September 05, 2006
Tom Maguire Wants Our Help

The blogger who knows more about the Plame "scandal" than anyone else is making a little list of those who were fools enough to believe former ambassador Joseph Wilson.  And he wants our help.

That sort of project surely appeals to my dark, malicious heart.  Now, I could never do this project justice working alone but, as no one ever said, you're never alone if you are talking the Plame Game at Just One Minute.

So how about it - I bet the regular commenters can come up with a comprehensive list pretty quickly.  I picture at least three categories - politicos, journalists, and bloggers.  But if more categories make sense, speak up.

And a link to the nominees "Best Effort" would be great.

If you read through the comments there, you'll see that I nominated 1st district Congressman Jay Inslee.  After I had done that, I realized that there might be others in this area who deserved nominations — and that the commenters here, working together, might be able to assemble a pretty good list.

Since Maguire is already doing a national list, please limit your nominations to local figures.   I fear that Congressman Inslee is not the only local politician who owes us an apology over this "scandal".  There may have been some local journalists who bought Wilson's slick talk.   And there may even have been a few local bloggers who were not as skeptical about Wilson's claims as they should have been.

If you have any nominations in any of the three categories, list them below.  And as Maguire says, links to their best efforts (if possible) would be great.

Posted by Jim Miller at September 05, 2006 05:29 PM | Email This
1. Why that's easy. Number one Puget Sound Dupe Award in the Plame "Scandal" goes to blogger David Goldstein, a HorsesAss.

I think the correct terminology is hook, line and sinker.




Posted by: Jeff B. on September 5, 2006 05:45 PM
2. Who could be more deserving of inclusion on this list than Joel Connelly? Here's a gem from July of last year:

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 5, 2006 06:00 PM
3. Blatherwatch was a willing fool:

Posted by: Janet S on September 5, 2006 06:04 PM
4. As was Evergreen Politics:

Seems like our local bloggers are a truly gullible lot! Merry Fitzmas to them all!

Posted by: Janet S on September 5, 2006 06:07 PM
5. Jim - Great post! How about starting with both editorial boards of the Seattle Times and Seattle PI? (click on link to see the editorial from the PI--still looking for the Times) You may also want to look into all of the letters to the editor by the Angry Left on this topic.

Read "The Plamegate Hall of Shame" by Fred Barnes in the latest edition of The Weekly Standard for more.

Not only should the Times and PI apologize, they should call for Patrick Fitzgerald to be fired immediately, if not disbarred!!!

Plus there are sure to be a few pieces of breathless commentary from the unhinged Leftists at The Stranger and The Seattle Weekly.

Posted by: Patrick in Capitol Hill on September 5, 2006 10:44 PM
6. Not all local links, but here goes:

Moonbat Blog

Seattle Times article (as usual no real thought put into it)

Local moonbat Ted Ellis and friends

Posted by: Burdabee on September 5, 2006 11:36 PM
7. So let's see here. The following are very clear facts:

1. Valerie Plame was working on Iran when she was outed and it hurt the administration's efforts to track Iranian nuclear weapons development.

2. 23 members of the Bush Administration were involved in blowing her cover.

3. All of you buffoons are CELEBRATING the fact that they got away with it.

Seriously, how unpatriotic do you have to be to openly cheer on the people who have undermined our national security like this?

Posted by: thehim on September 6, 2006 12:03 AM
8. Let's see some more facts:

1. Libby drafted the memo to the State Department that provided Armitage with the information in the first place.

2. Armitage is known to be a gossipper.

3. After Armitage fell into Libby/Rove's trap, they executed their smear campaign by leaking to other reporters.

4. Libby would not have executed the plan without Cheney implicit approval.

5. Rove probably would execute the plan w/o telling Bush. Rove and Cheney work Bush like a puppet anyway. Rove would just tell Bush after the fact, if something comes to light.

6. Rove and Cheney let Bush make the idiotic statement that those in the Administration responsible would be punished. Of course they thought at the time, if it all came down they could pin it on Armitage and State (i.e., Powell), since they were fully supportive in the first place.

Why can't you conservatives wake up and smell the coffee? The only innocent party is possibly Bush, only because he is so clueless to the real power mongers in his administration and does whatever they want him to do. You are so click to blame CG on a conspiracy in regards to the governership, but can't see the blatant one in front of your eyes. Cheney and Rove (along with Armitage) should all go for their parts in this breaking of the law. Libby is already gone.

The only way we can fight the war on Terror is a strong Intelligence community. Last time, Rove and Cheney were not responsible for running the intelligence community. Intelligence should be left to the professionals, not to the political power-mongers.

