Archive Listing
July 19, 2007 - July 12, 2007
Friday, September 08, 2006
By the way...
Patrick
Fitzgerald.
LAWYERS. Remember this guy? We've mentioned him before, but now that the facts of the Plame case are becoming known -- no thanks to Fitzgerald -- it's time to look specifically at what this special prosecutor has been up to for almost two years. His job was to investigate the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee and determine if that leak was a criminal, i.e., knowing and deliberate, act.
Now we know that the leaker was Richard Armitage, who has finally come forward to tell the truth:
July 2003, Armitage told columnist
Robert Novak that Ambassador Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and
Novak mentioned it in a column. It's a crime to knowingly reveal the
identity of an undercover CIA officer. But Armitage didn't yet realize
what he had done.
So, what exactly did he tell Novak?
"At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency," Armitage says.
Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says....
Armitage immediately met with FBI agents investigating the leak.
"I told them that I was the inadvertent leak," Armitage says. He didn't get a lawyer, however...
That was nearly three years ago, but the political firestorm over who leaked Valerie Plame's identity continued to burn as Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald began hauling White House officials and journalists before a grand jury.
So, what exactly did he tell Novak?
"At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency," Armitage says.
Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says....
Armitage immediately met with FBI agents investigating the leak.
"I told them that I was the inadvertent leak," Armitage says. He didn't get a lawyer, however...
That was nearly three years ago, but the political firestorm over who leaked Valerie Plame's identity continued to burn as Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald began hauling White House officials and journalists before a grand jury.
So why didn't he come forward sooner?
Armitage says he didn't come forward
because "the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to
discuss this and I honored his request."
Amazingly, columnist David Broder has called the press to account for their disgraceful reporting of the story (h/t Malkin), which systematically replaced fact with wild conspiracy theorizing. But there is more judgment to be passed here. Armitage himself is a disgusting worm, his emotional mea culpa notwithstanding:
"Oh I feel terrible. Every day, I think
I let down the president. I let down the Secretary of State. I let down
my department, my family and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson," he
says.
When asked if he feels he owes the Wilsons an apology, he says, "I think I've just done it."
When asked if he feels he owes the Wilsons an apology, he says, "I think I've just done it."
Well, the Plames have been wined and dined by the national media for years now, based on the Armitage leak. They don't need any apology. The people who are owed an apology are President Bush, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby, whose reputations and effectiveness have been continuously impaired by the fraudulent scandal, as well as the American people, who have been manipulated and misled throughout. Yet he offered no apology to the country and apparently hasn't even had the guts to speak with the President. Worm.
Colin Powell is also a worm. According to Armitage, "I almost immediately called Secretary Powell and said, 'I'm sure that was me." Which means that the vastly over-praised bureaucrat-general also remained silent for years when the country and its leadership would clearly have been better served by the truth than the legalistic priorities of the State Department and the special prosecutor's office.
And what about that special prosecutor? We now know that the mission of the special prosecutor was accomplished before Patrick Fitzgerald even began his investigation. And he knew it. What purpose could there possibly have been to this whole charade other than to embarrass the administration and create a perjury trap for spurious prosecutions? None.
Patrick Fitzgerald should be investigated, then prosecuted for conspiracy and misconduct, disbarred, and sent to prison.
Won't happen, of course. But it should.
posted at
8:56 am
by
InstaPunk
Redeploying Language
PSAYINGS.5Q.46. The Democrats are trying pretty hard to show us that they're strong on national security and the War on Terror. That's why they introduced their new (?) multi-point plan for re-strategerating U.S. policy. Here's their own summary:
Therefore, we urge you once again to
consider changes to your Iraq policy. We propose a new direction, which
would include: (1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to
counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S.
forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with
Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and
sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution
to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an
international conference and contact group to support a political
settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize
the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort. [boldface
added].
Of course, it's all just talk except for the highlighted point. The others are being done already or, like point four, can't be done because other world leaders are no more interested in a stable, free Iraq than the Democrats are. But I am fascinated by the use of the word 'redeployment.' The context makes it obvious that they are talking about leaving Iraq; that is, quitting, surrendering, giving up, making like sheep and getting the flock out of there, or whatever other synonym you prefer. So why bother with the neologism? Curious, I did some research among some of history's greatest speechifiers and discovered just how noble and valuable the word 'redeploy' and its conjugates is.
Here, for your education and entertainment, are a few eloquent examples:
We shall fight on the beaches, we shall
fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the
streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never redeploy.
No other terms than unconditional and immediate redeployment can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.
I must save this government if possible. What I cannot do, of course I will not do; but it may as well be understood, once for all, that I shall not redeploy leaving any available card unplayed.
There was a famous saying in the Stalin years: “If the enemy won’t redeploy, let’s finish him off.”
The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are…. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of redeployment....
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a redeployment.
Redeploy! Redeploy!
No other terms than unconditional and immediate redeployment can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.
I must save this government if possible. What I cannot do, of course I will not do; but it may as well be understood, once for all, that I shall not redeploy leaving any available card unplayed.
There was a famous saying in the Stalin years: “If the enemy won’t redeploy, let’s finish him off.”
