From Newsbusters:
It’s certainly not often that a conservative can say this, but today’s editorial in the Washington Post entitled “A Good Leak†represents a bold and almost unprecedented demonstration of support for President George W. Bush by one of America’s leading liberal newspapers. Frankly, I had to check and double-check the web address while pinching myself to make sure I wasn’t seeing things.
Yet, there it was: “PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do.â€Â
While it is certainly heartening to see the WaPo state the obvious, I still must quibble with the editorial’s title and its use of terms, which suggests that declassifying information in order to get it out to the public is a “leak.”
It is not. It is within the purview of Presidential powers to declassify such information and use it to answer the questions of the press. A leak, conversely, is intended to get information out that someone believes those in power are keeping from the public.
But that aside, the Post editorial is refreshingly honest in its framing of this latest attempt by some in the anti-war and media establishment to push another “scandal,” especially in its restating of the facts of the Plame/Wilson case:
The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it’s worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush’s subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately “twisted” intelligence “to exaggerate the Iraq threat.” The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.
Mr. Wilson subsequently claimed that the White House set out to punish him for his supposed whistle-blowing by deliberately blowing the cover of his wife, Valerie Plame, who he said was an undercover CIA operative. This prompted the investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson’s charge. In last week’s court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity. Mr. Libby’s motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame’s name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak’s two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.
[My emphases]
What is even more fascinating about this editorial is that it seems, albeit quite cautiously, to be leaning toward the suggestion that the Libby indictment was wrongheaded and inconsistent with other facts we know (and don’t know) about the case.
The editorial continues:
As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby’s indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It’s unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.
This is a big first step toward a degree of press sanity. Perhaps the Post sees its opportunity to regain market share by appealing to those Americans who simply aren’t buying the constant drumbeat of scandal against a President they intuitively believe is acting in their best interests.
Or perhaps they’ve actually reached the point where they themselves understand this. Either way, many on the anti-war side of the political divide—along with partisan Democrats—are likely to be disappointed by this editorial.
For instance, reached for comment, firegodlake’s Jane Hamsher called the editorial “bullshittiness of the highest fucking bullshit order,” then, after burning her Ben Bradlee doll with a cigarette, downed a half bottle of Stoli Vanilla and coughed up her spleen.1
(h/t Allah)
1 For those of you who are either willfully or cynically obtuse, this quote is, of course, a complete fabrication. As far as I know, Jane’s spleen is comfortably intact, and her Ben Bradlee action figure (a collector’s item that from what I’m told has never been removed from it’s box) is free from any cigarette blemishes. And besides, Hamsher is a renowned wine spritzer drinker. Anything harder than Chablis and selzer makes her crave chili cheese nachos, which are hard on her delicate colon.
I should take the opportunity to note, too, that my conversations with John Merrick’s ghost, Klonopin, my rimless glasses, a McIntosh apple, Leif Garrett, etc., are also fabrications. And that Martha Stewart prison diary? Not real. Ditto my “liveblogging” of the RNC and DNC conventions.
This is libel, Goldstein. Pure and simple.
Meh. Weigh that editorial against the ten thousand “BUSH LEAKED!!” headlines, which are all the more ridiculous when you consider the NIE was declassified and publicly released a few days later anyway.
The press is never going to be fair. It’s just not possible when, as Michael Barone notes, 90% of them are drawn from one side of the aisle.
It’s sad that these occasional moments of sanity are cause for celebration, but in truth this is the best we can hope for.
Damn. It’s like you were there dude. I would expect a reprisal thread over there tonight. Hell, you might be the ‘late night’ theme of the week…
BTW – Stoli Vanilla? Feh. Straight original Stoli, maybe with a twist of lime. Anything else is alcohol abuse.
WHY THE WAPO IS WRONG ABOUT PLAMEGATE
Aside from the FACT that the Washington Post chose to repeat misinformation about Plamegate, they left out a few glaring details in their ridiculous approval of Valerie Plame’s outing for political gain.
Leaking Valerie Plame’s name took a valuable resource out of the REAL war on terror. This action approved by the President and Vice President has endangered the lives of every American citizen, both at home and abroad.
