Patterico's Pontifications

9/2/2006

Lyin’ Joe Hits Bottom

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:00 am



Nice editorial by the editors of the Washington Post on lyin’ Joe Wilson:

[A]ll those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame’s cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame’s identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak “in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip,” according to a story this week by the Post’s R. Jeffrey Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House — that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson — is untrue.

. . . .

[I]t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Oh, that is so sweet, and so true.

Lyin’ Joe’s response? Screw the Washington Post! The truth is at firedoglake! (H/t Byron York.)

How far Mighty Joe hath fallen.

Say it ain’t so, lyin’ Joe!

P.S. If Lyin’ Joe has hit bottom, Jason Leopold is somewhere below him.

“Behold the Underminer! I am always beneath you, but nothing is beneath me!”

(You should be aware that I resort to quotes from the Incredibles from time to time. I assure you they will always be topical.)

But, as frequent Patterico commenter Dana reports, Leopold isn’t giving up.

There’s a word for doubling down — is there one for, uh, octupling down?

UPDATE: Quotation marks have been removed from around the sentence “Screw the Washington Post! The truth is at firedoglake!” to make it clear this is a paraphrase, not a quote. I thought it was clear it was a paraphrase, but the quotation marks misled one commenter — illustrating once again the danger of placing quotation marks around paraphrases.

36 Responses to “Lyin’ Joe Hits Bottom”

  1. it’s kinda odd that when an undercover cia agent is illegally outed for political gain, patterico will fulminate against her husband, but when newspaper editors out allegedly secret, valuable antiterrorist programs, he doesn’t have one bad word to say against the spouses of the people participating in these programs.

    assistant devil's advocate (03459e)

  2. Except she, um, wasn’t outed for political gain. Armitage screwed up.

    Patterico, drop in all the Incredibles references you want to. Great film.

    See Dubya (d97d63)

  3. Patterico:

    There’s a word for doubling down — is there one for, uh, octupling down?

    Hara kiri.”

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (6e94cd)

  4. From the DU comments:

    If you hate Karl Rove, support Joe and Valerie.

    closely followed by:

    freepers are mindless sheep. i don’t understand their hatred of the truth.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  5. Put him on the stand and let him say anything we wants.

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  6. Sorry: Let him say anything “he” wants. Given the years-long media hysteria over this, I’m sure they’ll convict the entire administration.

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  7. I wonder how long his lawyer Eriwn Chemerinsky is going to continue to embarass himself by going forward with the Wilson’s lawsuit.

    Justin Levine (d8da01)

  8. Erwin Chemerinsky apparently cannot be embarrassed.

    Federal Dog (9afd6c)

  9. Pablo wrote:

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Why not? They do! 🙂

    Dana (1d5902)

  10. Hmm nobody here defending His Excellency the Ambassador Joeseph C. Wilson IV?

    I know Patterico has at least one commenter that thinks Munchausen Joe is as honest as a cool summer morning.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  11. It’s “kinda odd” that when newspaper editors basically call BS on Joe Wilson’s claims–namely that “an undercover cia agent [was] illegally outed for political gain”–assistant devil’s advocate tries to change the subject.

    Sean M. (db71f3)

  12. What is there to celebrate? Wilson won….

    While the temptation is there to share in the chuckles over the Washington Post’s editorial takedown of Joe Wilson, I have to remember that, as the song goes, the damage is done……

    ThoughtsOnline (d3e296)

  13. Hmmmm…. Q and O has been hacked.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  14. Wilson’s statement looks just a tad unhinged. But where did he say: “Screw the Washington Post! The truth is at firedoglake!”

    Bradley J. Fikes (f912b4)

  15. “it’s kinda odd that when an undercover cia agent is illegally outed for political gain,”

    But nobody was “outed for political gain.” As one column I read yesterday put it, Plame was taken out in friendly fire from another anti-Bushite. Oh, the irony!

    And, as someone else noted, A.D.A. changes the topic when the topic doesn’t suit him. Delicious!

    sharon (e3ba47)

  16. …when newspaper editors out allegedly secret, valuable antiterrorist programs, he doesn’t have one bad word to say against the spouses of the people participating in these programs.

    Comment by assistant devil’s advocate

    The devil seems to be pretty desperate for legal help, guess all those old jokes were wrong.

    B Moe (bbd541)

  17. But where did he say: “Screw the Washington Post! The truth is at firedoglake!”

    Oh, for God’s sake.

