Dean on MTP: The Wingnuts React
Tweet
The conservative movement is reacting to Bush’s impotence with characteristic hysteria. Check out some of the reactions to Howard Dean on Meet The Press this morning from the GOP base on Free Republic:
HOWARD DEAN IS A DANGEROUS AND DEMENTED SOCIALIST CROOK UNPATRIOTIC UNAMERICAN LIAR, ARREST HIM NOW
W could issue an executive order to round up the seditious scum in the rat party and at least prevent the left from continuing to fight a second front against us at home.
This great man is deserving of nothing less than piano wire and a lamp post.
He ought to be arrested for sedition along with Reid, Durbin and Harkin.
Howard Dean is a Hitler emulator…He stinks of death camps, right through the TV screen
Glenn Reynolds would be proud.
65 Responses to “Dean on MTP: The Wingnuts React”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Howard Dean is the head of the DNC. If his views are extremist (which they may be since he is afraid to debate them with the RNC Chairman) then what does that say for the DNC?
JD: since right-wingers hang everything that Cindy Sheean, Howard Dean, and others around our neck as evidence of “extremism” (which they aren’t), why can’t we do the same with hanging the real extremists around your neck? Fair’s fair.
I just lookd through the thread in question … here’s my favorite comment:
I disagree, Dean is an asset to the GOP but is a leader of the socialist cabal in the “Democrat” party that is actively engaged in undermining the war effort by continuing to attack the Commander in Chief and President of the United States by calling him a liar and architect of a conspiracy to defraud the nation to conduct an illegal and illegitimate war against Iraq under false pretenses.
Hmmm … (digs out old copy of 1984) end of chapter 7:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
So if the President of the United States is a liar and an architect of a conspiracy to conduct an illegal and illegitimate war against Iraq under false pretenses, which he is, can we not say it?
So now Jadegold has morphed from a mind-reader to knowing better than myself who represents my values. That is no more accurate than me making a blanket assertion that Sheehan, Marx, and some commentator from O-Dub or Kos best represents your values.
Hedley, what it says is that Dean is smart enough to recognize an oroborous when he sees one. The Republican snake is busy eating itself right now. What possible motive could Dean have to “debate” the RNC chair? And who would care? I’m interested in candidates. Anything the party heads do is essentially a sideshow.
Face facts, JD. FreeRepublic is on your side, they represent conservative values.
And before you dismiss FR as just some fringe website–know that asst. editors of the Moonie Times post there as do many RW authors and pundits.
So now individual commentators on a single website are presumed to speak for all Republicans?
Hedley, even if Dean did debate Mehlman, would that make him less of an “extremist” in your eyes? I personally can’t see the logic in how a debate would have any impact on your views.
Dean has been pretty clear as to what his views are. I don’t see how a debate would make them any clearer. Are you positing that a refusal to debate indicates that he hasn’t made all his views public and Mehlman would somehow be able to trick Dean into revealing his true face?
Surely the trained interviewers on MTP would have more luck at exposing Dean than Mehlman? Wouldn’t we have already seen his true face?
Walk me through it – what is the logic in your position? He’s extremist because no one has caught him out yet?
Dean has nothing to gain by a debate–it’s the GOP that’s on the hot seat these days.
And let’s face it, talking head shows like MTP aren’t forums for debate or for answering questions. They are for delivering the party line.
JD seems to be skittering away from the GOP spokesclowns as fast as he can.
So now Jadegold has morphed from a mind-reader to knowing better than myself who represents my values.
Typical.
Look, your party doesn’t disavow these folks; to the contrary, they encourage them.
Hedley –
When Ken Mehlman can go on MTP or any other Sunday talk show without lying his ass off, maybe Howard Dean will agree to be on at the same time with him. Otherwise Dean’s presence alongside Mehlman would only elevate the RNCs lies the level of decent, civil discourse that they are unworthy of.