Leaking Plame’s name also blew her front cover employer, Brewster Jennings & Associates. It was Robert Novak, American traitor, and political commentator hack, who in collusion with Bush and Cheney, first published the highly classified information.
It has been suggested that there were other resources within the CIA who were also working undercover as non-official cover operative” (NOC) as employees of Brewster Jennings. It has also been suggested that once their undercover status was compromised, they were quickly captured and eliminated, thus multiplying the damage done to the CIA’s ability to gather valuable information in the Mid East.
The outing of Plame destroyed all trust the CIA had for the Bush/Cheney administration. Why would they now put their lives on the line as NOCs knowing that at any time, their cover could also be blown for political gain, thus ending their careers and possibly ending their lives as well?
But there’s more!
Plame… ‘was a long-term proprietary and deep-cover NOC – well established and consistently producing “take” from ARAMCO (and who knows what else in Saudi Arabia). It was destroyed with a motive of personal vengeance (there may have been other motives) by someone inside the White House.
From the CIA’s point of view, at a time when Saudi Arabia is one of the three or four countries of highest interest to the US, the Plame operation was irreplaceable.
Almost the entire Bush administration has an interest in ARAMCO.
The Boston Globe reported that in 2001 ARAMCO had signed a $140 million multi-year contract with Halliburton, then chaired by Dick Cheney, to develop a new oil field. Halliburton does a lot of business in Saudi Arabia. Current estimates of Halliburton contracts or joint ventures in the country run into the tens of billions of dollars.
So do the fortunes of some shady figures from the Bush family’s past.
As recently as 1991 ARAMCO had Khalid bin Mahfouz sitting on its Supreme Council or board of directors. Mahfouz, Saudi Arabia’s former treasurer and the nation’s largest banker, has been reported in several places to be Osama bin Laden’s brother in law.
ARAMCO is the largest oil group in the world, a state-owned Saudi company in partnership with four major US oil companies.
Another one of Aramco’s partners is Chevron-Texaco which gave up one of its board members, Condoleezza Rice, when she became the National Security Advisor to George Bush.
All of ARAMCO’s key decisions are made by the Saudi royal family while US oil expertise, personnel and technology keeps the cash coming in and the oil going out. ARAMCO operates, manages, and maintains virtually all Saudi oil fields – 25% of all the oil on the planet.’
http://www.oilempire.us/plame.html
Also, let’s not forget the long term friendship and business partnerships between the Bush family and the bin Laden family.
Knowing all of this, how can anyone in their right mind approve of Bush and Cheney’s treasonous behavior of outing Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings for political gain?
Then whose spleen is this?
Thanks for the heads up on the editorial actually being worth the time to read it. I did not have much faith in the Sunday section after reading the pack o’ lies story about “concerted effort,” where the Duelfer report is not mentioned. Its lefty dream world where we just made this stuff up about Saddam in 2002, and Europe had only one report about saddam (which was disproved, natch).
BTW, your comment system is a bitch.
I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps the reason why the press will not leak Saddam’s recently unclassified documents is due to their patriotic duty serving their international community of collective kleptocrats, dictators, progressives and various other oppressive totalitarian collectives?
Joe Wilson Lied, Moonbats Fried.
Wow, Kev, that’s brilliant! Just brilliant. Say, does Fitzgerald know what you know? Perhaps you could be a good boy and forward your comment to his office. I’m sure he’d appreciate it.
The factual assertions in the WaPo editorial are contradicted by the paper’s own news coverage today, but since plenty of others have already addressed that point around the blogosphere today, I’ll make a different point.
The meme that “President’s can’t leak” is so semantically weak that I’m surprised you would stoop to repeat it. I understand that there is a legal difference between an authorized leak and an unauthorized leak, but they are both still leaks. According to Libby’s testimony, he was instructed to deliver information to a reporter on deep background, asking that it be attributed to a “former Hill staffer.” That is a leak by anyone’s definition. When you put out a press release or call a news conference, that’s a disclosure. When you provide information selectively and on a not-for-attribution basis to friendly news reporters, that’s a leak. Saying otherwise is just silly.
