Gay Patriot Header Image

The Orwellian Worldview of Bush-haters–where Releasing Facts Means Having Something to Hide

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:39 pm - April 6, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred

A few weeks ago, Patrick (Gryph) responded to Bruce’s surprise at Log Cabin’s decision to feature Andrew Sullivan at its “convention” later this month, by providing a list of conservative and libertarian policy proposals that Andrew claims to support, a list of proposals which, to a large extent, corresponds to my own views. As I read that list, I wondered why if Andrew support these proposals, he spends so much time bashing the president and so little time promoting these things. (Perhaps he’s saving that for his book.*)

In a post today, it seems that Andrew, like many he once reviled, has become so consumed with hatred for George W. Bush that he will spin any news story to show the president in the worst possible light. Today, he contends that the latest revelations in the investigation of former Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby indicate that Bush is “Nailed”. But as Tom Maguire (Just One Minute) puts it, “Either Andrew Sullivan can’t read, or he can’t write.”

I agree with the New York Sun‘s Josh Gerstein that this “disclosure could be awkward for the president because it places him, for the first time, directly in a chain of events that led to a meeting where prosecutors contend the identity of a CIA employee, Valerie Plame, was provided to a reporter.” (Via Powerline.) But, this does not nail the president in the least. It merely shows him authorizing the release of information which would serve to discredit a dishonest critic — former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

In his piece, Andrew attempts to rewrite history by asking, “Who really cared about Joseph Wilson’s op-ed?” Um, Andrew, the MSM and the Democrats were all over the story. Or as an astute GayPatriot reader noted, this was “the major media story of that summer.” Wilson worked for a presidential candidate, the man Andrew would endorse in ’04 — John Kerry. (To be fair to Andrew, after the Senate Intelligence Committee discredited Wilson, that dishonest man lost his job for the Democratic nominee. So Wilson was not working for Kerry when Andrew issued his official endorsement of Wilson’s one-time boss.)

As Tom Maguire puts it:

we *don’t know* what Cheney and Bush discussed before Bush authorized the partial disclosure of the NIE. President Bush may have been vitally interested specifically in discrediting Joe Wilson (and rebutting one’s critics is not a crime); he may not have heard that name, and simply authorized the disclosure to help with the White House side of the press coverage.

All we have here is the president doing what he has the “legal right” to do — declassifying information which shows that the “consensus estimate” of intelligence agencies in October 2002 was at odds with Joe Wilson’s posturing. While Andrew may think the president has been “nailed,” in reality all he was trying to do was get the facts out. And thus quite the opposite of someone feeling, as that blogger puts it, that “he had a lot to hide.” To some, it seems the president is always trying to hide something even when he authorizes the release of documents upon which the president based his past decisions.

But, I guess to those who (the facts notwithstanding) believe that “Bush Lied,” any disclosure which contradicts their dogma amounts to having something to hide.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

(H/t: Tom Maguire via Glenn Reynolds & Powerline.)

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS! While you’re here, take a moment and browse around to what has been called “probably the most reliably conservative gay blog on the Internet.” And you might want to check out my latest where I take issue with Log Cabin for preferring the rhetoric of the gay left to the ideals of conservatives and libertarians.

* I will be trying to get review copy of this book and hope it’s as good as his previous book
Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival
which I recommended here. I may well experience Andrew’s next book as I experienced that one. I recall souring on Andrew’s writings in the mid-1990s; he seemed then so caught up in the ethos of gay culture that he was losing his iconoclastic (and insightful) voice. I all but stopped reading his stuff. Then, one day, in a D.C. bookstore, I picked up this book, started reading and found Andrew’s prose so engaging, I ended up buying it so I could, as Glenn Reynolds would say, read the whole thing.

UPDATE: In a post I read just after I finished writing this one, Powerline’s Paul writes that the information which the president agreed to release “was not about Valerie Plame.

UP-UPDATE: Captain Ed explains why the President released the information:

Because Joe Wilson had busied himself by spreading misinformation via leaks to Nick Kristof and Walter Pincus, and then finally under his own by-line at the New York Times twelve days prior to the release of the NIE information. The media had demanded answers to the charges leveled by Wilson and his supporters, and those answers were found in the NIE. The decision to declassify it and publish it came as a result of that demand. Once the decision is made to declassify information, it can be released in any number of ways. This was both leaked and openly presented in the same fortnight.