What lies you say? How about the complete misrepresentation of the Robb-Silberman report which was not authorized to look into how the Bush administration manipulated the conclusions it got from the intelligence community. What manipulations you say? I point to the Senate Select Committee Report which found that the administration had lied to the American people through its mouthpiece Judy Miller about expert opinionon Iraqi aluminum tube purchases. On page 94 of the report:
A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, ‘. . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments.’ The contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16,2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.
Or how about when Mehlman said that the Dems got the same intelligence that the Bush administration was using. Really? Then how do you explain the complaints from Democrats that Miller reported in the very same article:
“Some senior Democratic lawmakers have complained that the Central Intelligence Agency has yet to deliver an updated National Intelligence Estimate documenting Iraq s military programs. They have also asserted that some of intelligence that the administration has provided about Iraq s weapons activities is skethcy and out of date.
Why is it that Bush pulled the secuirty clearances of all but 8 congressional leaders in the immediate aftermath of 9-11? Only 8 congressional leaders were ever allowed to see the intelligence that Bush said he had, and even then, we only found out recently that key disagreements over a host of intelligence assessment never made it into a declassified copy of the National Intelligence Estimate before the vote on the war.
Why on earth would Dean dignify these lies as serious discourse by appearing alongside Mehlman?
what is the logic in your position? He s extremist because no one has caught him out yet?
Keep in mind that this was one of the main lines of attack against Clinton– one of the accusations from right wingers during the Clinton years was that he was so nefarious that he had to gall to hide his liberalism from the public by supporting moderate policies.
Must have missed this proposed debate between Dean and Mehlman. Is someone really trying to set up a debate?
Right, beerwulf, individual commentators on free republic are Republican party spokespeople.
No, the freepers aren’t Republican Party spokespeople. They’re more honest than that. That’s why we turn to them to find out what Republicans really think.
If they don’t represent your views, JD, why not pipe up there and tell them that as a principled conservative you really wish they’d stop giving conservatism an ugly name?
Apparently you’d rather hang out on left-wing blogs criticising the mote in your brothers’ eyes.
It’s traditional for the respective party chairs to appear alongside each other on Meet the Press and other talking heads shows.
Terry McAuliffe appeared alongside Ed Gillespie at least five times on the show.
Mehlman requested that Dean appear together with him on Sunday. Dean and his handlers refused.
Do you really expect anyone to believe the excuse that “he doesn’t need to” debate? If the situation had been reversed, you’d be making a big deal about it.
As a principled liberal, did you pipe up over at Democratic Underground when people wished for Laura Ingraham’s death when she revealed that she was fighting cancer?
As a principled liberal, did you pipe up over at Democratic Underground when people there wished for Dick Cheney’s death when he went into a hospital for a medical procedure?
Even if you did, you’d probably be banned as a disruptor for not adhering to the party line.
The point being, they don’t represent all Democrats any more than a few random comments on Free Republic represent conservatives.
Geez, Howard appearing with *one* GOP spinmaster is bad enough – how could he have gotten a word in if he has to appear with *two*?
Bottom line, Howard Dean scares the GOP because they know he can win with the American people – this is a man who, as governor, took a $60 million deficit and balanced the budget 11 times, lowered income taxes, provided health insurance for pregnant women and children, lowered the insurance rate from 12% to 9%, signed a civil unions bill in to law, and cut child abuse and teen pregnancy in half.
Yeah, extremist? Ok… you can bet that Howard Dean speaks for me! I just love how he called the Republicans on their hypocrisy for their “up or down vote” nonsense after what happened with a) Harriet Miers and b) nearly 90% of President Clinton’s nominees. He is such a eloquent speaker it makes me proud!
Mehlman requested that Dean appear together with him on Sunday. Dean and his handlers refused.
I don’t know if this is true or, if it is, why, but for a supporter of the most stage-managed, bubble-wrapped and handled president in history to be complaining about this is pretty rich.
As a principled liberal, did you pipe up over at Democratic Underground when people wished for Laura Ingraham s death when she revealed that she was fighting cancer?
I have, in fact, piped up on other issues (not on this one: I hardly ever visit DU). You and JD have a piccolo chorus worth of piping up to do to make up for the systematic lies and smears of the Limbaughs, Atwaters, Aileses, Roves, Hannitys, Swift Boaters, Scaifes. Start limbering up them lips, you principled conservative you.
