Joe Wilson, like Paul Cameron, a Hero to his Ideological Allies, a Laughingstock to Everyone Else
As people across the world become nervous about a possible escalation of the crisis in the Middle East, we should be grateful to Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson for providing us some much needed “comic relief.” While much evidence has come out about the White House’s clumsy attempt to discredit Mr. WIlson, no evidence has yet surfaced to buttress Mr. Wilson’s contention that White House officials used “their official positions to exact personal revenge.”
All they were doing was trying to show, what a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Report later confirmed, that Wilson was playing fast and loose with the facts, even misrepresenting the findings of his own mission to Niger.
While I think this suit will be dismissed even before it enters the discovery phase, it is amusing to contemplate how it might proceed. To rebut statements in the initial filing, the defense will quote extensively from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. Plus, they may gain access to the results of Fitzgerald’s investigation and will get to depose Joe Wilson under oath.
With a good litigator handling that deposition, Wilson would finally have to handle tough questions and would likely break under pressure. The transcript might get leaked to conservative bloggers who would have a field day pointing out Wilson’s contradictions and doublespeak. Those contradictions would almost certainly force him and his wife to withdraw their lawsuit.
It is clear to me — and so many others — that this lawsuit is no more than a publicity stunt. Neither Wilson nor Plame has suffered because of the Administration’s efforts to discredit them. While revelations of Wilson’s dishonesty should have removed him from the public stage, Joe Wilson has become a folk hero of the angry left, receiving two standing ovations at YearlyKos, being paid hefty honoraria to speak at college campuses and appearing numerous times on television talk shows while publishing a book on his experiences. Gateway Pundit provides several photos of the many media appearances of the Wilsons where this supposedly unhappy pair are almost always smiling.
Even liberals are beginning to tire of the media-hungry twosome.
While Joe Wilson provides some comic relief at this anxious time, he reminds me of another discredited crackpot with an ideological ax to grind. Just as several left-wing groups continue to hold Mr. Wilson in high regard, so do anti-gay “family” groups cite the research of Paul Cameron although serious social scientists have found countless flaws in his methodology. While serious social scientists have discredited Cameron’s attempt to besmirch gay people, the Senate Intelligence Committee has discredited Wilson’s contention that President Bush deliberately deceived the American people.
Just as left-wingers will continue to cheer Joe Wilson because he offers the conclusions they want so will certain social conservatives continue to herald Paul Cameron, with one group prominently featuring one on his books on its web-page. When people like Cameron or Wilson are exposed as frauds, they should fall into disfavor. But, so helpful are their (discredited) conclusions to their ideological allies that those allies ignore the facts and continue to tout their findings.
With Wilson long since discredited and the Fitzgerald investigation winding down, Joe Wilson is making one last attempt to remain relevant. For one final moment, he’ll get a little more of the publicity he so loves. But, as the publicity of this latest media stunt fades and his lawsuit is exposed to greater scrutiny, he’ll become little more than a laughingstock, another pathetic man attempting to extend his time on center stage. Another unhappy ideologue, cherished only by the angriest advocates of his cause.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
36 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
republicans are worried about this and they should be. rove,cheny and co are going down.
Comment by lester — July 14, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - July 14, 2006
thank you lester, for the alternate-reality comment….. now 2 words for the sane people: Titus Oates
Comment by anonymous — July 14, 2006 @ 7:17 pm - July 14, 2006
ROFLMAO. You guys are great. Keeping repeating your points, yet ignoring the facts– and helping prove my point. I wonder what you’ll see when this is dismissed. Weren’t you all so certain Rove would be indicted?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 14, 2006 @ 7:24 pm - July 14, 2006
yeah lester….seems every month the lefties have a new prediction about Rove or Cheney going down. No Fitzmas. No Impeachment. No trial. No resignation. How ‘s it feel to be a loser. Can’t win elections. Can’t make predictions that actually come true in the real world, not the imaginary bizaro world. I predict conservatives in Canada, conservatives in Mexico, Conservatives in Germany, oh sorry those are things that have actually happened. Didn’t mean to startle you. God Bless America.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 14, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - July 14, 2006
The Left is dying as an alternative for civilization. The self-absorbed divas are showing their asses for all their worth. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.
