Ronald Bailey has more updates from the ACLU conference, including an encounter with Joe "Sixteen Words" Wilson.
UPDATE: Link fixed.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Terry | October 19, 2006, 4:53pm | #
This is the same thing you posted yesterday.Please check your files.
Inkstained Wretch | October 19, 2006, 4:54pm | #
The link is wrong. It connects to one of Bailey's earlier dispatches.I found the (Democratic) party-line description of Wilson rather disconcerting. I more or less agree with most of the rest of Bailey's account; the rundown on cases involving secret classifications is interesting.
Terry | October 19, 2006, 6:08pm | #
Bailey wrote, "He(Wilson) explained why that claim was not credible."Wilson lied. The senate report said so.
How come you don't know this Bailey?
Bailey wrote, "State Richard Armitage and others in the Bush Administration revealed his wife's undercover job—possibly as some kind of ham—handed attempt at revenge."
No, it wasn't. It was in response to another Wilson lie, when he denied his wife had anything to do with him going to Niger. His wife recommanded him for the job.
Again Bailey, how come you don't know this, especially when its so old.
Bailey wrote, "Wilson,...,soundly condemned the administration for its disdain for the rule of law."
The administration DID NOT BREAK the law.
How come you don't know that.
Carried carrying Ron,
Did you or anyone bring up the fact that the ACLU went to cournt to prevent the minutemen from exercising the right to speech, assemble and petition the government?
If not, why?
Since you are ignorant of easy to find facts, why should I believe anything you ever write again?
Chad | October 19, 2006, 6:11pm | #
Oh, come on. There is no basis for claiming Armitage outed Plame for revenge. Every since he was finally outed, it has become obvious that there was no conspiracy - even the looney left and its pet media gave up on that silly claim. Armitage is not nor was not a Bush lackey.Normally I don't expect Reason to repeat whacky conspiracies. I definitely don't when even the conspiracy's own backers have largely given up on it.
mediageek | October 19, 2006, 7:46pm | #
"The administration DID NOT BREAK the law."Yeah, and in Germany it was completely legal to stuff Jews into ovens circa 1942.
That doesn't make it right.
Yes, I failed my saving throw vs. Godwin
Terry | October 19, 2006, 7:52pm | #
mediageek,Did the administration break the law when Cheney or Libby say that Wilson's wife, Valiere Palme, worked for the CIA?
Yes or No?
Answer, NO.
Get your facts straight you schmuck.
joe | October 19, 2006, 7:59pm | #
No, it appears that managed to out a covert CIA employee who specialized in the threat from Iranian nuclear weapons, thus ending her career and burning her assets, in a manner that didn't violate the letter of any laws.The federal prosecuter who looked into the matter, and indicted a Senior Councillor to the President, confirmed as such when he announced that that would be the only federal indictment at this time.
mediageek, this is the closest thing to good news that Republicans and war supporters have gotten in many months, and you should be a little more sensitive about it. Can't you see their little hearts are breaking?
thedifferentphil | October 19, 2006, 7:59pm | #
Terry,Make sure you read posts before you comment on them. Media geek points out that even if it was not illegal,it was wrong. Maybe NationalReview.com is a better site for you to hang out at. They love Bush, the war, Dick Cheney...
Terry | October 19, 2006, 8:19pm | #
thedifferentphil and mediageek,Get your facts straigt dipshits.
Valiere Palme recommanded her husband for a trip to Niger. Joseph Wilson lied and said she didn't.
Valiere Palme was not undercover when Armitage or Cheney or Libby revealed that she suggested her husband.
Get that, she was no longer and undercover agent and there is no proof that Armitage or Cheney or Libby ever knew she was one to begin with.
They did not ended her career, she and her husband did.
Both could have kept there mouths shut. Both choose not to.
She has twin children under ten years old, she has worked at the CIA headquarters since 1996, she was not a burned asset. Her undercover career was over and with her coming up on twenty years, her actions prove she was looking to retire, as she has.
There was no crime or if there was it was by Joseph Wilson. Purjury if he said in front of a jury that Iraq didn't seek yellow cake uranium from Niger. They did.
Wilson is a liar that is a fact.
Palme wasn't outed illegally or immorally, that is a fact.
perhaps some combination of remedial reading comprehension and remedial spelling would help you out, Terry
Terry | October 19, 2006, 8:39pm | #
Fuck you biologist.I am at work. I don't have the time to check my spelling.
How come you didn't refute with facts any of my statements?
Typical schmuck liberal, just personal attacks, no facts.
Your pathetic.
The subject of this comment section is Bailey's LIES about the Bush administration. Stick to the subject.
joe | October 19, 2006, 8:52pm | #
There there, Terry, take a deep breath."Valiere Palme was not undercover when Armitage or Cheney or Libby revealed that she suggested her husband."
That's not actually true. She still had a covert identity, which the CIA was protecting, even though she was not, at the time, working in operations.