Adding that the president

declassified the NIE so that everyone could see what exactly the intelligence services had told him about Iraq’s WMD programs. Now everyone wants to proclaim George Bush a criminal for releasing the information that the entire media establishment demanded he reveal.

UP-UP-UPDATE: Austin Bay: “The flap is yet more evidence that the national press is more interested in playing ‘gotcha’ with the Bush Administration than reporting the news.” Via Glenn with whom I agree: Read the whole thing.

Share

57 Comments

  1. So you’re ok with a president so stupid that he didn’t bother declassifying the information when he could have, just so he could bypass all usual people who are supposed to be in the loop, to get back at Wilson and take the media’s minds off of the Wilson article?

    Comment by God of Biscuits — April 7, 2006 @ 3:32 am - April 7, 2006

  2. But, this does not nail the president in the least. It merely shows him authorizing the release of information which would serve to discredit a dishonest critic — former Ambassador Joe Wilson.

    Well, that restores my confidence in the integrity of President Bush.

    Comment by Pat — April 7, 2006 @ 8:04 am - April 7, 2006

  3. Oops. The rolleyes icon didn’t make it in the last post.

    Comment by Pat — April 7, 2006 @ 8:05 am - April 7, 2006

  4. So we find out today that Bush personally authorized leaking sensitive intelligence information for political reasons.

    Explain to me again how we can trust that this President has not used his NSA program, that has no oversight, to wiretap Americans for political reasons?

    Comment by Ed — April 7, 2006 @ 8:15 am - April 7, 2006

  5. Media continue to obfuscate the facts on “Bush authorized leak” story

    The mediots far and wide yesterday reported with barely restrained glee the news that  Scooter Libby testified that President Bush authorized the disclosure of key parts of information from a once ‘classified’ NIE.  The NYTimes, of course…

    Trackback by Sister Toldjah — April 7, 2006 @ 8:41 am - April 7, 2006

  6. Ed, of course you can’t trust that Bushie wouldn’t wiretap americans for political reasons. You can’t trust that Bushie hasn’t already done so, and you can’t trust that he won’t in the future. Aside from the fact that Bushie’s argument regarding his use of the illegal international wiretaps admits of the possibility, Bushie’s Alberto Gonzales has expressly admitted as much.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600764.html

    Comment by raj — April 7, 2006 @ 9:00 am - April 7, 2006

  7. So we find out today that Bush personally authorized leaking sensitive intelligence information for political reasons.

    No, we found out that Bush authorized the release of information … which is not a leak … in order to counter false charges being made in the press by adversaries. A legal and legitimate use of presidential authority.

    Explain to me again how we can trust that this President has not used his NSA program, that has no oversight, to wiretap Americans for political reasons?

    Because there is, in fact, oversight. Because Congress was consulted and is regularly informed about the program. Because there is no … none… zip, zero, nada… evidence that the program is anything other than a prudent intelligence-gathering operation directed at foreign elements of al Qaeda. A legal and legitimate use of presidential authority.

    Really, Ed’s second question is as (pardon my French) retarded as asking, “Explain to me again how we can trust that this President won’t use his control of the nuclear arsenal to nuke Philadelphia?”

    Comment by V the K — April 7, 2006 @ 9:05 am - April 7, 2006

  8. And, Ed has apparently saved a seat on the short bus for raj. No surprise there.

    Comment by V the K — April 7, 2006 @ 9:06 am - April 7, 2006

  9. Don’t worry Pat

    I rolled my eyes at your comment without the benefit of an icon

    Comment by Joe Edmonton — April 7, 2006 @ 9:14 am - April 7, 2006

  10. There are few things in life that please me more than witnessing the members of the New Castrati drive themselves off a cliff each time Dan and/or Bruce even mention the President’s name. Much like lemmings, these screeching queens, rife with indignation, fear & paranoia, are completely incapable of independant thought.

    Happily for me, however, I get to laugh at the petulant little turds who can’t seem to grasp that not only is their party over, but nobody showed up in the first f*cking place.