Comment by VinceTN — July 14, 2006 @ 9:29 pm - July 14, 2006
This is an excellent example of the vituperative disposition of GPW, spinning out of control as usual. We’ll skip right over Scooter Libby — plenty of damage has been done, even if “Fitzmas” didn’t arrive for Mr. Rove — and I refer you to this post and comments by a much more thoughtful lawyer:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/14/about-those-poison-pills/
It’s a great example of the way the left, contrary to GPW’s ridiculously narrow view, can take a longer view, owning the variety of motivations of the suit. This has actually been true since the beginning of this affair.
Comment by donny — July 14, 2006 @ 9:38 pm - July 14, 2006
You are sooooooo right, Gene. Speaking of occupying alternative universes:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/14/republicans.appoll.ap/
Comment by donny — July 14, 2006 @ 10:12 pm - July 14, 2006
It’s amazing how, just as time is about to expire on their 15 minutes, people like Joe Wilson find a way to stay in the limelight.
A good friend of mine is a Foreign Service professional in the State Department. He reminds me that Ambassador Wilson was never posted to any significant assignment. He says many of Wilson’s former peers consider him a buffoon.
Comment by Trace Phelps — July 14, 2006 @ 11:07 pm - July 14, 2006
I am not American, so excuse my lack of clear understanding. However I genuinely try to understand different cultures and people. Is not one of the great corner stones of American Democracy the ability to try seek justice when wronged ? The fact that this can include suing the government. Is that not a basic right ?
We don’t know yet whether these people were wronged or not. Is that not the role of your Justice system to decide ? What is strange to me is this article that seems nothing more that hysterical speculation based on no sound arguments – just hysteria, but is equally full of ridicule and defamation of your own citizens who I think are trying to exercise their democratic right. Why not let them have their day in court and then cast judgement after all the facts have been laid out for examination ?
What was particularly disturbing to me was the statement that “the transcript might get leaked to conservative bloggers who would have a field day pointing out Wilson’s contradictions and doublespeak. Those contradictions would almost certainly force him and his wife to withdraw their lawsuit”.
Goodness such intimidating rhetoric and grandiose delusions of power. So much like the days of the brown shirt brigade here in Italy. To me this reflects more badly on the person who penned this piece than on the target of who they are attempting to smear. It is a bit of a shock for someone that has always admired the American system to see this level of rhetoric.
Comment by mario — July 15, 2006 @ 4:17 am - July 15, 2006
Donny, your comments always bring a smile to my lips. You level allegations against me, yet fail to reference specific points I made. If you feel I am spinning out of control, please show me how.
Until then, we’ll just have to wait until a federal judge dismisses this suit — and see how you react then.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — July 15, 2006 @ 4:46 am - July 15, 2006
Mario, since I am not a big fan of George W. Bush and opposed going to war in Iraq (‘tho I now certainly want to see us finish the job we started), perhaps you’ll respect my response more than others here who will probably have something to say to you.
Of course, in America, Joe Wilson and his wife have every right to take their greviences, real or perceived, through the courts.
But, Mario, Joe and Valerie have been playing politics from the beginning and, coming just four months before the November election, this lawsuit looks very political. (If not political, they’re either starved for media attention or are promoting future books — or both.)
Joe is a liar. He lied about what he learned in Niger and tied to use that lie to help the Kerry campaign in 2004. And just because Valerie worked for the CIA doesn’t make her honorable. A number of CIA employees have been exposed as using their positions to undermine President Bush’s policies and to help Democratic opponents of the president. That may very well have been Valerie’s motive for suggesting that Joe make the trip to Niger.
Even if the White House played hardball in defending itself against Joe’s lies, the bottom line is that Joe and Valerie themselves destroyed their credibility.
Valerie’s alleged “outing” didn’t endanger national security or jeopardize her and her children’s safety. She was a relatively low level employee at the CIA and could still be working there had she chosen to stay.
Comment by Trace Phelps — July 15, 2006 @ 4:50 am - July 15, 2006
I guess since Valerie’s seven-figure book deal fell through, they had to do something to keep their name in the media. It was either file a frivolous lawsuit, or join Cindy Sheehan’s “hunger strike.” (The only hunger strike in history in history where smoothies and ice cream don’t count.)
Boy, for two people who got enraged that their privacy was violated, they certainly enjoy making public spectacles of themselves.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2006 @ 9:11 am - July 15, 2006
Thanks Trace for your comments – what were the lies that you think Ambassador Wilson told ? I hadn’t read anything about these ?
I certainly know Italy was involved in terms of passing on the fake documents. Why always Italy ??? If there is the need for something fake who can you count on – always the Italians !!! What an embarrassment.