If by “silly”, you mean “absolutely right”, then yes. A leak is an unauthorized disclosure. If the Executive authorizes the disclosure, it’s not a leak.
Saying otherwise is just silly, by which I mean “wrong”.
A.L.’s got it backwards, the assertions of the “story” are undercut by the editorial. The story ignores so much as to make it anti-news. People who read it are dumber for having read it.
Kevin the wickit smaaat guy sez:
Dick was moonlighting? That greedy prick! Was he still CEO too, or just Chariman of the Board in 2001, his first year as Vice President?
tw: Show me the money!
Fer Crissakes, Jeff. First thing happens I comes in here but I steps in sum dang moonbat spleen ! It’s everywhere ! And it stinks o’ vanilla ! I hate vanilla !
Now how am I gonna get this mess off my brand new Birkenstocks, I asks ya. You just wait till the ‘dillo gets home and sees this. Yer ass is grass, fella. I’m gonna sue !
tw: yeah, I’m late to the party. I’m gonna sue about that too !
*Pokes the spleen with a stick*
Who, exactly, has suggested this? On what grounds? Who did the capturing and eliminating? A government? A non-state actor? Where, either in the domestic press or the international media, was this covered? Why didn’t Fitzgerald file charges on this basis?
For that matter, are there really a total of five Kevin Schmidt, Sterlings in existence? Where is the Ur-Kevin?
All excellent questions, Khan. However, you do make the mistake of assuming they stopped making Kevin Schmidt,Sterlings after they made ours. For all we know there could be dozens of them.
Or it may be one of those deals where if you beat one to death, two new ones rise up.
They’re here already! You’re next! You’re next, You’re next…
Wow, you better alert the CIA, since they still haven’t done a damage assessment. The CIA is under the mistaken impression that there “is no indication, according to current and former intelligence officials, that the most dire of consequences—the risk of anyone’s life—resulted from her outing.”
I knew that the Kossack site was full of moonbats, but also some extremely creative writers–fiction, none the less–but creative.
Joe Wilson lied, CIA employee Valerie’s nepotism is identified: the truth is told.
And there’s allegedly something wrong with this?
Shout all you want, Jack, nobody will believe you.
If by “sillyâ€Â, you mean “absolutely rightâ€Â, then yes. A leak is an unauthorized disclosure. If the Executive authorizes the disclosure, it’s not a leak.
Saying otherwise is just silly, by which I mean “wrongâ€Â.
Pablo, there is no metaphysical definition of a “leak”. You’re right that it’s often used to refer to an unauthorized disclosure. But it’s also commonly used in the broader sense to refer to the act of telling a reporter something on an anonymous or not-for-attribution basis. For instance, a lot of information was “leaked” by the administration in the pre-war period in order to make the case for war (aluminum tubes, etc.). This were clearly authorized leaks timed to precede Sunday talk show appearances and frame the political debate.
Defining the word “leak” narrowly to include only unauthorized disclosures is playing semantics. Clearly the word is used in the broader sense, and often. What else to you call slipping information to a favorite reporter on deep background? Of course it’s a leak.
About 3 weeks ago, there were still at least two people with google-able resumes listing Brewster Jennings experience. One, the Chicago Tribune reported, is still an agent.
One might think if the Brewster Jennings revelation started a genocide, these people would have been either a)killed or b)smart enough to change their resumes. Perhaps these two just hadn’t heard that ‘it had been reported’ there was a Brewster Jennings massacre.
Authorized disclosure is not a leak in the sense that the administration is accused of being hypocritical for opposing leaks (unauthorized) while doing it themselves.
Perhaps AnonLib can link to some of his comments where he corrects that misplayed semantic.
Still living in your rosy Neocon dream eh Josh?
What have you been smoking lately? I can’t conceptualize the fact that you still believe the Pentagon-produced infomercials showing complacent cum generously breasted Baghdad girls throwing rosewater, lukums and champagne at our troops on Apr 9, 2003…
Frankly Josh, can’t you see Teheran’s mullahs are the only winners here?
