GetBushBeat try to spin, deflect, and obfuscate on this issue, you are WRONG.

Salvage what's left of your credibility and just admit it, Lex.


And don't try to weasel out of this one by fixating over the word "identity", or some other nonsense.
 

He didn't use her name, but he gave Cooper the heads-up.

That's an awfully small needle eye you're trying to drive that Mack truck through, there, bubba.
 

Specifically:

"I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."

This, as you'll see if you follow the link, is Cooper's first-person account of his grand jury testimony and describes a phone conversation with Rove on 7/11/03. Rove outed her to Cooper, and Libby confirmed to Cooper what Rove said. Rove didn't use her name, but that hardly matters -- the name was a matter of public record. It was what she was doing for the CIA that was secret.
 

Lex, Plame was the equivalent of a clerk at the CIA, she was not working in a SECRET or confidential capacity. No case. End of story.
 

Oh, and then there's this, from Newsweek:

"In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC 'Hardball' host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was 'fair game.'"

You can apologize any time now.

Oh, and jaycee, the CIA told Fitzgerald that Plame was working on WMD nonproliferation and Fitzgerald put that into a court filing. So, sorry, but you're wrong. And on May 1 of this year, "Hardball" reported that not only was Plame a NOC, not only was she working on WMD nonproliferation, she was trying to keep WMDs out of the hands of the Iranians.

So clerk that.
 

"He didn't use her name, but he gave Cooper the heads-up."

""In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC 'Hardball' host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was 'fair game.'"


"Oh, and jaycee, the CIA told Fitzgerald that Plame was working on WMD nonproliferation and Fitzgerald put that into a court filing."

So? you don't think the bureaucrats at the CIA had an agenda to fulfill.


"Oh, and jaycee, the CIA told Fitzgerald that Plame was working on WMD nonproliferation and Fitzgerald put that into a court filing."

Gee, THERE'S a real authoritative source. Matthews doesn't have an axe to grind, does he?

None of your poor pitiful attempts to escape matter. You're still wrong.

You're busted, pal.

Deal with it.
 

Lex, Plame had an admin job at a desk, shuffling papers. CLERK. She was not a Case Officer or a Station Chief or a techie.
She was not a "Secret Squirrel" and had no protection under the oft-cited Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
 

Uh, jaycee?

What Valerie Wilson Really Did at the CIA.

Per CIA classmate Larry Johnson, she was transitioning from NOC to OC, both of which are covered by the IIPA.

But God forbid you let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 

Lex- you just linked to Corn! (Please tell me see the humor in that). We don't know if anyone leaked classified information. We do know that Armitage outed Plame, we don't know if her job was hampered by making her employment known, we think Armitage meant her no harm, we know Liddy is in trouble for his conduct during the investigation, not for outing anyone, we know Rove is clear, we know Joe Wilson lied and failed in his mission...

We know Powell and Armitage remained silent when they knew who leaked Plame's name. We know they could have prevented the need of a SP. We know this is a case of the media and politicians behaving badly.
 

Hey, you guys are the ones saying Corn's disclosure about Armitage "proves" there's no case. So now Corn is unreliable? (In point of fact, Corn's reporting regarding Armitage appears accurate both on its face and in its consistency with known facts. It's the interpretation of those facts to mean there was no crime committed and that Fitzgerald's investigation is nothing but partisan BS that I have a problem with. I don't necessarily think they're wrong, but I do think we way too little evidence for them to claim that they're right.) As for the rest of your assertions, Chip ...

We don't know if anyone leaked classified information.

Oh, yes, we do. The CIA says so. Fitzgerald said so in a court filing (i.e., under pain of perjury). They could both be wrong, but I wouldn't bet the rent.

We do know that Armitage outed Plame ...

To Novak only. Rove outed her to Cooper, and Libby (not Liddy -- I know; it gets confusing) confirmed it.

... we don't know if her job was hampered by making her employment known ...

That appears to be one of Corn's claims in the book. Without having read it, I don't know whether he can back it up.

... we know Liddy is in trouble for his conduct during the investigation, not for outing anyone ...

Well, that's what he's charged with, anyway.

... we know Rove is clear ...

Most likely, Fitzgerald has said, Rove won't be charged. But we don't know why, and Fitzgerald's statement sounded conditional. One possibility, which fits the known facts but for which no evidence exists, is that Rove is cooperating with the investigation in exchange for immunity.

... we know Joe Wilson lied and failed in his mission...

We "know" no such thing.

We know Powell and Armitage remained silent when they knew who leaked Plame's name.

