Christopher Hitchens once again points out that Iraq did seek ‘yellowcake,’ Plame was ‘outed’ by Joe Wilson admirer (and anti warrior) Robert Novak, and Wilson’s entry of her into his listing in ‘Who’s Who,’ and his abject incompetence and lying in his subsequent ‘reports’ of his ‘mission’ to Niger. Story here.
His conclusion is below. Read the piece for his supporting facts (including two nuclear experts who knew Zahawie–and if you don’t know who Zahawie is, you have alot of catching up to do).
This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the “anti-war” movement—the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the mission—are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson’s utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed. All the work of the supposed “outing” was inadvertently performed by Wilson’s admirer Robert Novak. Of course, one defends the Bush administration at one’s own peril. Thanks largely to Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs, our incompetent and divided government grew so nervous as to disown the words that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union address. But the facts are still the facts, and it is high time that they received one-millionth of the attention that the “Plamegate” farce has garnered.
no comment. figures. unless they can control the facts they don’t want to talk about it.
Are you insinuating that because “the left” has not responded to this entry in the three hours since you posted this “story”, it is somehow dodging the issue?
Seriously?
It’s been at least an hour since I posted. I’m very disappointed there are no replies. I assume, Victoria, that you quiver in your shoes for fear of not knowing how to reply.
Figures.
Facts?
Factcheck
Still no reply from the cowardly, lurking left….just the usual change of subject and deafening silence. Any imams condemning terrorism today? Didn’t think so. You lefties are soooo busted. Thanx, Mrs. Taft, for ANOTHER coup de main!
Personally, I look forward to the lawsuit they have filed against Bush and company.
You want facts? Wait til you see the facts that come out in discovery over that.
I’ll bet you won’t see discovery in this case because there IS no case. This bad boy will be thrown out on summary judgement.
To bear – I think my response was rather on subject.
(Click the link to read.)
Was he wrong I know how to spell?
I honestly don’t think that we, the American public, will ever know the entire truth of this case unless, like Deep Throat, someone comes clean on his death bed. There are so many spin doctors and professional liars involved in this thing that it’s all a blur.
Is Hutchins wrong? I don’t know. Is he lying? Is Novak lying? Is Wilson lying?
I don’t know.
So much behind-closed-doors testimony has taken place that we do not have access to. How can I say? How could YOU say?
It’s like the cliche about three sides of every story. Somewhere is the truth, but it’s buried under so much muck right now that my guess is as good as anyone.
If there’s one thing I’ll defer to you about, Victoria, it’s this: you do this for a living. Your job is to talk politics all day with people who actually have their feet on the ground in DC. I don’t have that kind of background.
I come by here once in a while to put my finger on the pulse of opinions contrary to my own. I don’t spend every waking hour researching every single piece of “news” that comes along.
I will say this: I sense that Novak is disingenuous at best regarding many, many issues with this situation. I also think that Wilson has played this up and should be closely examined, too. He seems to be exploiting this a bit too much for publicity’s sake for my tastes.
So I’m not condemning of defending either of them.
How about this: Was Novak wrong in his column when he wrote “I considered his wife’s role in initiating Wilson’s mission, later confirmed by the Senate intelligence committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story”?
If it’s kosher for him to have done this, why would you rake the WSJ over the coals for writing a story about financial tracking? This was a “previously undisclosed part of an important news story” as well, was it not?
Hmm?
Now, as far as my original post above goes, consider a few things:
1. As I said, I’m not a full time political junky. I try to keep my eyes open, but I don’t know all of these finer points. I don’t know who this Hitchins guy is or what his intentions might be.
2. On this blog, you have how many liberals who actively respond to your posts? Three? Maybe four?
“Silence” from us is automatically a victory for you? When you think about it, it’s ridiculous. You’re arguing with three (maybe four) people, and, at that, you’re practically demanding a response in just three hours? Come on now.