PSU94 –
Would you appear on national television alongside someone you knew was going to lie repeatedly? The liar always has the upper hand in that kind of situation because they can and will say anything. It’s obvious that Mehlman lied repeatedly to Russert and the American people but you guys just want to attack Howard Dean for refusing to dignify Mehlman’s bullshit with a response. Talk about chickenshit little bitches.
Oliver likes Dean so much he deleted several of my posts in which I called him on his refusal to appear with Mehlman. It’s his blog, and that’s his right, but it seems thin skinned of him to delete posts critical of Dean.
Heh. Maybe you should change your handle to “Tuco Ramirez the Crybaby”.
Typical Dean and typical of a lefty. Talk tough when you’re not being challenged and there’s nobody there to shoot you down, but run like a little bitch when there is.
Dean is nothing but a punk and a coward. No wonder Oliver likes him so much. Oliver talks all tough on his website, but he looked like a scared little girl debating patrick Ruffini. And it’s not like Patrick Ruffini is a particularly intimidating guy or anything.
So, who do we suppose is paying these Young Republicans to troll around liberal blogs? Someone must be – you couldn’t get me to waste so much time trolling around con blogs, not for love or money. But these guys’ll do anything for money so I figure someone’s paying them. Maybe the Scaife people?
Does anyone care to actually face the fact of Mehlman’s lying?
“Would you appear on national television alongside someone you knew was going to lie repeatedly?”
No, which makes Mehlman agreeing to appear with Dean even more admirable.
I personally prefer to hear the talking heads (Republican or Democrat) separately, rather than in the shoutfests that inevitably accompany joint appearances. I get really tired of trying to figure out what people are saying while they try to talk over each other. If Dean really did refuse to take part in such an infotainment match, good for him.
Damek
Speaking just for myself, $10 a post from Mr. Rove (which ultimately may be Scaife or the Bilderbergers or the German/American Bund or the Learned Elders of Zion). Though lately he’s been hinting that the quality of opposition posts at OW is such that they don’t need to be paying a heavyweight like myself for something a lightweight , $5 a post guy, could easily handle.
Dugger, $10 a post, Thats what Mr. Rove pays me,
Gosh how he weighs me down.
Man, all of Drudge’s little bitches have come out to play this morning.
It’s clear the GOP and it’s supporters are only interested in maintaining their hold on power. They are not concerned with governing, they are not concerned with the truth, they are not concerned with reality and they are certainly not willing to answer to their employers, the American people.
Dean made the right choice. That lying rat Mehlman absolutely needed to face the music all by his lonesome. The wingnuts on this comment thread are acting as if it should have been a frickin’ election debate…well, sorry…the election is over, and as you knuckledraggers are fond of saying, “Bush won!”
That means you’ve got the keys to the kingdom, and all the responsibility that comes with that. Your whining about Dean not acting as a smokescreen for Mehlman’s pathetic GOP talking points just makes it all the more apparent that the right can not effectively handle that responsibility.
Dean, with his pre-show shoulder shrug and snicker, just showed how insignificant the current leadership is, and that just pisses you bullies off to no end. Good on ya, Doctor!
Mehlman’s doing a fine job of discrediting the GOP all by himself. Why would Dean want to get in the way?
JK
Hedley,
Bullshit. That’s the reporter/interviewers job, not Dean’s. It’s unfortunate that Russert is rarely up to the task, but that doesn’t mean Dean should have derailed his agenda at the whim of Ken “Fortune Cookie of GOP Wisdom” Mehlman.
Dean’s job is to lay out the Democratic platform, not to traipse around through Melhman’s enormous piles of shit.
Question is, why aren’t you “convinced?” http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006992.php
Damek,
Nice link!
(Wish there was a preview feature here)
“Convinced that Mehlman is lying” … as if it were something one had to be “convinced” of, and not something one could simply fact check.
Now this post and the comments that go with it is comical. Should we dig up a few select lines from just about any thread at the Democratic Underground and see what the entire Democrat party thinks?