    It’s nice that the WAPO is actually telling the truth for a change, but I’m with Joe. Screw ’em. Why should they be able to play Emily Litella and just say, “Oh…….never mind.” They’ve been leading the charge the whole time.

    CraigC (9cd021)

  18. […] More: The Corner at NRO Power Line JustOneMinute Patterico posted by: The Editors @ 7:46 am September 1, 2006 […]

    The Unalienable Right » WaPo on Wilson - Plame - Fitzgerald - Rove - Libby - Armitage-gate (7644ea)

  19. Wilson’s statement looks just a tad unhinged. But where did he say: “Screw the Washington Post! The truth is at firedoglake!”

    It was a shorter my enemy quote, not a direct quote.

    Xrlq (1fd2ef)

  20. Let’s be fair and quote Joe directly:

    By this afternoon, I expect that our own team will have an updated set of talking points to distribute for your use as well.

    Feel better now? Heh, heh, heh, heh.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  21. I have to doubt the sincerity of anybody who uses a term formed by his own wife’s name and the suffix -gate.

    Jim Treacher (30e583)

  22. an undercover cia agent is illegally outed

    False.

    She was not “undercover” and was not “illegally outed”. If either of these two were correct, Fitz would have grounds for indictment. No indictment because no violation.

    But then it was obvious from the start that the bolded statement was incorrect. Just not obvious enough for the “reality-based community”. They preferred their fantasies. Now perhaps this can be put to bed. There are more important things to talk about, like how big a padded room will Jason Leopold get.

    Bill M (d9e4b2)

  23. The assistant devil’s advocate began:

    it’s kinda odd that when an undercover cia agent is illegally outed for political gain . . . .

    Unfortunately for your preamble, the lovely Mrs Wilson was neither an undercover agent, nor was exposing her CIA employment illegal.

    The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 is the controlling legal authority. SEC. 606. [50 U.S.C. 426], §(4)(A)(ii) of the act defines which agents are and are not covered by the law, specifying:

    (4) The term “covert agent” means—
    (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
    (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
    (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
    (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
    (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
    (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
    (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

    Mrs Wilson, having served last outside of the United States in 1997, and whose CIA connection was exposed in 2003, six years after her final foreign posting, simply isn’t covered under the act. You’ll note that no one has been charged with the crime of violating the IIPA in revealing her employment.

    Further, I don’t know if you’ve ever traveled the freeways around Washington, DC, but if you have, you might have noticed great big green overhead highwy markers specifying the exit ramps to Langley, the publicly known CIA headquarters. Mrs Wilson, living in the same home as Ambassador Wilson, a somewhat public person, drove by an identifiable car from that house to the publicly known CIA headquarters every work day for six years. I’m sure that you aren’t naïve enough to think that the Russians and the Chinese and the Israelis and the Germans and the British and the Iranians and anybody else who cares enough to spy on the US didn’t get on a grassy knoll somewhere and photograph every license plate entering that facility, and track down the identities of the people owning those cars.

    Mrs Wilson’s CIA employment was outed by her own actions of driving, in plain public view, to CIA headquarters ever day! There are people paid to notice things like this, and unless you think that every intelligence agency in the world is sloppy and careless, it was noticed.

    THus, Mrs Wilson’s CIA employment was neither covert, nor was disclosing it illegal. Period.

    Dana (1d5902)

  24. It was a shorter my enemy quote, not a direct quote.

    Thanks Xrlq, and to Patterico for clarifying that. Quote marks signify to the reader that the person named actually said those words. Reporters get into trouble over that point constantly.

    Back to the main issue. There is something frightening about the ferocity which Wilson, Leopold and company press their case, even as their claims crumbles. When someone can’t prove a claim, the decent thing to do is retract and be more careful the next time. Instead, we get stuff like the harassment of Seixon.

    Also, Leopold is threatening to sue anyone he thinks is saying he knowingly published false information. I found that out firsthand. For the record, (I can hear Patterico snickering at me), I am NOT claiming Leopold has deliberately published falsehoods. I don’t have any proof of that. But it is fact that Leopold hasn’t proven a lot of what he writes; the Karl Rove “indictment” being Exhibit A. This has justifiably earned Leopold a less-than-stellar journalistic reputation.

    So folks, be extremely careful what you say about these people. Or you too may get intimidating emails, a phone call and a demand to speak with your boss.

    Bradley J. Fikes (f912b4)

  25. Quote marks signify to the reader that the person named actually said those words.

    Funny… Sadly, No! and those guys paraphrase like that all the time. Patterico, next time maybe you should put “Shorter [insert name here]:” in front of it to eliminate any confusion.