And those ungrateful Ayyranians should be mighty satisfied and thankful already for el Chimpresidente nukular supreme de la White Casa knocked their archenemy for them and handed them (via their SCIRI cum Da’awa stooges) two thirds of Ayyraq on a silver plate!
Plus the Persians got all that for free: future generations of infidel American taxpayers will generously pick the estimated 2 trillion dollars tab- George W’s contribution to the Koranic jurisprudential concept of “Jiziyahâ€Â…
As a seasoned Sassanid sophist might have said: With foes like these, who needs friends?
Mr. Sequitur, I’d like to introduce you to Protein Wisdom’s toy punching bag, “Dr.” Victorina Non.
Cordially…
Who is this “Josh,” anyway?
Ala Jan Hamsher:
I know it’s shocking, but Hamsher is endorsing a “post blog jihad”, I’m sure it will be a great success! Just more in the effort to take back the house
Man wouldn’t you just love to see Hamsher try to sue Jeff for libel?
Gahrie
I’m slightly perplexed what exactly she considerers libelous? And um, not exactly like she is pure as the driven snow when it comes to characterizing folks (think Kate O’Breine)
First Anonymous Liberal says:
Later, A.L. says:
Notice how A.L. moves the goalposts by claiming that there is no “metaphysical” definition of the word “leak”. Which is amazing, in that a “metaphysical” definition would be, by definition, speculation.
Of course, by invoking The Metaphysical God, A.L. is attempting to muddy the waters after the amazingly stupid comment of his regarding “authorized leak” versus “unauthorized leak”. And after claiming that there are no proper definitions of “leak”, A.L. promptly defines the work ”leak” to suit his/her own position. Said position being that there was a leak, and not an authorized disclosure. Claiming otherwise, of course, would disturb the fragile balance of the reality based community.
And we couldn’t have that, now, could we?
The Real JeffS  “That depends on what your definition of the word ‘leak’ is…” didn’t someone in the RBC community say something like that once…?
Well, let the bodies hit the floor.
Who let in Torquemada of the English language?
crickets…crickets…I mean, that should include things like book deals, press conferences, and the State of the Union. Gawd…
Just two things to say: Jeff, thanks for your excellent blog. Kevin, thanks for the laugh. Seriously, that was hysterical.
I’m included to believe that President Bush not only authorized a leak, he demands leaks daily from everyone in the White House staff. No exceptions for anyone at any time.
Daily leaks, you see, are necessary for your health. Indeed, a lack of leaks will lead to serious health complications, including (but not limited to) rupture of the bladder. All that coffee, y’see, leads to one basic urge that everyone certainly shares.
And that’s my definition of an “authorized leak”.
TW: CHARGE!!!!!!
Kevin from Kos. As predictable as the freaking sunrise.
And they want to talk about groupthink on the right? Have they looked in a mirror in the last 5 or so years? The very definition of groupthink stares right back at them.
The left has been a broken record for some time now.
OH MY GAWD, WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
Game over, man! GAME OVER!
Got that?
Saddam Hussein was an ally.
I think blogswarming the Post’s website is an excellent way to dispel the notion of groupthink.
Hey, if you can’t earn respect, you can demand it, right? Not to mention, the free press is the perfect forum to use to try to shout down something you disagree with.
Anonymous Liberal sez:
I want a definition of leak that means “Fetch Pablo a nice, cold IPA”. Then, I want everyone to do it. We’ll call that the pablodrunkical definition, barring objection. (actus excepted)
Commonly used by whom? You? AnonymousLiberalbullshitical doesn’t exactly float of the tongue, you know. Let’s try a dictionary:
“To become publicly known through a breach of secrecy: The news has leaked.”
Well, then. It looks as if secrecy must be breached for a leak to occur. And if information has had it’s cloak of secrecy removed, with an intent to make said information public…it can’t be a leak! Ta da!
What’s that you say? You see other definitions there? Well, let’s have a look, Bunky!
“To disclose without authorization or official sanction: leaked classified information to a reporter.”
Oh, that’s not gonna help either.