I’m sure that you agree with them on just about everything, eh Oliver?
If you are so convinced that Mehlman is lying, isn’t that all the more reason to appear with him to discredit him face-to-face, rather than have Mehlman and Russert call you out? Good spin guys.
You get $8 because you’re not as good a hack as Dugger. You cry to easily.
Curmudgeon hits the nail on the head: “Why aren’t you convinced?”
I said this elsewhere but, naturally, I think it bears repeating. The Left has been accussed of be anti-American and unpatriotic. I disagree. I do, however, believe that supporters of this administration are excercising some pretty piss poor citizenship when they try to deflect away from serious charges of lying to the American people by attacking someone for not going on a talk show. It’s bad citizenship to take at face value what our leaders tell us when there is so much obvious evidence that they are misstating and distorting the truth and out right lying to the American people.
I will never question your patriotism, but question directly your civic responsibility.
Hey, Dugger! You’re getting $10 a post? I’m only getting $8.00…
What a gyp! I’m going to the Shop Steward…
Oh, wait… We don’t have a union — we’re Republicans!
Damn!
Maybe Howard Dean should change his name to the Crybaby Chair of the DNC, since apparently that’s what he did when confronted with the possibility that, you know, he might actually have to debate the issues.
Tuco –
The President lied in his speech about the conclusions reached by various investigating committees and he lied about the intelligence available to lawmakers. Mehlman subsequently repeated those lies on MTP. You have yet to directly address this serious breach of trust. Instead you attack Howard Dean. Piss poor citizenship, indeed.
Case in point. The White currently sites this conclusion from the Senate Intelligence Committee as exonerating it:
The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Report “Did Not Find Any Evidence” Of Attempts To Influence Analysts To Change Intelligence. “Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.” (“Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, Pg. 284-285)
But the committe also concluded, forgive me for repeating myself, this:
A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, . . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments. The contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16,2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.
The administration may not have coerced analysts, but then again why would it, when all it had to do was turn around and lie about their conclusions?
Well, I can see that the next three years are going to be boring.
It appears that Democrats are going to deflect every single criticism that comes their way, be it a legitimate criticism or not, by jerking their knees and saying, “if you can’t deal with the fact that the [insert name here] is a liar then you’re not worth responding to.”
Thanks, I didn’t know that legitimately criticizing Dean for not doing what his predecessors have traditionally done means I’m lacking in civic responsibility. Thanks for the laugh.
That shoud be White House currently cites (see the link in OWs post above).
For me to address this “serious breach of trust,” would require that I agree with your characterization. I do not, I reject it uncategorically.
Howard Dean was touted by Oliver Willis, among others, as someone who was going be tough with the GOP and stand up to them. Instead, Dean snipes and name calls from the sidelines and apparently is afraid to go one-on-one with the other side. That’s not an attack, that’s borne out by his own behavior.
Calling Howard Dean a chicken is….unpatriotic!
I thought this post was about the select quotes Oliver chose to represent “the conservative movement?”
No one argued, so I guess that means everything you find on the Democratic Underground represents all liberals and Democrats. That’s comforting.
I’ve always suspected Dugger as a paid “Blogger for the RNC.” Nobody does talking points for the GOP on this board like Dugger.
Eg: Imagine this hypothetical…
Headline:
Bush handwritten memo proves WMD a lie
Dugger: If the lie was in fact fabricated by George W. Bush, then it would only mean that he stated something that he believed to be untrue at the time, but that does not mean at some other time, he felt it to be untrue, or true.
JK
Well, Tuco, how would you characterize this incident reported by the Sentate Select Committee:
A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said, . . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments. The contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16,2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.
JK,
Pull your head out of your b*tt. I get paid by Mr Rove, not the RNC. Can’t you read. And as is specified, Mr. Rove’s money may well come from Scaife, the Bilderbergers, the German American Bund or The Elders of Zion, But not the RNC. Why is reading comprehension a lost skill (wait, did they ever have it?) on the left.
