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??

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?

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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