The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are…. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of redeployment....
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a redeployment.
Redeploy! Redeploy!
Sometimes junk words actually sound better than real words. Sometimes they don't.
posted at
11:54 am
by
InstaPunk
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
K-K-Katie...!
We
wouldn't have missed it for the world. We got a flat tire is all.
OLDNEW AGE. Sadly, we have to rely on all the other illustrious critics who tuned in to watch Katie Couric do her first reading of the CBS Evening News. We can only imagine that it was like some Busby Berkeley spectacle, a kind of visiual and aural symphony set off by the pure white of Katie's pristine suit. Of course, the Old White Guys of the MSM were determined not to be impressed -- Tom Shales, for example:
No News Not the Best News For
Katie Couric's Debut
By Tom Shales
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; C01
Atitle change would seem to be in order. Maybe "The CBS Evening No-News." Or "The CBS Evening Magazine." Or "30 Minutes."
Whatever it was, Katie Couric did a brisk, engaging job of getting the strange new show off the ground last night as, at long last -- and after one of the most relentless hype hurricanes in history -- she debuted as the first woman to be solo anchor of a major network newscast. K-Day had come at last!
Couric occupied a chair that once belonged to Walter Cronkite and, later, Dan Rather, both of whom did newscasts that were much, much newsier. Yesterday, though, was apparently a no-news day in the opinion of Executive Producer Rome Hartman, the staff and Couric herself, since the half-hour began with a "60 Minutes"-style piece on the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The real purpose of this report was to show off Lara Logan, the intensely telegenic reporter who serves as foreign correspondent. She went undercover in Afghanistan, much as Rather had done many many years ago. But as a woman, Logan said, her Taliban hosts "insisted I cover everything but my eyes."
The story was in fact largely about her -- about how dangerous it was to do the story, about what a big, "unprecedented" exclusive it was (Brian Ross seemed to have much the same story on ABC's "World News Tonight" with Charles Gibson) and how she had to tippy-toe away from the camp through a minefield, led by a guide.
By Tom Shales
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; C01
Atitle change would seem to be in order. Maybe "The CBS Evening No-News." Or "The CBS Evening Magazine." Or "30 Minutes."
Whatever it was, Katie Couric did a brisk, engaging job of getting the strange new show off the ground last night as, at long last -- and after one of the most relentless hype hurricanes in history -- she debuted as the first woman to be solo anchor of a major network newscast. K-Day had come at last!
Couric occupied a chair that once belonged to Walter Cronkite and, later, Dan Rather, both of whom did newscasts that were much, much newsier. Yesterday, though, was apparently a no-news day in the opinion of Executive Producer Rome Hartman, the staff and Couric herself, since the half-hour began with a "60 Minutes"-style piece on the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The real purpose of this report was to show off Lara Logan, the intensely telegenic reporter who serves as foreign correspondent. She went undercover in Afghanistan, much as Rather had done many many years ago. But as a woman, Logan said, her Taliban hosts "insisted I cover everything but my eyes."
The story was in fact largely about her -- about how dangerous it was to do the story, about what a big, "unprecedented" exclusive it was (Brian Ross seemed to have much the same story on ABC's "World News Tonight" with Charles Gibson) and how she had to tippy-toe away from the camp through a minefield, led by a guide.
You know, it's not always about the reviewer. Sometimes it's about the beautiful new anchor person. We're not trying to be rude to Mr. Shales, but we think we detect a sort of obsession here that's getting in the way of his appreciation for the sexiest Walter Cronkite fill-in we've had yet. Do we really have to make a detour to understand Tom Shales's neurosis? We suppose so. Here it is.
Tom and Lara. Clark Kent's first love was Lana Lang... Geez.
Too bad. We wanted this to be a bouquet -- all about how special it was to have the news read to us by a warm, caring, wonderful, people-like person for a change. Thankfully, we still have Connie Chung to call on, the most qualified person of all, because she actually tried to be an anchor person alongside one of the traditional CBS anchor idols some years ago. Here's what she said:
"She looked like she had been doing the
CBS Evening News for 25 years," said Chung, who spent some time Tuesday
at a small party held for Couric by family and old friends at a New
York hotel after the newscast.
"Particularly after Labor Day weekend ... there's not as much going on," noted Chung, who shared the CBS anchor desk with Dan Rather from 1993 to 1995. "I'm hoping critics and viewers give her as much time as they have given other evening news anchors and judge her broadcast accordingly."
"Particularly after Labor Day weekend ... there's not as much going on," noted Chung, who shared the CBS anchor desk with Dan Rather from 1993 to 1995. "I'm hoping critics and viewers give her as much time as they have given other evening news anchors and judge her broadcast accordingly."
Hear, hear. We know we've given them both a lot of time, and that's why we'll close with a reminder of the fact that we saw Couric and Chung as part of the same unblinking news team way back in 1999. When you go here, toggle to full screen and enjoy the caring we always knew both these these objective newswomen had even before there was a George W. Bush to test it.
The new, warm, caring CBS Evening News Team. We're all gonna love it.
You see, we're the smart ones.