If by “playing semantics” you mean “factually and gramatically accurate and appropriate”, then yes. It is indeed. Now where’s that beer?
tw: I hopw we’ve all learned something here.
Can someone explain to me why the so-called “reality-based community” is so enamored with conspiracy theories?
Or was the name intended as sarcasm from the get-go?
Yes Sean,
We are going to die. The lefties are stocking up on New, Improved, High Perbolly. It’s cheap, effective and all the moonbats swear by it.
This is libel, Goldstein. Pure and simple.
Posted by Jane Hamsher
Let me guess, Jane, you’re not a lawyer, but you play one on blogs?
How’s the bookburning campaign coming?
Spiny Norman sez:
You know when you’re a kid and you start thinking about the universe, and about atoms, and it occurs to you that our whole universe might be nothing more than an atom of some enormous giant’s left toe? And remember when it came to you that the atoms in your fingernail might each contain its own infinitesimally tiny universe with teeny, tiny beings wondering the same thing you are?
That’s the sort of reality the community you refer to is based on. Which might explain the aversion to soap…
Pablo,
A Horton Hears A Who sort of thing?
Yes, but not quite as logical.
Besides, any definition this broad will contain that which are unimpeachable at best. It is therefore not germaine to the point.
I don’t think that trait is at all specific to the left. I think lefties just happen to currently have the high-profile target for those conspiracies.
Putting it mildly, I don’t recall there was any shortage of Bosnia-is-a-war-for-political-gain-Vince-Foster-was-murdered-
This-Arkansas-State-Trooper-says-Bill-Clinton-was-dealing-cocaine-from-the-Governor’s-Mansion
type conspiracies coming from the right eight years ago.
Joe Lockhart sent you to break the blog, didn’t he, SeanH?
If that’s really your name…
Spiny Norman  I think it’s for the same reason SunnyD is called a “Fruit-flavored drink” rather than “juice”. Once you get below 10% actual content, you have to qualify it…
David R. Block  One of my weekly pleasures is the Friday MoveOn march in Studio City. They walk up in a group, get handed “their” signs by the organizer, hand back in their signs and march away exactly when they’re told to, and in the meantime, they call me a “cultist” and “Foxbot.”
Not foer nuthin’…Dr Vicky, did you notice that you posted the same exact think over at Belgravia Dispatch? Jeff, you run Bartertown here ‘n all, but if you need a reason/excuse to ban Vicky Vega, how about for cross-posting, is that kosher or not?
nichevo,
Maybe the resident quack is particularly proud of that composition and wants as wide an audience as possible.
You guys leave Dr. Vic alone, it’s hard to type original posts while swatting all those hornets flying around your head.
Kinda sounds like fun, actually.
But the problem here is that you’re attempting to define “leak” as “any declassification that is favorable to a political position I oppose.”
Which explains why he’s never actually done one.
Kevin,
I suppose the fact that all of your assertions are in fact falsehoods doesn’t deter your tinfoil conspiracy theories in the least?
SeanH
Sure ‘nuf, those Vince Foster, et al, conspiracies were being passed around the fringes of the right like the giant joint from Up in Smoke but funny thing, no Republican official ever seriously advanced them to the public via MSM.
But even high ranking Dems can’t help but stuff themselves at the veritable buffet of Bu$HitlerHalliburtonNeoConZionist conspiracies du jour then proceed directly to the vomitorium that constitutes much of the left-addled MSM.
For instance, reached for comment, firegodlake’s Jane Hamsher called the editorial “bullshittiness of the highest fucking bullshit order,†then, after burning her Ben Bradlee doll with a cigarette, downed a half bottle of Stoli Vanilla and coughed up her spleen.
(h/t Allah)
Reached for comment as to why he lies and put words in others mouths, Jeff Goldstein stated that he was “only acting in the grand old traditions of the republican party”, and that making up stories about progressive bloggers is “fair game” in this new environment of “pay-for-play” conservative blogging. “Jim Guckert ain’t got nothin’ on me!” He stated emphatically.
omg! nobody tell leif garret!
You’re right, it wasn’t a leak. It was a bald faced lie. Just read the post news piece, you idiot.