"Remained silent"? Armitage contacted and was interviewed by investigators almost three months before a special prosecutor was named.

We know this is a case of the media and politicians behaving badly.

We know this is a case of some media behaving badly (Judy Miller and Bob Woodward, primarily).

Sure, it's possible that, as Jim Wilson insists over at my work blog, Fitzgerald is on a partisan witch hunt. But that would be inconsistent with his work history. More likely is that Fitzgerald is sincere but misguided, and if that's the case I'd think we'll eventually find out.

And if Fitzgerald is neither insincere nor misguided, I guess we'll find that out, too.

Oh, one other thing about that Corn link: Didja notice how the CIA's Iraq group was being ramped up in the summer of 2001 -- months before 9/11? Curious, that.
 

Oh, the link for my claim, "We 'know' no such thing," is: http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/response_to_was.html
 

Dang it Lex! I have an inside track on Fitzgerald- a source I'd put up against anyone. He is not on a witchhunt. He is not political. He is a bulldog with no political aspirations.

This is a political case- that is driven by lifelong politicians and reported on by reporters who have been in Washington far too long. Its confusing and therefore will probably never harm the administration- it has certainly enriched Wilson and Plame.

But none of that falls on Fitzgerald. If the AG wanted to appoint a political hac- he should never have chosen Fitz.
 

Lex, even USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm) says that Plame was recalled from overseas duty in 1997 after the Aldrich Ames case came to light, which does not put her under the protection of the IIPA requiring overseas duty in the previous 5 years before being "outed."
Can you cite a FACTUAL source that publicly says otherwise?
Larry Johnson left the CIA in the late 1989, 17 years ago. I believe his info is too dated to be reliable.
 

This is a political case- that is driven by lifelong politicians and reported on by reporters who have been in Washington far too long.

Chip, that might well be, but as you yourself point out, Fitzgerald doesn't do politics (or, more precisely, has no known history of doing so). And the people who run the Justice Department all, presumably, support Bush; if they were "doing politics," it is more likely that they would be doing politics in ways that would help Bush, not hurt him. Moreover, Fitzgerald's reputation for straightforwardness was no secret, so I doubt they picked him thinking he'd be a hack.

I do have a question, though. Outside of top Justice folks and maybe a federal district judge, no one else in the government has the least sway over how the investigation proceeds. So -- and I'm not being snarky here -- I'm a little confused as to which "lifelong politicians" COULD be driving the investigation, as you suggest.

As for the reporters, the Washington-based MSM actually wishes this story would go away. David Broder's Washington Post column today ("One Leak and a Flood of Silliness"; the page appears to be down at the moment) is just one good example. It has been bloggers who have primarily driven the story.

jaycee, prove that Corn's claims w/r/t Plame's status are untrue. As for Larry Johnson, yes, he left the CIA 17 years ago. But that fact is irrelevant to the merit of this particular post of his, which links to rcent documentation for its claims rather than relying on Johnson's personal knowledge or memory.
 

Lex- I'm in over my head. I knew Broder and David Brooks wrote about what an embarrassment it is (my words). I said big dogs- Armitage and Powell (hardly lifelong politicians, but big political figures) have driven it- simply by keeping quiet. The fact Fitz did the impossible- shutting down leaks- that kept us guessing. (Brooks wrote about Washington media scrambling over every rumor).Regardless of who goes down, Wilson has lost credibility with everyone.

In the end, it looks like those cynical towards Bush's people will remain so- no one came out clean. And if we learned anything from Clinton, we know few, if any, will be convicted.
 

chip: I said big dogs- Armitage and Powell (hardly lifelong politicians, but big political figures) have driven it- simply by keeping quiet.

Ah. Gotcha. Missed that earlier. Sorry.
 

Lex has still not admitted that he DID slime an Admin official in his blog. He's talked about everything else but he remains silent about the fact that he purposely tried to mislead us.

Why are we not surprised?

You compromised your professional integrity, Lex. Was it worth that to not have to admit you were WRONG about something?

I'll will repeat this here and elsewhere until I get a response.
 

Put simply, Lex is not enough of a man to admit his mistakes. Little wonder nobody reads his blog but the sycophants.
Lex has no credibility in the journalism world. He's a hack opinionist good only for the blogosphere.
 

Bubba, I didn't "slime" an administration official. I repeated known facts about him. There's a difference.

jaycee: By all means, please share with us your basis for assessing my credibility in "the journalism world" (whatever that is). I'm pleased to let my record speak for itself.