    Welcome to the world, sweetie. Life’s a bitch, and so is your attitude.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 7, 2006 @ 9:30 am - April 7, 2006

  11. “Explain to me again how we can trust that this President has not used his NSA program, that has no oversight, to wiretap Americans for political reasons?”

    Mainly we can trust it because Bush is not a Democrat. What were you people saying when Bill Clinton and staff had the IRS reports of political opponents? Anything? I am just glad that a Bush official has not commited suicide and had some documents stolen from his office and not returned for 2 years. Boy you guys would be screaming louder than the republicans were with the Clintons. I can hear it now.

    Yes I know you will bring up Nixon. But Nixon was a paranoid buffoon who got elected because the Left put up an Anti-war leftist to go against him. One day the left will learn that the majority of Americans are pro-American and pro-Defense.

    Comment by James Stephenson — April 7, 2006 @ 9:31 am - April 7, 2006

  12. Oh and I authorize the President to record any phone call I make to a phone number that was on a Terrorist cell phone. I have nothing to hide at all.

    Comment by James Stephenson — April 7, 2006 @ 9:32 am - April 7, 2006

  13. What this story , and Ed’s comments indicate, is that the loathing and mistrust Ed and his ilk have for Bush is exactly the same loathing and mistrust some of us have for the media.

    Comment by doubled — April 7, 2006 @ 9:37 am - April 7, 2006

  14. What were you people saying when Bill Clinton and staff had the IRS reports of political opponents?

    Not a damn thing. In fact, the senate Democrats have gone out of their way to suppress the Barrett report that details some of the abuses of the Clinton Era.

    One day the left will learn that the majority of Americans are pro-American and pro-Defense.

    They do know that. That’s why they have to import millions of foreigners and get them to illegally vote. Illegal Immigrants are voting for the politicians Americans won’t vote for.

    Comment by V the K — April 7, 2006 @ 9:43 am - April 7, 2006

  15. As I read that list, I wondered why if Andrew support these proposals, he spends so much time bashing the president and so little time promoting these things.

    Well, as a fellow conservative type, I haven’t seen Mr. Bush doing very much that’s conservative for quite a while now. Perhaps that’s Andrew’s problem with him.

    Comment by Jim — April 7, 2006 @ 9:59 am - April 7, 2006

  16. Well, as a fellow conservative type, I haven’t seen Mr. Bush doing very much that’s conservative for quite a while now. Perhaps that’s Andrew’s problem with him.

    The flaw with that theory is that Andrianna Sullington bashes Bush from the left; advocating tax increases, court-imposed social change, and spa treatment for foreign terrorists. Also, Andrianna Sullington endorsed a radical left-winger for president in 2004. How is he a conservative again? Oh, that’s right, because he calls himself one.

    That’s like Helen Thomas calling herself a hottie.

    Comment by V the K — April 7, 2006 @ 10:05 am - April 7, 2006

  17. So you’re ok with a president so stupid that he didn’t bother declassifying the information when he could have, just so he could bypass all usual people who are supposed to be in the loop, to get back at Wilson and take the media’s minds off of the Wilson article?

    How do you (writer of this comment) survive day to dat? He didn’t bother declassifying the info when he could have?

    The criticism are getting to tedious and awkward, I don’t even think people know what they are actually saying — as long as it contains enough hate – it works.

    Comment by topsecretk9 — April 7, 2006 @ 10:09 am - April 7, 2006

  18. #1 – #4 – #6 – Dumb, dumber, dumberrer.

    The media was demanding that the Administration justify itself by releasing the NIE information. Just as you are demanding, in effect, that the Administration (further) justify itself.

    But let’s tell the truth: No justification from the Administration, however proper and effective, will ever satisfy you. They’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    And that’s your real point: Merely to damn them, without having to give any justification (of your own) that adds up. One may fairly infer that you have no real interest in truth, justice, or good action.

    #10 – Eric, I love you. I love the honesty and the vigor of your attitude. – Having acknowledged that: I’m wondering if we could avoid scatological references in general? They kinda make me cringe.

    Comment by Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 10:20 am - April 7, 2006

  19. Bruce Bawer is an example of the kind of intellectual Sully might have become had he not short-circuited. A generation ago, Germaine Greer also showed promise, & also fizzled out screeching polemics.