And I know, I know, it’s routine and entirely righteous for the president to secretly declassify intelligence and then have one of his goons distort it to a reporter who must in turn hide the identity of the leaker…i mean liar…by misleadingly identifying him as a former hill staffer.
It’s all so normal and routine. Only a left wing democrat blogger can’t see that.
Where’s the link to prove this quote is not a fabrication?
or martha stewart
Sarcasm is the sole and exclusive property of the “progressives”? Who knew?
If you heard a ”wheeeeee-eeeettttt!!!!” like sound whilst reading this post, that was the sarcasm flying right by your head, db.
Hey Jeff,
If Jane is lookin’ for a legal battle, I suggest you employ the amazing legal mind of Leonard “J.” Crabs over at somethingawful.com…if he can block the ultimate legal manuevering of the Ultimate Warrior, imagine what he can do for you!
I freely admit to hyperbole. I doubt Ms Hamsher even owns a Ben Bradlee doll. Rents one, maybe. Or leases.
Incidentally, can one really cough up a spleen?
I thought that’d be a dead give away (along with the thought of a progressive sullying the air with cigarette smoke) but sometimes I forget who part of my audience is…
Mr. Goldstein I believe you intended this coda to your post as an hilarious piece of satire. I believe you failed. Miserably. I believe you owe the public a correction and a clear delineation between your ostensibly serious commentary and your fantasies of what other people might say or do if actually reached for comment.
thank you for your time,
sincerely,
Adam W
Adam W —
I don’t believe I care a whit what you believie I owe the public. Anyone familiar with this blog—hell, anyone not looking to be outraged for the sake of being outraged—would identify, as you have, that the attribution was a joke.
Let me ask you this, then: if you know it was intended as a piee of satire, then why are you pretending that I should apologize for it as if it weren’t?
Only an idiot would take seriously a claim a) that I reached Jane Hamsher for comment, b) that she responded to me, c) that Ms Hamsher burned a Ben Bradlee doll with cigarettes (and revealed as much to me), and, finally, d) that she coughed up her spleen.
Anyone incapable of drawing from those clues “a clear delineation” between what was serious and what was not has bigger problems than worrying about what I “owe” the “public” for speech that they don’t care for.
Or, in short: fuck yourself.
Please tell me that W stands for “West,” Adam. Because, how awesome would that be?
Anyway a week later they came back, said that the cheque had bounced and that I had to see Jeff.
Jeff?
Jeff, I was terrified of him. Everyone was terrified of Jeff. I’ve seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Jeff. Even Dinsdale was frightened of Jeff.
What did he do?
He used sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire.
oh no, this means more are coming doesn’t it? Heeeeeeey, did you do this on purpose, mr. “whining about my traffic ealier this evening”?
They really can’t recognize satire, can they? I think “willfully or cynically obtuse” grossly overestimates their intelligence.
Let me know if you need some recommendations for 1st Amendment lawyers, Jeff. Only they are all so liberal I think you might prefer paying Jane to working with them.
I’m glad you corrected your post. Stuff like that gets in Google and when strangers read it they might not be familiar with your Martha prison diaries or your deadbeat neighbor or the mcintosh apple to make the connection.
From your pal and Jane’s pal,
Jeralyn
Not only that…surely this die-hard Hamsher fan would recognize the “coda” was sooo out of Hamsher character to be believed!
I mean really, Hamsher never uses cuss words, hyperbole, conjecture, or accusations! Duh. It was so obvious.
Beautifully and succinctly stated.
Jeff
From reading Hamsher’s blog, I am flabbergasted that she would want to disassociate from the sentiment. Color me confused.
Additionally, if it’s the Stoli thing…then color me even more confused. She insinuated a beer at lunch meant rehab.
If it’s Brady, then she ought to stop comment jihad’s and personal “was it good for you” love letters.
In short, if you can’t take the heat—stop flinging huge red flaming bombs dear.
That was satire? And here I thought the hamster lady had barfed up an organ.
I want my money back!
Ok Pablo, you so funny.
It is ok in your mind to disclose the COVER of an agent working to keep WMDs out of Iran?? THAT is what she was doing. Odd you *ignore* that inconvenient FACT, ain’t it???