I wonder if any side is any less political than the other on this ? It seems each are accusing each other of using the whole string of events as a kind of political weapon.
At the end of the day if Ambassadors Wilson, and Mrs Plame, and their childrens lives were actually endangered through this by an act of revenge by government employees, and lets face it nobody knows the answer to this yet, then shouldn’t they be allowed to have their day in court ? I would like to think that everyone has this right, what ever the speculation others may have for the motive of taking such action.
Personally one thing I see happening often in the USA is this trial by media. We get Fox news here and some of the cases are bizarre in terms of the over the top speculation by so called insiders and experts. Lawyers in little boxes on the screen shouting at each other. Seems to turn a case into a hate fest and mockery? How can this serve justice?
Comment by mario — July 15, 2006 @ 11:41 am - July 15, 2006
For such a “frivolous lawsuit”, GPW posts twice on it in the same day! A suggestion for Mario: if you really want to better understand the nature of the conservatives who post here, their worship of Bush and their rabid attacks on anyone who questions Bush Administration actions, I refer you to http://tinyurl.com/pa75a where John Dean explores this very issue. He has a book out on the subject which I intend to read.
Comment by Ian — July 15, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - July 15, 2006
From the post:
While I think this suit will be dismissed even before it enters the discovery phase, it is amusing to contemplate how it might proceed. To rebut statements in the initial filing, the defense will quote extensively from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. Plus, they may gain access to the results of Fitzgerald’s investigation and will get to depose Joe Wilson under oath.
You seriously do not understand trial practice in federal courts, do you? You didn’t really go to law school, did you? Aside from that fact that, in federal court, a motion to dismiss is based on the pleadings–and any additional material brought in would make the motion considered a motion for summary judgement, subject to rules of evidence, cross examination (depositions and the like) and so forth, you don’t really believe that a court would consider the committee’s report to be evidentiary of the matters–conclusions and purported evidence–stated therein, do you?
Apart from the fact, that, if a court were to give credence to the committee’s conclusions, that would be tantamount to allowing the committee to be the trier of fact in the civil case, thereby usurping the province of the judge and jury (there is a demand for a jury trial in the complaint, remember?). Moreover, the witnesses before the committee–and whose testimony the committee supposedly relied in issuing its report were not cross-examined. Oh, the witnesses might have been cross-examined by committee counsel, but they weren’t cross-examined by the counsel in the Wilson’s civil action.
Jeez, you really should learn a bit about trial practice before pontificating on something that you apparently know very little.
Comment by raj — July 15, 2006 @ 12:19 pm - July 15, 2006
That’s today’s Bush-Deranged Left For ya. When the New York Times helps terrorists hide their activities from the Government, that’s no big deal. But identifying a non-covert, CIA bureaucrat whose publicity-whore husband is using the agency as official cover for his own lying — is the Crime of the Century.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2006 @ 1:53 pm - July 15, 2006
Looks like they got the wrong judge.
Comment by rightwingprof — July 15, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - July 15, 2006
Back to the MSM for a moment. How come every time this Libby Rove prosecution thing is mentioned they don’t tell us how many millions of dollars have been wasted in this hysterical prosecution. I’m sure thousands of starving American kids could have been clothed and fed with the wasted funds. How sad. Will the frivilous lawsuit force the Plames to pay up for the civil legal costs incurred by the patriots?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 15, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - July 15, 2006
I’ve also asked this before: when exactly are the Republicans going to start throwing old people out onto the streets with no medicine, cut off school lunches which will of course starve kids, who’s parents will have no means of feeding their own, when are gays going to be locked up, and when are african americans going to be sent back to the plantations? Bush has only 2 years left to get this all done. I know I’ve forgotten a few. Like make all people become Evangelical Christians.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 15, 2006 @ 2:45 pm - July 15, 2006
Ian, I posted twice on it because I had first posted in the wee hours of the morning and had not said all I had wanted to say.
And once again, no, we do not attack anyone who questions the Bush Administration actions, indeed, we have criticized such actions on multiple occasions. Why do you keep repeating an accusation which has been repeatedly proved wrong? Why must the left believe that we attack anyone who criticizes the Administration when it is they who criticize anything the Administration does?
Sorry, raj, it’s been over a decade since I took Civil Procedure. That said, I believe that case will be dismissed before it proceeds to trial, long before.