    (My apologies for using “Sadly, No!” and “funny” in the same paragraph.)

    Jim Treacher (30e583)

  26. Quote marks signify to the reader that the person named actually said those words. Reporters get into trouble over that point constantly.

    Yeah, and ironically, I gave one of them grief for exactly the same issue (and Xrlq defended them).

    Patterico (91fd36)

  27. Yeah, and ironically, I gave one of them grief for exactly the same issue (and Xrlq defended them).

    Well, you have a bona fide reporter backing your point on quotes. (And I suspect any other reporter you talk with will say the same thing). The reason is clarity. Was that the reporter’s interpretation of the person speaking, or the person’s own words? The quote marks should actually mean something, and not just be a typographical device to catch the readers’ eye.

    Bradley J. Fikes (f912b4)

  28. Bradley, I agree that quotation marks should actually mean something. The problem is they don’t always mean the same thing. Examples:

    1. Joe Wilson said, “Screw the Washington Post! The truth is at firedoglake!”
    2. Joe Wilson said a bunch of stupid, incoherent crap that boils down to this: “Screw the Washington Post! The truth is at firedoglake!”
    3. Joe Wilson told a real “whopper” about firedog lake and the Washington Post.

    Example #1 purports to be a direct quote, and would be improper since Wilson didn’t really say that verbatim. Example #2 uses quotation marks to describe the idea, but does not imply that Wilson said it verbatim. This was the intended meaning of Patterico’s quote. Example #3 uses quotes for a completely different reason, to identify a slang term Wilson himself obviously would not have used to describe his own statement. That was essentially the use of quotes Patterico and I were debating about – except that the word in question was “jihad,” and was used to describe a non-Arab Christian who obviously (to me, anyway) would not have used that word to describe his own agenda.

    Xrlq (1fd2ef)

  29. Dana, very nice work explaining the basic facts.

    Unfortunately, I’m afraid there’s a certain segment of the population which does not allow facts to influence their comprehension of a given situation.

    Independent of the lies told by Wilson & Plame, their moonbat conspiracy of victimhood doesn’t even make sense for a couple of simple reasons;

    —VP Cheney would not have sent a man who opposed the administration (Joe Wilson) to Niger.

    —Robert Novak, like Joe Wilson, OPPOSED the Iraq War, therefore, Novak would not have been handpicked by the White House to do a strategically placed ‘leak.’
    Novak is a Republican, but he’s no friend of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy.

    And if Wilson’s contention that his wife’s identity as a CIA analyst in Langley was such a deep, dark secret—then why on earth had Wilson already given up her name and employer for public consumption in the ‘Who’s Who’ book ?

    Desert Rat (d8da01)

  30. The Desert Rat noted:

    Unfortunately, I’m afraid there’s a certain segment of the population which does not allow facts to influence their comprehension of a given situation.

    Which makes you wonder how they were allowed to co-opt the name “The Reality-Based Commubnity.”

    By the way, I can’t take full credit on explaining the facts; a lot of people before me did the research.

    Dana (a90377)

  31. Which makes you wonder how they were allowed to co-opt the name “The Reality-Based Commubnity.”

    Read Orwell. When you control what the words mean, you control what the people think.

    Martin L. Shoemaker (0c535d)

  32. Jason Leopold just called me again, threatening legal action and demanding to speak to my boss.

    Bradley J. Fikes (20730b)

  33. How long did Fitzpatrick know it was Armitage? Why did Armitage let so much political BS go on when he knew better. Why did Novak?

    I thought you knew Fitzpatrick and thought he was a good guy. Can you help us understand this other than political axe-grinding or opportunism?? Otherwise, can Attorney Fitzpatrick be given an appointment way in the backwoods somewhere?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  34. Fitz knew it was Armitage from his fist day at school. Armitage did’nt tell anyone because Fitz requested it . Powell and Armitage are not close to President Bush and do not support the war in Iraq. BTW, neither does Novak.

    alexandra2 (2f6afb)

  35. How can a prosecutor continue to investigate a case for months after he knows the answer, at the expense of misleading the public and potentially changing public policy? If the answer is, that’s exactly what he wanted to do, what recourse do we have????

    Indeed, I realize none of these folks are friends of Bush, if they were, they would have been on the gallows in front of Harry Reid’s office.

    It seems to me a great abuse of power and privilege by both fitz and Armitage. Do their mothers know they did this???? My mom taught me to tell the truth, and to withhold the truth was like lying.

    Who does Fitz report to anyway? Can I volunteer??

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0997 secs.