Got that, fool? YOu support this BULLSHIT war based on PROVABLE lies, ya qunt, and then ATTACK your OWN agents. Doublequnt.
Because Chimpie CLAIMS he has the right to selectively DISCLOSE UNDERCOVER AGENTS DURING WARTIME?
I think that DEFINES my questions.
Fuck “Leaks”, I am talkiong TREASON, bitch.
Let’s hear your answer, genius.
And of COURSE you “manly men” love attacking Jane.
From here, of course, because she can CHEW YOUR FACE OFF in a debate, jeffiepoo. Ya qunt.
Sharon is still braindead.
I am not.
Hey spiny, so that CONVICTION of LARRY FRANKLIN for CONSPIRACY, not true? An MSM myth?
or are you just a double digit IQ idiot??
Gawd, what passes for intelligent posts on the reich, too much, man. Like watching a painfully slow student trying to act “smart.”
See ‘em all the time: You are still stupid.
Shorter farang: IF I SAY IT IN CAPS LOCK OFTEN ENOUGH IT BECOMES TRUE
Farang, you forgot to mention Halliburton, too. What’s with these guys? I mean, evil conglomerate isn’t an easy target to see?
Jeff, when I first read your article, I thought you were quoting Jane Hamsher, you know, ‘cause of the quotation marks.
Then I realized you were making a “funny”, which I missed initially because it wasn’t, you know, funny.
But I read further into the blog and saw a lot of the jokes your readers were making, and it made me realize why your attempt at humor may be considered funny.
See, on liberal blogs, and there are about 15 to 20 different jokes about each new story. Your bloggers are still bringing out the “liberals don’t use soap” joke, which is over 40 years old.
Even with the low expectations of your supporters, I would suggest working on your humor if you intend to defend Bush by making fun of people. You got more than 6 in 10 people to convince.
By the way, your man Bush called this a leak several times over when he was pretending to want to get to the bottom of it- you might want to forward your “semantics” post to Rove so they get with the program.
chains, your post needs more condescending.
You forgot soap, OHNOES. It needs soap, too.
BECAUSE OF THE SMELLY HIPPIES!!!
chains, your post needs more condescending.
Posted by OHNOES | permalink
on 04/10 at 04:34 AM
is it not fun to be talked to the way you talk to people who disagree with you?
That was satire? And here I thought the hamster lady had barfed up an organ.
I want my money back!
Shorter farang: IF I SAY IT IN CAPS LOCK OFTEN ENOUGH IT BECOMES TRUE
Farang, you forgot to mention Halliburton, too. What’s with these guys? I mean, evil conglomerate isn’t an easy target to see?
OH MY GAWD, WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
Posted by Sean M. | permalink
on 04/09 at 08:06 PM
All very enlightening posts, chock full of facts!
My smelly hippy inquiring mind wants you to explain to me why I am supposed to be okay with an investigation, requested by the CIA and undertaken by the White House, into who “leaked” the name of a CIA agent to the press was allowed to continue(costing millions of tax dollars- usually a hot-button issue for Republicans) if the whole time the President could have just said “I did it. And that’s legal.”
Furthermore, Patrick Fitzgerald is a tough terrorism prosecutor. Why did the White House aske him to waste his skills investigating something they already knew?
Believe it or not, I didn’t like it when Clinton lied to me, and I do not like it any better when I HEARD, myself, Bush say he wants to get to the bottom of this, and now he says he knew the whole time. What am I to believe?
That post needs more projection.
POT VS KETTLE
ROUND ONE
FIGHT
fact:
The CIA asked the White House to investigate who “leaked” the name of a CIA agent.
fact:
Bush did not say, “No need for an investigation. I declassified that information.”
Question: Why?
Also, just for the sake of argument…
From the editorial above…
Good game. You folks with your red-faced, self-righteous rants can go home. It is late. Come back tomorrow with your A-list, the ones who can ACTUALLY debate.
chains, if you’re really so serious, prove that the information Bush declassified was Plame’s identity. Nothing I’ve found leads me to that claim.