Comment by Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — July 15, 2006 @ 2:47 pm - July 15, 2006
GPW, I think Ian may not recognize the frequent criticism of Bush on this board because it tends to take the form “We disagree with Bush Policy X, and suggest as an alternative Policy Y.” To someone who has been infected with BDS, Nothing short of “Bush is Hitler and should have his intestines pulled out with rusty hooks,” counts as “real” criticism.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - July 15, 2006
#20: I should have included commenters as well as posters although Bruce gives many commenters a run for their money when it comes to attacking Bush critics. You are generally a bit more moderate. Hope you’re feeling better.
As for Bush himself, doesn’t it bother any of you that the man supposedly on top of and running the war on terror including what’s transpiring in Iraq can utter the following today in public (from http://tinyurl.com/k4kz7):
“I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq where there’s a free press and free religion, and I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia would do the same”
Putin understandably replied:
“”We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.”
Comment by Ian — July 15, 2006 @ 4:15 pm - July 15, 2006
Ian, when I saw that clip of former KGB thug Putin –complete with smirking, pursed lips– I thought to myself… boy, I hope Bush restores “CowBoy Diplomacy” by giving that smartass Russian terrorist a swift left to the jaw.
Would have made my day –time to end Russia’s lovefest with the World Bank and ExImBank. Once a commie, always a commie.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 15, 2006 @ 4:49 pm - July 15, 2006
”We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly.”
I can understand why Vladimir Putin, who has systematically shut down Russia’s Free Press, thrown opponents in jail, and undermined democratic institutions… might have a problem with Iraqi democracy. Or any other real democracy.
Comment by V the K — July 15, 2006 @ 5:21 pm - July 15, 2006
Mario, all you need to do is read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on the Niger issue and compare it to Joe Wilson’s politically-motivated op-ed piece in the New York Times. Joe’s lies will be very obvious.
Comment by Trace Phelps — July 15, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - July 15, 2006
#20 Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — July 15, 2006 @ 2:47 pm – July 15, 2006
Sorry, raj, it’s been over a decade since I took Civil Procedure.
That is probative of what? Other than your questionable assertion that you actually went to law school–the kicker was your suggestion that the Senate committee’s report might be admissable into evidence for the assertions that you claim to be facts stated therein. BTW, it has been 35 years since I took Civil Procedure and Evidence.
That said, I believe that case will be dismissed before it proceeds to trial, long before.
Maybe, but probably not before at least some discovery, including depositions of the defendants, has been taken and probably made available to the public. I doubt very seriously that the case will go to trial–if a decision isn’t made on summary judgement (i.e., after at least some discovery), it will probably be settled out of court before trial.
Comment by raj — July 16, 2006 @ 10:31 am - July 16, 2006
Wouldn’t the leftists agree the Plames should come out now and donate all their book and speaking fees to charity. It might make their case at least look a bit more rightious.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 16, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - July 16, 2006
Raj, panties in a bunch? Great, you are the legal expert and we’re not worthy. But aren’t you ignoring the real point of the original post? Discovery in this case will discredit the Wilsons even further, if that is possible. Settled out of court? Please. If that is your professional opinion then no wonder you have time to post here.
Comment by john in chicago — July 16, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - July 16, 2006
john in chicago… ouch. That was a gut punch to raj baby’s midsection and you nailed him.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 17, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - July 17, 2006
#28 john in chicago — July 16, 2006 @ 3:25 pm – July 16, 2006
Raj, panties in a bunch?
Oh, my goodness. Another commenter who resorts to fag stereotypes. Yawn.
Great, you are the legal expert and we’re not worthy.
Make your argument. I did. You, did not.
But aren’t you ignoring the real point of the original post? Discovery in this case will discredit the Wilsons even further, if that is possible.
This is clearly a joke. I really don’t give a tinker’s damn about the assertions of alleged facts that the original post purports to present, or the assertions of alleged facts in sites taht the original post links to. Once a case goes into discovery, one has no idea how it will go. Many of the issues regarding the Wilsons from the post and the sites linked to are totally irrelevant to the issues raised in the lawsuit. That doesn’t mean that they might not be raised in depositions, but that also doesn’t that they would be admissible in court. (You really don’t understand discovery, I’m sure. Apparently, neither does GPW.) It is highly unlikely that much if anything of depositions taken of J. Wilson would be admissible in court–there are relevance issues, you know, which would not be determined until after the deposition. What issues do you believe regarding Wilson’s being sent to Niger have to do with the alleged a subsequent conspiracy? Cite chapter and verse. And keep it to the subject matter of the causes of action in the complaint. I’m not interested in responding to a “well, he did this and that”….