Posted by: tc on September 6, 2006 05:51 AM
9. Wow, as always, no matter what the actual facts are, the Bush haters prefer to fabricate their own "reality". The one fact they can't get past is that the special prosecutor, Fitzgerald, has confirmed that no law was broken. Of course many in D.C. are gossips. How could it be otherwise? But of course, we have to ignore the fact that Joe Wilson lied again and again and again, to further the political agenda of Democrat Bush hating.

Posted by: katomar on September 6, 2006 06:53 AM
10. thehim: your conspiracy is really complicated. Are you saying that Armitage was in on it with Rove? If so, why did he let the administration twist in the wind for two years? He knows he did nothing illegal, Plame wasn't covert, so no downside to admitting the role. Instead, he got Libby fired and indicted. Not part of the plan.

If Armitage was the hapless tool of Rove, wouldn't he have figured it out and gotten the whole crew into a lot more trouble than one asst indicted for lying about telling the truth?

The only logical explanation to Armitage's and Colin Powell's behavior is that Armitage gossiped Plame's name, then went into hiding when he found out the firestorm that Joe Wilson started over it. He conspired with Powell to keep under the radar and hide his role, thereby letting the administration be investigated for a crime never committed.

You can make up all the scenarios you want, but the NYT, WAPO, etc see no Rove connection in all this, and they are the ones that wanted to see him frog-marched on Fitzmas.

Can't you just admit you were wrong, and move on?

Posted by: Janet S on September 6, 2006 07:30 AM
11. Can't you just admit you were wrong, and move on?

No. They can't. Because if they admit they're wrong about this, then they'd have to come to grips with the fact they could be (and are) wrong about other things. And we just can't have that.

Posted by: jimg on September 6, 2006 08:33 AM
12. thehim running with more of the "fake but accurate" offense that the Dems play so proudly. Go Dems, we can win on your unforced errors alone! Thanks.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 6, 2006 10:42 AM
13. There is a difference between committing a crime and the SP bring up charges. In Armitage's case, he cooperated with the Grand Jury and most likely did not have charges brought due to the cooperation. This is different than saying he didn't break the law. He did break the law. He just wasn't brought up on charges due to his cooperation.

In the case of Libby, charges were brought against him. Do you not forget this?

In the case of Rove, he also cooperated when push came to shove.

None of this negates the fact that Cheney/Rove/Libby wanted to discredit Wilson. The evidence is clear of this. The evidence is also clear that Libby wrote the initial brief. Why? Well, one only has to guess. It was to set State Department up because they were less than enthusiastic to support a very weak argument.

The only reason Rove wasn't indicted is because the SP is due to cooperation and the fact that the SP possibly has his sights set on the bigger fish (Cheney).

It makes me sick to see conservatives negate any wrong doing here. They were all ready to jump over Clinton for a minor foulup, but quick to jump to the defense of this administration when it breaks a serious law relating to the intelligence community. Did the administration every think for a moment that if they wouldn't have outed Valerie Plame that maybe she could have collected better intelligance on the Middle East that would have strengthen their case instead of relying on the flimsy WMD argument? We will never know. How many service men and women have died because the law was not followed? How many Iraqi's? Their lives are on Cheney/Rove and Libby's hands, along with Armitage's hands.

Posted by: tc on September 6, 2006 12:19 PM
14. Once more (with feeeeeeeeeeling!)

The Bush administration didn't "out" anyone.
Wilson/Plame "outed" themselves.
Armitage wasn't indicted because he committed no crime.
And here's the one that'll drive all the loonies nuts - charges against Libby are going to be dropped.

Sucks to be you.....

Posted by: alphabet soup on September 6, 2006 12:30 PM
15. thehim and tc -

How many times do scratched-records like you have to be told


Her last assignment overseas was 8 1/2 years ago. She drives to Langley. NO ONE who poses for Vanity Fair covers or drives to Langley is undercover.

Wilson had no expertise in the field to be assigned to Niger, in fact, he never left Niamey; he merely asked government officials if Hussein had sought yellowcake. Plame had him sent. Seems logical to find out who sent him and why, doesn't it?

I am surprised that you didn't include black helicopters in your conspiracies. There is no 'there', there. Never was. Join the Wa. Post and get over it.

Posted by: GOPolitics on September 6, 2006 01:58 PM
16. Her last assignment overseas was 8 1/2 years ago. She drives to Langley. NO ONE who poses for Vanity Fair covers or drives to Langley is undercover.

That's incorrect. When people are assigned overseas and then return, they have to remain undercover or else the front companies and contacts in that area are compromised. The CIA isn't stupid.

Wilson had no expertise in the field to be assigned to Niger, in fact, he never left Niamey; he merely asked government officials if Hussein had sought yellowcake. Plame had him sent. Seems logical to find out who sent him and why, doesn't it?