It's common practice to maintain identities after someone who has done field work move upstairs, in order to protect the sources and contacts developed, in order to protect them and the integrity of the mission, but also so that they will remain availabe in the future.
I wonder how many people in Iran said, hey, my housekeeper used to have tea with that businesswoman. Maintaining covert status for a person isn't like keeping a document classified. It's expensive and complicated. They don't generally do so unless there's a reason.
"her actions prove she was looking to retire, as she has." What are you, the CIA's HR Director?
"They did not ended her career, she and her husband did."
You mean Joe Wilson ghost wrote the Robert Novak column that told the world his wife was a CIA employee?
MUTT | October 19, 2006, 8:54pm | #
Wow, Terry. When people get that ugly, its usually because they are full of shit, & havent a clue as to what to do about it.A very brief overview of what the woman actually did.
Im sure you will sqwaak & bluster. Feel free.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn
Wilson was well qualified to suss out this particular lie. He was also touted as a "hero" during Bush One.
But then, you are a crackpot. So, whatever.
Terry | October 19, 2006, 9:00pm | #
Joe,No, Joe Wilson wrote the lie in the NY Times that that led to his wife, who did not insist that he sign a confidential disclosure agreement which is SOP when the CIA contracts out.
No, her covert career, what of it, was over. She with twin children under the age of ten, was not going to be reactivited, especially since she worked at CIA headquarters and everyone in Washington, people like Angela Myers and that other old bitch on sixty minutes, knew she worked for the CIA.
Again Joe, facts. It wasn't illegal or immoral or malicious intent when Valiere Palme was revealed to work for the CIA.
Learn to read please.
Terry | October 19, 2006, 9:16pm | #
MUTT,I don't care if she cured cancer.
The question is was she a covert agent who was illegal outed by Armitage or Cheney or anyone else?
No.
Immoral? No
No evidence of even malicious intent.
Joe Wilson LIED in the NY Times. One of the questions about the episode is why was Joe Wilson picked by the CIA? His wife who worked for the CIA recommanded him.
That is it.
Fact, no one was charged with the crime of "outing her".
You wrote, "Wilson was well qualified to suss out this particular lie."
What does that mean? There is no 'suss' word in the dictionary.
You wrote, "He was also touted as a "hero" during Bush One. "
Okay, "Bush One" was from 1989 to 1993. What did Wilson do in 13 to 17 years ago that has relevance today and how does it matter that in someone's opinion he was considered a 'hero'?
MUTT do you call yourself that because you have the brain of a dog?
biologist | October 19, 2006, 9:24pm | #
hey, Terry, now tell us that Saddam Hussein DID have WMD, but he snuck them out of the country, and now they're in Jordan.just the facts, man.
Jennifer | October 19, 2006, 9:28pm | #
Since you are ignorant of easy to find facts, why should I believe anything you ever write again?You shouldn't. This website doesn't deserve a fine and upstanding commenter like you. Stop honoring that rat Bailey with your presence, is my advice.
Terry | October 19, 2006, 9:37pm | #
biologist,How come you don't stick to the subject, Wilson lying, and Ron Bailey stating it as a fact, lying himself?
Do you know what "stick to" means? I am sure you get sticky alot, but its different when it comes to reading.
Terry | October 19, 2006, 9:42pm | #
Jennifer,I will if you blow me. Is it a deal?
While you think about it, why not respond to the subject at hand.
And if your lucky, I will give you another subject for your hand.(lol)
Certainly, Terry. I was looking for a piece of dental floss to dislodge food from my teeth, but I'm sure your microdick will work just as well.
Pro Libertate | October 19, 2006, 9:50pm | #
Speaking of spelling, just so everyone knows, Firefox 2.0 is going to have a spell checker that works with forms. In fact, I have an extension that does that right now (with version 1.5.0.7). It's pretty cool--my spelling mistakes (not always mistakes, incidentally, but that's a comment for another thread) are underlined in red, and I can run a full spell check if I so desire. I can also add words to the dictionary, etc., etc. The extension I'm using now is still "in development" and may never stop being so, because the feature will soon be an integral part of the browser. However, you might be able to find it still at the Spell Bound web site.If you're still using IE, maybe something like this has been or will be added to IE 7, which was released yesterday, I think. In any event, this sort of functionality is a good thing for you bloggers, and it certainly isn't a bad deal for those of us who post too often for their own good :)
P.S. "Bloggers" comes up as a misspelled word. Tsk, tsk.
Jennifer | October 19, 2006, 9:51pm | #
this sort of functionality is a good thing for you bloggersI do mine as a Word document and the cut and paste it into the blogging template. It's much easier that way.
Pro Libertate | October 19, 2006, 10:01pm | #
Jennifer,As another aside, your recent convulsions over Dan T. remind me of the time you were linking to your then-new blog and kept sending people to that Bible site. You've certainly been forced to scale the heights of frustration here at Hit & Run :)
The Word option is commonly used by bloggers. One problem that I've observed with it (even here) is that special characters in Word will come out as garbage in HTML. That can be dealt with, of course, but it's nice to skip the whole step and just have the spell checking occur in the form. Although I suppose that a longer entry is easier to manage in Word or in a text editor.