Failure to do so conclusively, of course, shows that you are buying into a cynical framing of the story by the MSM blah blah blah blah blah.
If not the Valerie Plame affair, what is the significance of the leak (or declassified information) analyzed in the Washington Post Editorial today?
That’s the million dollar question then, isn’t it chains? Why are they making such a fuss about it? Because it sounds like they can nail the president to the wall with it, and facts be damned. I know you spent the last 20 minutes Googling anything you could about it and found nothing.
What Bush did was declassify parts of the Iraq Pre-war Intelligence… erm… thingy to counter claims made by Wilson about Bush lying and what not… at least that’s my take about it.
Look, it is nearing 6am. I’m sure the DAY shift here can better answer that question. I’m pitching in. Good game.
Erm, pitching in for the night, and DAY should not have been in all caps. Man, I’m losing it.
Coincidentally, I spent those last 20 minutes studying for a test, so don’t think me a loon leaning on the refesh key.
What a jolly good morning! Vitriol and stupidity on display for our amusement!
Let’s clear up a couple of facts right quick:
1) The information which was declassified and released was <b>not Plame’s identity.
2) Fitz has not found that anyone outed Plame. In fact, Fitz has not established that Plame was covert. It appears that she was not. NOC’s don’t list Embassy addresses, ever.
OK, my turn for questions: Since when do CIA operatives have permission to write Op-Eds for the New York Times about their CIA missions?
I’m glad you corrected your post. Stuff like that gets in Google and when strangers read it they might not be familiar with your Martha prison diaries or your deadbeat neighbor or the mcintosh apple to make the connection.
Oh, come on. Like when strangers read Amazon they might not realize FDL posters made fake reviews on Kate O’Beirne’s book. Or googling FDL, they might think Ms. O’Beirne really has a sandpaper . Or maybe they’ll think it’s a fact Dick Cheney was drunk. Or that Ho Liberman has a pimp. Or that “little’ Debby Howell has masters.
I refuse to believe that is a real post by Jeralyn Merritt. If it is, I am truly disappointed by what the blogosphere has become.
By the way,
this:
From the editorial above…
In last week’s court filings, he [Fitzgerald] stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity.
Good game. You folks with your red-faced, self-righteous rants can go home. It is late. Come back tomorrow with your A-list, the ones who can ACTUALLY debate.
Posted by OHNOES | permalink
on 04/10 at 05:22 AM
is not debate. It starts with, “From the editorial” above, the one heavily in favor of the President. Then, after that one fact-oid, you go into some BOO-YAH style rant about my red face and how I’m so bad at debating..because I had no comeback…for the post you hadn’t posted yet.
But I have to admit, you win. That one factoid did send me for a loop, because, quite frankly, once you took Valerie Plame out of the issue, I really had no idea what this whole blog has been about. After I reread everything, I realized it was kind of like a victory for you guys in a fight I had no idea we were having. I don’t have any problem with the President declassifying the NIE. In that regard, I agree with the initial post that the NIE declassification itself should not be called a “leak”. The entire issue has always been about the timing of the declassification. It would appear that a small number of reporters may have had access to parts of the NIE before anyone but the President, his staff, and those reporters knew that the document had been declassified.
And before you start with the “President’s perogative”, you better consider how much power that truly gives a President. Do you really want it to be okay for any President in the future to feed newly declassified information piecemeal to the reporters of their choice without releasing the document to anyone else? Do you really?
I know the Democrats have their heads up their asses right now, but it could happen in your lifetime that an electable version of Hillary Clinton could have the power to show newly declassified documents only to liberal bloggers so we can really spin it up before its official release. Ten days is a long time in newsland. It simply bears looking into. Valerie Plame is tied into this because the declassification of her name is in question in the precise timeframe as these documents. This blog’s story is only a story because of the Valerie Plame issue. The idea that liberals have a problem with the official declassification of the NIE is both a distraction, and inherently at odds with a long-demonstrated commitment to open government.
Does this mean the armadillo thing is a put-on too?
Did you even read the thing?
The answer to your question is in the first frigging sentence of the editorial. Valerie Plame is not mentioned there.