Also incorrect. Wilson had contacts with the Niger government and was easily able to debunk some of the false information floating around that they were providing Iraq with yellowcake uranium. In addition, Plame suggested Wilson for the mission, but did not "have him sent." By promoting that lie, Libby and others sought to make it look like Wilson was some rogue dude wandering through Africa rather than a person sent with the blessing of the VP (which he was).

TC pretty much cleared up the rest of your silliness. And, just so you know, there's still a sealed indictment in DC possibly related to this case and Fitzgerald can still bring charges to a Grand Jury. The bottom line is that just because Fitzgerald hasn't been able to nail anyone other than Libby with a specific crime (the law against exposing CIA agents is a tough one to gather an indictment for) doesn't mean that this didn't harm America's national security. But of course, if you cared about things like that, you wouldn't still be supporting the GOP.

Posted by: thehim on September 6, 2006 03:29 PM
17. Once again - Wilson made a report to the Senate Intelligence Committee that directly contradicted what he told the NYT. So he lied to one or the other, I wonder which?

He claimed he was sent by the VP. He wasn't. The VP's office was right to find out what his motives might be, particularly when he took his story to the press. If he was really on a CIA fact finding mission, who gave him permission to blab to the press? Who in the CIA authorized him to go to Niger? It looks a lot like someone inside the CIA was trying to discredit the administration, and using Wilson as their tool. The VP had every right to investigate.

Once Plame got herself in the middle of this, she compromised her own identity, and national security.

Maybe, thehim, you need to start reading your NYT and WAPO a little more closely. Even they have backed away from these moonbat wanderings you insist on repeating.

Posted by: Janet S on September 6, 2006 03:54 PM
18. thehim-

"That's incorrect"
What's incorrect? You just bolster the case that she is and probably never was covert.

"Also incorrect"
What's incorrect? He had no expertise. He did not leave the capital. You are incorrect in implying that Iraq DID buy yellowcake; the evidence then and now confirmed is that Iraq SOUGHT the uranium. 'Suggested' vs. 'have him sent'; same thing, dummy. I suppose it depends on what the meaning of 'is', is.

There was NO national security harm done by Plame and Wilson's media excapades. They did it to themselves. Are you similarly disturbed by the real harm done by the New York Times' disclosures?

The silliness is that you still are obsessed with this. Game over, man. Please leave your cut and paste talking points on your own lame blog.

Posted by: GOPolitics on September 7, 2006 09:07 AM
19. To GOPolitics:
Who is sounding like the broken record?

You are the one that is buying the Rove talking points hook, line and sinker without any critical eye. Just because Rove generated the talking point and the other Bush officials repeat it doesn't make it true.

The bottom line is you would be all over a Democrat president if they had done the actions this administration has undertaken, but you do not cast even a cautious eye because it is Bush. Wakeup and have some coffee. History will show how corrupt, eggotistical, and power-mongering this administration has been.

The bottom line is the enemy is Osama and we haven't caught him yet. The enemy wasn't Iraq and never would have been. The only thing we did in Iraq is accelerate the ethnic war between the Shites and Sunnis that was going to eventually happen. Now we are stuck in the middle with our young men and women dieing because of the mess of this administration. The war has now lasted nearly as long as WWII. How many more must die?

Posted by: tc on September 7, 2006 10:40 AM
20. Returning to the original topic. Here's Joel Connelly from today's P-I, still evidently in denial that the phony Joe Wilson - Valerie Plame fabrication has been exposed:

"At the federal level, one-party rule -- sustained by fear -- has given us a bloody quagmire in Iraq, growing economic inequity at home and scandal in Washington, D.C."

Or is there another "scandal" that I'm not aware of?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 8, 2006 01:28 PM
21. Investors this week will be hoping the Consumer Price index (CPI) shows a similar lack of inflationary growth, onlineprofitseekers com as that would bode well for bets that the Federal Reserve will end its 18-month rate hiking campaign soon advertising gewwebsites

Posted by: advertising gewwebsites on September 14, 2006 05:22 PM
22. A recap, part 1 With Digital ID World in the books as a success, I always like to take a look back at "what I learned." As an organizer of the conference, Digital ID World is always a whirlwind experience for me, but I find that as I look back

Posted by: Johanson on September 19, 2006 08:46 PM
23. fat farms fat farms fat farms
toning toning toning
fad diets fad diets fad diets
lose five pounds lose five pounds lose five pounds
metabolife metabolife metabolife
obesity obesity obesity
fat farms fat farms fat farms

Posted by: Mac on September 21, 2006 03:43 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?