    It’s not surprising that Sully doesn’t get how transparent his consuming Bush-hatred is, as he’s never shown much psychological awareness in his writing.

    He advocates gay marriage by judicial fiat, screams bloody murder when actual voters get involved in the issue, & writes that gays can never feel truly accepted until Big Daddy Govt bestows the sacrament of marriage on them. And oh yeah, he’s a conservative

    Comment by beautifulatrocities — April 7, 2006 @ 10:35 am - April 7, 2006

  20. The flaw with that theory is that Andrianna Sullington bashes Bush from the left; advocating tax increases,

    He also has called for spending cuts, and criticized the drug benefit.

    court-imposed social change,

    Closer on that one, but he clearly would prefer legislative change, not court change.

    and spa treatment for foreign terrorists.

    Having habeus rights, and reasonably quick tribunals with judicial review, plus a lack of torture hardly qualifies as “spa treatment”. I’m talking waterboarding here, not free trips to Mecca or a lack of air conditioning.

    Also, Andrianna Sullington endorsed a radical left-winger for president in 2004.

    Kerry is a complete twit, and certainly liberal, but hardly a radical lefty. I’ve seen radical lefties, and Kerry ain’t them. Of course he’s also no conservative, so Sullivan’s mistake might have been in endorsing anyone in ’04.

    Comment by Jim — April 7, 2006 @ 10:35 am - April 7, 2006

  21. “Yes I know you will bring up Nixon. But Nixon was a paranoid buffoon who got elected because the Left put up an Anti-war leftist to go against him. One day the left will learn that the majority of Americans are pro-American and pro-Defense.”

    Did you miss the irony in typing this paragraph?

    Comment by ed — April 7, 2006 @ 10:38 am - April 7, 2006

  22. Calarato said…

    “I’m wondering if we could avoid scatological references in general? They kinda make me cringe.”

    For you, Cal? Anything.

    Consider it done.

    Eric, out of the toilet.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 7, 2006 @ 10:39 am - April 7, 2006

  23. Beautiful atrocities gets it right when he says that Bruce Bawer is the intellectual Andrew could have been. I have offered a brief review of Bruce’s book While Europe Slept here and hope to do a lengthier follow-up when I get a moment. But, don’t wait for my review. Just go out, buy and read the book!

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 7, 2006 @ 10:43 am - April 7, 2006

  24. He also has called for spending cuts, and criticized the drug benefit.

    Which doesn’t cancel out his calls for massive tax increases.

    plus a lack of torture hardly qualifies as “spa treatment”.

    Sullington is one of those who defines torture as any discomfort, of any degree, for any duration experienced by a foreign terrorist in US custody, who, by the way, are not entitled to habeus corpus, speedy trial or any other right conferred by the Constitution non-terrorist American citizens.

    Sullington, remember, said that Dick Durbin was right to call our troops at GITMO Nazis.

    Kerry is a complete twit, and certainly liberal

    And Sullivan endorsed him.

    Comment by V the K — April 7, 2006 @ 11:03 am - April 7, 2006

  25. The Washington Post article on the NIE declassification includes a revealing quote from a Fitzgerald filing.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040600333.html

    Fitzgerald’s brief uses unusually strong language to rebut this claim. In light of the grand jury testimony, the prosecutor said, “it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to ‘punish’ Wilson.”

    That would imply that he’s been investigating White House efforts to punish Wilson, rather than investigating the disclosure of classified information. Which would explain why the so far unknown administration official who originally outed Val has not been charged. Which also supports the notion that the unknown official is Armitage. Since State is not the White House, no crime. The revelation also clearly indicates that Fitzgerald is treating the Wilson revenge theory as if it was a finding of fact. Amazing.

    Comment by Tom Bowler — April 7, 2006 @ 11:48 am - April 7, 2006

  26. #22 – thanks Eric 😉

    Comment by Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 11:51 am - April 7, 2006

  27. […] Dan at Gay West Patriot is also wondering why hate means you can’t tell the news right. […]

    Pingback by The Anchoress » Bush’s response more than a line… — April 7, 2006 @ 12:10 pm - April 7, 2006

  28. Bush believes he has the right to ignore the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and wiretap anyone anywhere without a warrant or probable cause. http://tinyurl.com/l4mja

    This should cause some serious soul-searching by Bush supporters who still revere our Constitution. If a President has the right to overrule any part of the Constitution, what makes you think that this or a future President will never decide to take your guns away in the interests of national security?