Does anyone know if IE 7 does this? I just downloaded it at work, but I haven't played with it yet.
Jennifer | October 19, 2006, 10:08pm | #
Yeah, PL, that was a very annoying afternoon. But between that and my comments about the site's Webcam I certainly got the word out.The post detailing how I smuggled six ounces past TSA security is still the single most popular one I've done, though. Bible site be damned. Literally.
Pro Libertate | October 19, 2006, 10:12pm | #
Jennifer,That's because people love gonzo journalism. Or gonzo blogging, if you will. You didn't just write about the TSA, you lived the experience and reported on it. You should do something a little out there for the election. Like vote twice or something.
Alas, PL, I can't. I'm somewhat well-known or at least recognized, in the town where I live and vote. And I'm either too ethical to commit identity fraud or too lazy to get a wig and a fake ID, I'm not sure which.
D.A. Ridgely | October 19, 2006, 10:20pm | #
Gosh! Now that Cavanaugh is on the way out as web editor, I guess we have a new test case for what it takes to get banned here. Anybody want to start a blog pool?biologist | October 19, 2006, 10:35pm | #
Terry, I'm not sure you should be impugning others' reading skills, based on those reading skills you've displayed thus farI'd like to address your very well-thought out and highly substantive comments, but clearly you've got the facts on your side
Pro Libertate | October 19, 2006, 10:46pm | #
biologist,Ah, that's right! I read about that. Bless Google and its technological toys. I've been away from IE so long that I forgot about the extra bells and whistles that come with the tool bars. I'll have to make a point to install it on my new IE 7 browser at work while I play with it.
Jennifer,
Two words: Jeff and P. :) I'm sure he'd do time to further your career.
Also, it's not threadjacking. We're liberating this thread. More like freedom fighters, less like terrorists.
This is true, PL. Sometimes it's obvious that any chance for the best-case scenario has long since been lost, and the only decent thing to do is salvage what you can.
John in Nashville | October 20, 2006, 1:07am | #
Glad to see such a mature and reasoned discussion on this thread. If Terry had ever developed a vocabulary, he would not have to rely upon scatological, sawdust filler.grumpy realist | October 20, 2006, 10:08am | #
I think it's pretty obvious that we just had a visit from a 17-year old (or less) troll.Vulgar, scatological, and tedious. And boring. Dear Bog, how boring....
mediageek | October 20, 2006, 10:35am | #
Don't feel too bad about Terry. He's an AOL user, and in my experience, that can be a fantastic indicator of general level of intelligence.FWIW, in my first post I had been hasty in my reading, and was commenting on the NSA wiretapping scandal, not the Valerie Plame scandal, which I can't really muster enough feeling to actually care about.
So, my bad for hastily reading and responding.
Still, Terry's responses have been completely worthwhile.
Terry, if you're at work and can't find the time to check your spelling, where did you find the time to post all those insults? Does your boss know you"re doing this, and where do you work, anyway?
TrickyVic | October 20, 2006, 12:51pm | #
I love the way the "Wilson debate" has moved from the fact that 1. Being a diplomat from both regions and having CIA connections made him well qualified for the task. 2. The CIA, not his wife sent him, see only made a suggestion. 3. His assestment was correct. Since then everyone in the administration is convinced there was no connection at that time and it is well known that the document that claimed the existance of that connection was a fake.What kind of fool would still hold on to this belief that Wilson was wrong when the intel agencies and the Bush administraton now concur that there was no connection as the document, which started it all, stated.
Also, the outing of Wilson's wife was considered, wrongfully, as the reason Joe Wilson's character was assassinated. Ok, so what reason did that assassination occured? Just because your wrong about the reason why an event happened does not mean the event did not happen.
Some people still won't admit that the document that claimed Iraq was seeking Urainium was a forgery despite the fact that is well known to be true.
When you apply some 20/20 hindsight, Wilson's stance was that a forged document had no credibility. Yet some people still believe that the forged document was credible, and beat you up for not believing it. And they think they're the smart ones.
TrickyVic | October 20, 2006, 1:03pm | #
"""Did the administration break the law when Cheney or Libby say that Wilson's wife, Valiere Palme, worked for the CIA?Yes or No?
Answer, NO.
Get your facts straight you schmuck.""""
First, only children do name calling. Grow up already.
Second. No one on this board claims Libby violated law in his actions, except for maybe lying to a grand jury to obstruct justice which Fitzgerald believes he can prove in court.
If you really want to talk about lying ask yourself why Libby might have lied to the grand jury. What was he hiding?
It seems to me you have one definition of lying for those you don't like and another for those you like. Mr Bailey hasn't lied about anything, he might be wrong, but that's not a lie.
A lie would be when you tell the public that the NSA is not data-mining our phone records when you have authorized the NSA to run data-mining software on those phone record.