July 12, 2004


Regarding the Joe "Frog Walk" Wilson, there's not much I can say that Captain Ed and Powerlinehaven't already said better.

But I have a few questions.

First: How would the left like its crow?

Let's go back and look at some of the stuff the left was writing about Joe Wilson a while ago.

I'll start with the relatively responsible, credible lefty-bloggers (and I'll have to do some digging to make sure that should be plural). Kevin Drumnotes

None of this really seems to have any impact on the legal question of whether someone in the administration leaked Plame's name to the press, but it sure has an impact on Wilson's credibility. Stay tuned.
In other words, "That whole 'alleged complete gutting of the rationale for war' thing is toast, but we might still have a low-level leak scandal!". But Drum is a smart, honest guy - he at least notes that it has an impact on Wilson's credibility. He's getting warmer.

Josh "ua Micah" Marshall obsesses over the minutiae...

Susan Schmidt is known, happily among DC Republicans and not so happily among DC Democrats, as what you might call the "Mikey" (a la Life Cereal fame) of the DC press corps, especially when the cereal is coming from Republican staffers.
...substituting spin for analysis (go figger, a WaPo reporter who listens to Republicans). Read the rest of his piece; he nips at the fringes of the story, without ever acknowledging that Wilson's story is probably fatally tainted. He dishes out an ad hominem against Schmidt, without actually addressing the substance of her article. this bon mot on the Daily Kos from last October:
The transcript of Joe Wilson's chat at John Kerry's site is up. It's a must-read.

Wilson is an evidently intelligent and often drily humorous man, as was evident when he appeared on the Daily Show a while back.

Some money quotes:

  • I was and am not anti war per se. I am and John [Kerry] is anti stupid war. Invasion-conquest-occupation unilaterally is a classic example of stupid war.
  • Cheney was secretary of defense when I was in charge of the embassy in Baghdad. He was an addressee on cables I sent from there. I am sorry his memory is so bad but, frankly, I am not too sorry never to have shaken his hand. I take it as a badge of honor that I don't know him.
  • Ambassador Wilson, what was your initial reaction when you found out that your wife's identity as a CIA operative was leaked to the press?

    My initial reaction was unprintable ... but it starts with an F.

  • What we are going to be up against next year is votes and enthusiasm vs money and propaganda.
  • There is very little that Bush says these days that bears any relation to the truth.
Money, propaganda and the truth. Ironic, huh?

Nothing about Wilson's story being, essentially, all lies.

On Atrios, nothing relating to Wilson shows up since early May, which fussed about Bob Novak's involvement.

Nobody on the left - certainly the top-flight sites - seems to be talking about this week's cutting of Wilson off above the knees.

Posted by Mitch at July 12, 2004 06:00 AM | TrackBack

Id like my cow with a side of WMD please.

Posted by: JasonDL at July 12, 2004 10:09 AM

Like the ones that turned up in Ammann a few months ago? The ones that've been turning up as IEDs?

The ones Clinton, the UN, and NPR all agreed were there as of 1999?

Just making sure.

Posted by: mitch at July 12, 2004 11:21 AM

So if all these WMDs showed up why is bush now saying "despite the fact we didnt find WMD the invasion of iraq was a good thing?"

Are you calling our president a LIAR?

Posted by: JasonDL at July 12, 2004 07:38 PM

Yeah, Jason. That's exactly what I'm doing.

Posted by: myatch at July 12, 2004 10:04 PM

once again. . .
if all these WMDs showed up why is bush now saying "despite the fact we didnt find WMD the invasion of iraq was a good thing?"

Posted by: JasonDL at July 13, 2004 02:43 AM


The Senate intelligence report does not say Bush was lying, but rather that ALL the intelligence from the British, French, US, and UN reports were wrong as to the extent that his weapons existed. They have in fact found multiple shells of Sarin and Mustard Gas, while not what we expected, he still had not claimed those shells as he was required to do. What Bush is saying, justly in my view, is that given what he was presented, and taken in context of everything we knew and experienced from Sadaam in the past, that he could not in good conscience allow Sadaam to get yet another free pass and go on as he willed. If you still think Bush is a liar, then you must also call John Kerry and John Edwards a liar as well. They voted "yes" to the war on the same information.

Posted by: Dave V at July 13, 2004 02:46 PM

Dave- you misread me, my "liar" comment was simply directed at Mitchs assertation that WMD were found, I was then pointing out that recently the president has stated that no WMD's were found. The "liar" comment was just me being a smart ass.

Having said all that, I can buy that Saddam was a dangerous maniac, but I cannot agree that he rose to the level of an immenent threat. Much evidence has come to light that the intellegence services were aware that iraq was not anymore of a threat to us than he was on september 10th, without pointing fingers I find it difficult to believe that the administration was completely unaware of the CIA's evaluation of Iraqs threat level. I could have likely been supportive of some form of action in Iraq as long as we had finished the more important (in my opinion) work in afghanistan first.

Posted by: jasonDL at July 13, 2004 10:42 PM


This has been said over and over but evidently you missed it. The President never said the Iraq threat was "imminent". He justified taking action now, before the threat became imminent (ie. WMD's in the hands of terrorists).

Or perhaps you would rather have waited until some WMD of Iraqi origins were used here in the USA before going after the threat? Surely not.....

Posted by: RandMan at July 15, 2004 11:29 PM