    Comment by Ian — April 7, 2006 @ 12:20 pm - April 7, 2006

  29. Ian said…

    “Bush believes he has the right to ignore the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and wiretap anyone anywhere without a warrant or probable cause.”

    That’s right, sporto. Repeat the mantra.

    After all, if repetitive chant works for Buddhist monks, then why shouldn’t it work for you, right?

    BOR-ING.

    Get some new material, brainiac.

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 7, 2006 @ 12:25 pm - April 7, 2006

  30. “If a President has the right to overrule any part of the Constitution, what makes you think that this or a future President will never decide to take your guns away in the interests of national security?”

    Ah, Inserted Anal Nozzle, you just described what your ultimate dream date, Slick Willie, tried to do in his first term. Ultimately, it led to the Waco standoff in which innocent children were killed because Janet “closet lesbian” Reno ordered the ATF onward.

    Clinton was so desperate to get a control on private citizens’ guns that his favorite legislation, entitled “The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994” and passed by a Dem-controlled Congress, actually gave the Feds the power to seize unregistered guns.

    Not only that, but it also redefined the definition of an “assault rifle” that basically included any kind of shotgun! Fortunately, this stupid law was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

    The only other footnote to this law is that it also created a favorite project for Veep Algore – Midnight Basketball for inner-city youth (read: nonwhite alleged gang members). When asked if his daughters would participate, Algore replied: “Of course not! They have a curfew!”

    Remember, libs think they know better than you do…

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 7, 2006 @ 2:42 pm - April 7, 2006

  31. Ian – I’m not bothering to engage your posts directly today, but from bits and pieces in others’, I am gathering that you think the NSA terrorist surveillance program is a big-deal override of the Constitution or expansion of Presidential power. ‘Tain’t so.

    Read any of the posts here, particularly ones from a few months ago containing extensive legal analysis and caselaw citations. Basically, the Bush Administration has done nothing new or nothing that Democratic Presidents didn’t assert the right to do – and plus they consulted Congress appropriately – so you can calm down, OK?

    Now here’s my real point. Congratulations Dan – you made Best of the Web for Friday, April 7! 🙂 Look for the item called “Quick, call a plumber!” Taranto gives pride of place to your “Orwellian” quote.

    Comment by Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 2:54 pm - April 7, 2006

  32. Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 2:54 pm – April 7, 2006

    Read any of the posts here, particularly ones from a few months ago containing extensive legal analysis and caselaw citations.

    If you have something specific in mind, why don’t you link to it. Do your homework. Shotgun approaches such as yours would never be acceptable in a legal memorandum. Maybe they would be in something silly produced by a congressional staffer, but that’s about it. Cite to chapter and verse, as they say.

    BTW, as far as I’m concerned, Powerline is nothing more than a Republican party mouthpiece. Can’t you cite to something more–shall we say–balanced? No, of course not.

    BTW, the fact that the WSJ idiotorial page cited gaypatriot is worthy of a big yawn.

    Comment by raj — April 7, 2006 @ 3:03 pm - April 7, 2006

  33. raj,

    I gave a link. Read what you want, or not, as you like.

    As for the rest of your attack – You know I don’t respect you or care about you, raj, because of your moonbat anti-military views, as well as (in my past experiences) you lack of intellectual honesty, and general malevolent attitude. So, I won’t dignify your other stuff with responses. Take that under advisement for any other / future posts you may attempt to direct my way.

    Comment by Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - April 7, 2006

  34. I tried honestly engaging raj in debate, but appraently I wasn’t smart enough to grasp his superior intellect.

    I feel so small now.

    Eric in Little Land

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — April 7, 2006 @ 3:28 pm - April 7, 2006

  35. Bush believes he has the right to ignore the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and wiretap anyone anywhere without a warrant or probable cause

    Actually, the 4th amendment does not require a warrant to perform a search or seizure, it only requires that the search or seizure be reasonable. Whether the search or seizure is reasonable may be determined later. The most obvious example was the search in the OJ Simpson case. One of the early issues was whether the search was reasonable, and the court held that it was. (I’m not interested in dissecting the issue in regards the OJ case, I’m merely using it as an example.)