Comment by raj — July 18, 2006 @ 11:45 am - July 18, 2006
raj baby, you’re starting to repeat yourself with the tinkers’ damn comment and others here… I suggest you put down your keyboard, breathe via the nose, chant some GayLeft mantra and cool off before typing.
You don’t really make any arguments of merit, you know. You resort to taking a vulnerable statement out of context and then spinning it to your own sick, twisted laughter. That really isn’t making a point. But I can see how you might think it earns you debate points. LOL.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 18, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - July 18, 2006
Yes, Mr. Wilson has the support of 70% of the American people according to recent polls. I guess that means that “everyone else”
are the 10 or 11 people standing around picking their noses and laughing. When the person who is supposedly a “laughingstock” is supported by WAY more people than those laughing… seems like the
ones laughing are the real laughingstock… They’re so obtuse they don’t realize how obtuse they are.
Dan
Dan
Comment by dan — July 18, 2006 @ 6:02 pm - July 18, 2006
The judge is a Republican… So, it’s all politics and it has nothing to do with the law.
Republicans have no appreciation for the importance of the Rule of Law.
If you have power, you’re the law. This is the REpublican mantra.
And they call themselves Americans. What a laugh!
Dan
Comment by dan — July 18, 2006 @ 6:05 pm - July 18, 2006
As is usual for Christopher Hitchens on most topics, he is not to be missed on this topic:
http://www.slate.com/id/2145889/?nav=tap3
This seems to be the overall picture:
(1) Novak is a friend of the CIA and moreover, was known at the time as a conservative friend and admirer of Joe Wilson.
(2) Novak was curious, “How did [Wilson,] a man publicly critical of the Bush policy get the [presumably Bush-run] CIA’s nomination for a mission to Niger?” He started asking around.
(3) Richard Armitage, a deputy of Colin Powell’s, told Novak something to the effect, “That’s easy. His wife works there and recommended him for the trip.” Note:
– A bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence committee later confirmed the claim.
– Armitage probably or apparently did not disclose Wilson’s wife’s name.
(4) Novak then looked up who Joe Wilson’s wife might be, and found it sitting right there publicly in _Who’s Who in America_.
(4) As a good journalist, Novak wanted separate confirmation of Armitage’s claim before publishing it. Novak asked his White House contacts (Rove/Libby) – they apparently did NOT seek him out. Upon being asked, they apparently just told Novak something general like “Yeah, we’ve heard that too.”
Bottom line:
(a) No Administration official committed any violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Period. Nor inflicted malicious damage or slander on the Wilsons.
(b) Even those Administration defenders (Dan) who say, “They were clumsily, but justly, trying to discredit a fundamentally dishonest critic” MAY have it wrong. It’s not clear that the Administration was trying or intending to do anything.
(c) L’affaire Plame is an incredible non-story. Or, to put it more precisely: the real story in L’Affaire Plame is how so many gullible, irrational, Bush-hating idiots could believe so long, and apparently continue to believe, in this total non-story.
Cheers, leftist idiots!
Comment by Calarato — July 19, 2006 @ 10:57 am - July 19, 2006
#34 Calarato — July 19, 2006 @ 10:57 am – July 19, 2006
As is usual for Christopher Hitchens on most topics, he is not to be missed on this topic…
It’s sweet that you cite Christopher Hitchens. Is he really out of rehab?
/sarcasm
Comment by raj — July 19, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - July 19, 2006
dan writes at #33: “This is the REpublican mantra. And they call themselves Americans. What a laugh!”
Actually Dan, I think most of us on this side of the aisle would look at you and your ilk’s antics in the last few years –maybe even going back to the days of JimminyCricketCarter– and say, those people call themselves American? The ones would openly consort with the PLO? The ones who undercut the judicial system so that child rapists can go free on technicalities? The ones who allow others to burn the flag? The ones who brutually murder innocent Americans yet to be born? The ones who would sell state secrets, lay with the enemy, dispirit the troops and use the military as a social engineering test like they did with our schools? You call those people Americans? No, we call them Democrats. We call them the Left. It’s why American voters won’t let you guys anywhere near a position of power.
You guys have made up the mantra that exists in most voters’ mind today: ANYTHING BUT THE DEMOCRATS.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 19, 2006 @ 4:28 pm - July 19, 2006