Dugger, Another $10 that easy
Dudes just can’t face the fact their guy’s a proven liar and the other guy’s got his priorities straight. First rule of debate: never stoop to debate a proven liar. That’s all there is to say, ain’t nothin’ else worth talkin’ about.
Name a single lie proven – as opposed to alleged, Damek. A single “lie”.
Have at it. Keep in mind we have our dictionary close at hand, turned to the definiton of lie.
Lets hear your ‘lies.’ Should be easy, huh?
Dugger
So says Dugger, he of “alleged” credibility.
“Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003.”
frameone: I kept asking myself, “What would a semi – literate, blustering, pseudo – intellectual bully need with a PhD?”, and then I checked out your blog (you did raise the subject of blogs, did you not?). You’re a friggin’ movie critic! (of course, you could be a make – up artist, or the TV bit actor, hard to say)
Noticeably absent from your LA weekly column(s) was the crudity, obscenity, and profanity that peppers your posts here and in your totally uninteresting blog.
But that’s not surprising. Can’t bring home the bucks cursing like a sailor, eh, Paulie?
frame,
You failed your test too. Still waiting for the cite where Fitz says Libby blew Val’s cover. Come up with it yet.? Should be right at your finger tips.
Dugger, Patiently Waiting
frame, if one parses as closely as Dugger, then there is a rather fine distinction to be made.
Reading strictly–very strictly–Fitzgerald’s indictment alleges that Libby disclosed classified information. Whether this amounted to “blowing Wilson’s cover” would depend on whether that cover was still intact before Libby disclosed the information.
As I said before, that’s a distinction without a difference. Fitzgerald has determined that details of Wilson’s employment were classified. Libby went to great lengths to keep his disclosure of that information secret. Nobody, but nobody, is saying that passing that information to reporters was OK.
Except maybe one.
Half right Quaker. Still to be determined is how, if Val’s cover was blown (Mitchell, Cuba, Ames, neighbors, ex-supervisor suggest ‘yes’ as strong possibility), Libby could have been passing truly classified info. I worked with classified 27 years and have never heard anyone say or seen a ruling on what the status of blown classified info is. In other words, when, if ever, did the CIA information actually become unclassified. Or is it now? As I questioned Frame, are we all technically now discussing classified info? As Libby’s lawyer, I would ask when did it become declassified? When Libby talked to one or two reporters? When Novak wrote it? Or when WaPo published it nationally? If one is illegal, why not all. And if the answer is the first one to blow her cover is the criminal, then why has Libby only been described (carefully) as the first government official to discuss it with reporters.
Dugger
And that would be a magnificent question–if it mattered. Since Libby decided to try to (allegedly) lie his way out of it when he talked to the FBI and the grand jury, he’s been charged with a different offense. As a result, the question of when the information ceased to be classified is moot.
It matters to Libby and me. And it gets back to the point I made a long time ago that the charges are all ‘process of investigation’ derived charges. Maybe Libby will do time for lying and obstruction, but I wouldn’t feel too warm and fuzzy about it if I were on your side.
BTW, appropo of not much, look up the meaning of the word ‘moot’ some time.
Dugger
If that’s the end of the line, I won’t.
From Merriam-Webster online:
What’s your point?
AS I said, no major point on moot – it wasn’t a debating point. Just that one of the word’s meaning is almost opposite the more common usage: ‘ arguable: open to argument or debate; “that is a moot question” ‘
Dugger
Frank –
That’s film cricket to you, asshole.
“Whether this amounted to blowing Wilson s cover would depend on whether that cover was still intact before Libby disclosed the information.”
You actually point out why The Nappy-Dugger has been so mind-bogglingly stupid on this point. I don’t think I’ve ever said that Fitz claimed Libby “blew her cover” but then again I’ve never seen the distinction either. Still, I’ve tried as best as possible to follow exactly what Fitz has said. He said, and I quote, “Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003.” I have only argued that this means up until July 2003 there was a cover there to blow. The Nappy-Dugger, on the other hand, seems to think that this means her cover was blown sometime before July 2003. (This is actually my favorite bit of his blatherings because he literally has to argue what the meaning of the word “is” is — you know, “was” being its past first & third singular forms. Priceless.)