    The problem with the Bushies’ use of warrantless wiretaps is that they have shown not only that they will use them, but that it is highly likely that they will take people into custody and label them “unlawful combatants,” thereby taking them outside of the civil justice (i.e., non-military) system, regardless of the merits of the case. Obviously, OJ had access to the civil justice system. Jose Pedilla did not. And, you might not either if Bushie feels the need to have a sacrificial lamb for his War on (Some) Terror.

    Comment by raj — April 7, 2006 @ 3:29 pm - April 7, 2006

  36. Back to the main topic, I have been informed by someone claiming to have email contact with Andrianna that Sully both knows of me and despises me. Sweet.

    Comment by V the K — April 7, 2006 @ 3:38 pm - April 7, 2006

  37. Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 3:21 pm – April 7, 2006

    I gave a link.

    THis is a joke, right? You gave a link to a page that was nothing more than links to some 38 other pages. If you have something specific in mind, link to it. Your tactic is nothing more than what lawyers–real lawyers, that is–refer to as “burying the supposed needle in a haystack.”

    You made the assertion of fact. Provide evidence for your assertion. Otherwise stated, if you have something specific in mind, link to it. And if you can’t provide evidence for your assertion of fact, be a Mensch and admit it.

    Comment by raj — April 7, 2006 @ 3:38 pm - April 7, 2006

  38. […] In other words, James Taranto agrees with me. BY JAMES TARANTO – Friday, April 7, 2006 2:48 p.m. EDT Quick, Call a Plumber! If you’d told us earlier this week that the Valerie Plame kerfuffle was about to turn even sillier, we wouldn’t have believed you. But it has. This story appears on the front page of today’s New York Times: President Bush authorized Vice President Dick Cheney in July 2003 to permit Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., to leak key portions of a classified prewar intelligence estimate on Iraq, according to Mr. Libby’s grand jury testimony. The testimony, cited in a court filing by the government late Wednesday, provides the first indication that Mr. Bush, who has long assailed leaks of classified information as a national security threat, played a direct role in the disclosure of the intelligence report on Iraq at a moment that the White House was trying to defend itself against charges that it had inflated the case against Saddam Hussein. Well, here is how the filing (PDF) by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald describes what happened (page 23): Defendant [Libby] testified that the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate]. Defendant testified that he also spoke to David Addington, then Counsel to the Vice President, whom defendant considered to be an expert in national security law, and Mr. Addington opined that Presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document. In other words, this was an authorized disclosure of information, the opposite of a leak. Yet the Times, the Washington Post and even the New York Sun (albeit only in a headline) call it a “leak.” These reports have served as pornography for the Angry Left, which has constructed an elaborate fantasy world around the Plame kerfuffle. One reader shared with us his reverie about how this is actually a signal that Fitzgerald plans to indict Vice President Cheney. In fact, it is nothing more than a battle over procedure. Libby is seeking to compel the prosecution to turn over certain information to the defense; Fitzgerald is resisting. Among the information Fitzgerald has so far refused to turn over, by the way, are the two facts supposedly at the center of the case: whether Valerie Plame was a covert agent (extensive evidence on the public record comes close to proving that she was not), and who “leaked” Plame’s identity to columnist Bob Novak. More than anything else, the whole kerfuffle is a reflection on the way anti-Bush animus has fed into the adversarial culture of post-Watergate journalism in America. First the New York Times beat the drums for a special prosecutor to investigate who provided accurate information to reporters, albeit supposedly in violation of the law. Among the results: A Times reporter went to jail. Now we witness the astonishing spectacle of newspapers trying to spin a scandal out of a legal disclosure of information to the press. GayPatriot aptly describes it as “the Orwellian worldview of Bush-haters where releasing facts means having something to hide.” Maybe we can’t expect better from political partisans, but journalists are supposed to stand for the neutral principle of the public’s right to know. If they pervert that principle in the pursuit of a partisan program, they will find it harder to assert it when it serves their purposes, whatever those purposes may be. Lewis Libby and Libby Lewis We’re hoping some Angry Left paranoiac will develop a conspiracy theory out of this amusing coincidence: National Public Radio has a reporter named Libby Lewis covering the Lewis Libby story. John Robinson of the Greensboro, N.C., News-Record looked into it and assured us there’s no relation. But doesn’t it at least create the appearance of an interest of conflict? Shouldn’t Lewis’s NPR bosses encourage her to scoot over to another beat? […]