In summary:
1. Is Hitchens wrong? I dont know.
2. Is Novak lying? I don’t think he’s telling the entire truth, based on his demeanor and recent history.
3. Is Wilson lying? I can’t prove or disprove this. I just don’t know. That’s as plain and simple as I can make it.
4. Will you or someone else bring up irrelevant topics and try to tie them into this? Probably. Let me start for you: Sandy Berger and the memos he put down his pants (which was tremendously disappointing and embarassing, as far as I’m concerned. Shameful, really). Have fun with that one some more.
All of this — ALL OF THIS — comes down to simply having a different philosophy on life and the way we live it. I believe in peace through the active puruit of non-violent means. Others want to bomb the hell out of anyone who looks at our country funny.
I’m pro gay marriage, because I don’t see the harm. Others are against it, primarily (as I see it) because they probably “think it’s gross”. That’s not a response that’s commonly stated out loud, but it’s one I could at least respect a little more because it would be honest.
Personally, I don’t like the name calling on either side, but I take great offense to the fear mongering of this administration and its complete lack of respect for any opinion that doesn’t match up with its own.
He doesn’t listen. It’s his way or … well, it’s his way, period. He’ll sign papers to make sure it’s that way.
He said he was a uniter, not a divider. How wrong he was.
You have the choice to be one or the other, too, Victoria. Choose wisely.
He’s the “Decider.” He said so.
Dude says a lot of things that don’t make sense.
iknow, they make sense to people beyond a single digit I.Q.
Calling Bush the “divider” is as ridiculous as anything I’ve ever heard from Neo-Coms. In spite of his reaching out several times (which has been shown here in the past) he gets slammed, bashed and lied about every single day, almost.
You all are one minute calling him a dumb cowboy with a low I.Q who can’t accomplish anything, then turn around and state he is so diabolicle and conniving that he easily misled everybody
His attornies beat Gore at the attempt to steal the election in Florida (not the first time a candidate lost the electoral when winning the popular)and Neo-coms have had their knickers in a twist ever since. Sorry, but that is how our constitution, the one you all claim to love and wish to protect so much (when it suits you) was written.
Since Bush is the divider, show me where he has stated the outlandish claims about Democrats that they continually make about him.
Only died in the wool moonbats can’t see who the real dividers are, again.
He’s a divider because he – like you – refuses to listen to Democrats (or anyone outside of his inner circle, for that matter) for any reason at any time. There’s no effort at bipartisanship whatsoever.
He’s a divider because you have to sign a “pledge” to go to one of his speaches.
That’s proof enough for me.
He’s a divider because he – like you – refuses to listen to Democrats
BS. Maybe if they ever came up with anything besides cut and run or surrender, he would listen. BTW, it isn’t Democrats I refuse to listen to, just the looney leftist neo-coms. That, unfortuantely, includes a few Republicans, as well.
He has to make the decisions and yes, he does listen to his inner circle, like every other President in History has. But, he also asks for and listens to others outside the circle too, you just refuse to see it.
Of course, that keeps feeding your hatred as well.
It is his sworn duty to protect the nation, best as he can. Every step of the way, it’s been leftists doing their best to undermine hima nd then cry he won’t listen. We keep listening to the left and you will see terrorists roaming our streets with their suicide bombings. When will you all learn that it isn’t Republicans or Conservatives they want to destroy? It’s Americans, regardless of political affiliation.
He’s a divider because you have to sign a “pledge” to go to one of his speaches.
Would that be anything like all the emails I regularly receive from Kerry, Pelosi, Gore and other Democrats on the left that constantly asking me for money?
All politicians do that for fund raising, especially when in the highest office.
Any guesses what you would pay to hear Clinton, who isn’t even in office any longer?
Clinton Speech Fees
It’s the way of politics, regardless of party.
I don’t mean pledge as in money, I mean as in you swear that you support him, won’t “protest” somehow … that kind of thing. As in, his audiences are screened and he doesn’t make himself available to all Americans – just his base.
That’s what I mean by pledge.