I have also, repeatedly said that Fitz believes Libby disclosed classified information. He says this directly: “Libby disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson.” Again, the Nappy-Dugger seems to think that this means Libby didn’t disclose classified information.
On both points, the Nappy-Dugger is arguing the exact opposite of what Fitzgerald says which is waht allows him to reach his conclusion about why Libby wasn’t charged with leaking classified information. Of course to reach this conclusion the Nap-Dug also has to ignore the fact that Libby made it clear, as clearly as he could, at his press conference that he didn’t bring those charges because he couldn’t prove state of mind, that is, criminal intent.
Here’s a great example of the Nappy-Dugger’s obtuseness on this. He writes:
“In other words, when, if ever, did the CIA information actually become unclassified. Or is it now? … As Libby s lawyer, I would ask when did it become declassified?
If Libby’s lawyer asked that question Fitzgerald answered it explicitly in the indictment on page 3:
“At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.”
Does leaking classified information about a CIA office to a reporter constitute blowing her cover? I don’t know that I see the difference but Fitzgerald clearly saus both did indeed happen: Classified information about Wilson was disclosed by Libby and that her cover was blown in July 2003. Dugs insists neither happened at all.
frame, Wrong for the umpteenth time
“Does leaking classified information about a CIA office to a reporter constitute blowing her cover?’
The same cover can’t be blown twice.
“but then again I ve never seen the distinction either”
Been obvious for a while.
“The Nappy-Dugger, on the other hand, seems to think that this means her cover was blown sometime before July 2003′
No. Wrong yet again. I don’t think the sentence means her cover was blown before. But its careful wording and passive voice does not preclude that possibility. The sentence could be interpreted at least two ways: that her cover was blown during the month of July 2003, as you have telescoped in on, or that as of the month of July 2003, a month of diverse and significant activity in the Plame affair, here cover was already blown. That certainly is parsing but it must be considered in light of Fitz’s decision to not proescute for leaks/cover. And someone with average intelligence and an open mind would wonder why he didn’t say Libby blew her cover, even unintentionally. Also said curious person would hough he didn’t intend to.
Dugs insists neither happened at all.
Wrong again. I argue that evidence suggests otherwise. Whatever else Fitz has been careful about leaks and we do not know all the details (and witness Woodward, he doesn’t either).
Dugger
Exactly what I said: what the meaning of “is” is. It says, “IN July 2003″ not “by July,” “around July,” “approximately July.” It is says IN July. Which reasonable people mean July 1- July 31, inclusive. Which essentially means your Aldrich Aimes bullshit is just that. Remember that Dugger? You’ve been arguing for months now that her cover was blown before Wilson even went to Niger? Remember that? Unless you mean that Aimes was blowing people’s covers IN July 2003. But of course, you’ve changed your argument so many times you must think whiplash is a rhetorical strategy. I’ve been arguing all along that Fitz didn’t charge Libby with leaking not because he didn’t leak classified information but because he couldn’t prove criminal intent. Nothing you have said up to this point contradicts that. Indeed, none of your arguments make sense unless you parse what the meaning of “is” is. Again, Fitz spoke very directly to the fact that Libby leaked classified information, he said: “Libby disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson.” If he doesn’t think that Libby “blew her cover” it has nothing to do with whether or not Libby disclosed classified information, which he did. Which is all I have ever said. Now, as to the meaningless distinction, it is true that you can’t blow someone’s cover twice, which only further supports my argument that your Aldrich Aimes defense is bullshit. Because Fitz said her cover was blown IN July 2003. But then again I take it you’ve abandoned the Aimes line now that you think Woodward has something to offer you. For all intents and purposes, Fitz may believe that Novak is the one who blew Wilson’s cover — he did write that the first sign that her cover was blown was his column — but didn’t charge him with it because again, Fitz sees the law as demanding a high level of proof for criminal intent that he can’t meet. Why? Because Libby lied to the FBI and the Grand Jury. It’s as plan as day in the press conference and indictments. You’re just too fucking hacky to see it.