    Pingback by Pros and Cons » Breaking news make news seem broken! — April 7, 2006 @ 3:42 pm - April 7, 2006

  39. #36 – V, yeah, that is sweet! 🙂

    Comment by Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 3:42 pm - April 7, 2006

  40. […] Now we witness the astonishing spectacle of newspapers trying to spin a scandal out of a legal disclosure of information to the press. GayPatriot aptly describes it as “the Orwellian worldview of Bush-haters where releasing facts means having something to hide.” Maybe we can’t expect better from political partisans, but journalists are supposed to stand for the neutral principle of the public’s right to know. If they pervert that principle in the pursuit of a partisan program, they will find it harder to assert it when it serves their purposes, whatever those purposes may be. […]

    Pingback by Jeremy-Gilby-dot-com » Leaks or DeClassified? — April 7, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - April 7, 2006

  41. You can spin till the cows come home, but the fact remains that Bush repeatedly lied to YOU every single time he responded to questions about the Plame case.

    Admit it, you can’t forget those images, can you? You heard the words and now you KNOW he was lying through his teeth.

    That’s gotta hurt…

    Comment by BN — April 7, 2006 @ 4:45 pm - April 7, 2006

  42. ???????????????????????

    How? Your comment makes no sense, BN.

    Comment by Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 4:49 pm - April 7, 2006

  43. I mean, “Bush lied(tm)” – about what exactly?

    Comment by Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 4:50 pm - April 7, 2006

  44. So you’re ok with a president so stupid that he didn’t bother declassifying the information when he could have, just so he could bypass all usual people who are supposed to be in the loop, to get back at Wilson and take the media’s minds off of the Wilson article?

    Kind of amazing. Whenever I need to read a bunch of nonsense by people who have no idea how the security systems work, have never held a clearance, and have not even worked in a commercial company where they have proprietary information, I go look for a bunch of BDS loonies to be entertained.

    Has anyone above ever seen a DD254? Who do you think sets the standards, and under what authority? Do you think that there is some enforcement officer at the WH making sure that the Prez follows all the standards? Under whose authority?

    Let me give you an analogy. Microsoft has a secret project to develop “Doors2K8”. They meet every morning for update and coordination in the conference room outside Bill Gates’ door.

    One day, because Google has announced that they are going into the market with their new web-based operating system, “O-Soogle”, Gates decides that he needs to short-circuit the publicity and reassure his customers that Windows will soon be upgradeable to a product that does everything O-Soogle is claiming and more. So he calls in his friend from Forbes and tells part of the Doors2K8 story.

    Do you think that the marketing VP now has the power and right to have Gates punished because Bill released something identified in the Dooor2K8 marketing file as being confidential?

    Good grief. Someone call Dr. Sanity, fast. A biunch of commenters here need her help.

    Comment by Duane — April 7, 2006 @ 4:53 pm - April 7, 2006

  45. OK, BN, I’ll take the bait. You say Bush Lied every time he responded to a question about the Plame case, please provide some examples. And explain how each constitutes a lie.

    Despite an overzealous prosecutor, not one single charge on the underlying offense has yet been filed. And no one has yet shown that Mrs. Plame was a covert agent covered by the statute in question.

    Those who claim BUSH LIED repeat their mantra as if it saying it so many times will make it so. Reminds me of the COWARDLY Lion in the Wizard of Oz. “I do believe in Spooks. I do believe in Spooks. I do, I do, I do, I do believe in Spooks.” But, believing in a fiction only makes it a truth in fairy tales and fantastic stories. Not in the real world.

    I agree that there are many issues where the president deserves criticism. He has made a number of errors, but, he has not lied to the American people. And those who claim that he has have yet to provide any serious evidence to substantiate their accusation.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 7, 2006 @ 5:34 pm - April 7, 2006

  46. “Sully both knows of me and despises me. Sweet.”

    LOL

    You flatter yourself.

    Comment by hank — April 7, 2006 @ 8:07 pm - April 7, 2006

  47. #6

    What? The Reinigung Frau is back?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 7, 2006 @ 9:30 pm - April 7, 2006

  48. Listening to liberal complaints regarding national security is like asking a burger flipper for advice on neuro-surgery – both are profoundly unqualified, and their lack of experience and expertise at best is a waste of time and at worst life-threatening.

    Comment by Tim — April 7, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - April 7, 2006

  49. #46 – Because hank knows so much of Sullivan’s inner monologue, after all. 😉

    Comment by Calarato — April 7, 2006 @ 10:53 pm - April 7, 2006

  50. […] I rarely link to comments here, much less comments on other blogs, but this comment on Gay Patriot is too good to pass up: […]

    Pingback by Right Wing Nation » Blog Archive » Today’s Classic Quotation — April 8, 2006 @ 8:07 am - April 8, 2006

  51. Well, I admit that the President released classifed info for “political gain” – to refute Wilson´s lies, then again I remember the press demanding that the facts regarding the issue be made public. What´s Orwellian is that the facts are irrelevant: national security was not hurt by revealing that Valerie worked for the CIA, Wilson was not sent by the VP´s office, and the controversial 16 words are a not-so-well known fact.
    If we want to stick to leaks, was Wilson´s trip to Niger unclassified? And who told him that the Niger document was a forgery?

    Comment by blubi — April 8, 2006 @ 8:48 am - April 8, 2006

  52. No reasonable person can read these excerpts from a Joe Wilson lecture and believe him to be anything other than a complete partisan hack and a Mega-a**hole: The Real Joe Wilson

    As for the wiretaps, it’s easy to prove that they are both legal and prudent simply by pointing out that no Democrat in the Senate has moved to stop them. Instead, they are putting up a purely political censure motion.

    Comment by V the K — April 8, 2006 @ 10:04 am - April 8, 2006

  53. Push push in the Bush

    James Taranto muses on the latest turn in the Plame affair. From WSJ's Best of the Web: If you'd told us earlier this week that the Valerie Plame kerfuffle was about to turn even sillier, we wouldn't have believed you. But it has. This s…

    Trackback by protein wisdom — April 8, 2006 @ 11:52 am - April 8, 2006

  54. ThatGayConservative — April 7, 2006 @ 9:30 pm – April 7, 2006

    What? The Reinigung Frau is back?

    Reinigung Frau? Was bedeutet das?

    You really shouldn’t attempt to use a Fremdsprache, when you don’t understand it.

    Comment by raj — April 9, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - April 9, 2006

  55. A New Low

    It seems like every time the President tours America making anew the discredited case for justifying war in Iraq, the rhetoric-weary American people place him at all time lows. Maybe, just maybe, it’s because the American people are as smart…

    Trackback by Grantham — April 10, 2006 @ 8:41 am - April 10, 2006

  56. We dont call them “assualt rifles” anymore. They are “homeland defense rifles” now 🙂

    Comment by homeland defense rifles — November 1, 2006 @ 4:55 am - November 1, 2006

  57. this man kills our kids in a meaningless war and waste our hard earned money and on top of that he steals our freedom and our rights u poeple cant even be married in our countrys name because its gets him votes from old fag haters we cant even smoke weed wtf but we can drink and and send 18 year olds in a 3rd world country with bad training and bad armor they have to buy there own bullet proof vest for crying out loud so they can make more money off this whole thing its but yet he is a good man right we aint free here in canada and nietherlands those ppl are free not us we live only for corp. and u all let it happen even when ur being pushed around more then the rest of us pull ur heads out of ur rear and find the truth cuz the poor kid who went to iraq to support his family and died from a lack of armor cuz he sent money to his kids instead he knows the truth but his dead and its to late this is happening 28 more of them died today poor training and bad tactics are to blame on top of the fact that we shouldnt be there in the first place lets get realand lets not forget he says the world is fine and no need for corps to cut poluiton yea….. say that to the people alive 50 years from now and they will probly beat the shit out of u look around bush is destorying our world and our lifes dont be bind to this wake up for our future the world depends on us

    Comment by alex — January 21, 2007 @ 3:24 pm - January 21, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.