Posted on 09/16/2006 7:30:17 PM PDT by cgk
SCANDALS, like wool sweaters, tend to shrink when mishandled. An item that looked so sharp at first glance can lose its zing when thrown into the wrong spin cycle. And it's only when we pull it out, misshapen and ruined, that we realize last season's trendy purchase is this year's damaged goods.
Take Plamegate, where the beautiful blond wife of an ambitious diplomat was unmasked as a CIA operative. Never mind the fact that Valerie Plame, Mrs. Ambassador Joe Wilson, wasn't exactly the spy who came in from the cold since this Mata Hari had been toiling at a desk job in Langley, Va., for years. And where she worked was the worst-kept secret since Rosie O'Donnell's sexual orientation.
(And it always seemed that our heroine recovered quite well from the outing. She and her husband didn't exactly run from the high-profile photo-ops, not to mention excruciatingly large book deals. "Invasion of privacy" is a relative term.)
So even though it was always quite unlikely that any laws were broken or any real spy hung out to dry, the prospects for political advantage were too high for liberal critics of the president to pass up.
The ones who liked to repeat the glazed-eye mantra of "Bush lied, people died" had a field day portraying George Bush and his neo-con associates as part of a Machiavellian conspiracy to punish Joe Wilson for publicly exposing the "lies" that led to the Iraq invasion.
Of course, Wilson's claims have by now been roundly discredited. The Washington Post went so far in an editorial as to call him a liar, saying he "diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."
So many liberals, that is.
Pity they forgot to check their facts before launching the crusade. Back when the story first broke, it was commonly believed that Karl Rove was the leak in the ship of state, the man who revealed Plame's identity to Robert Novak, who then blew her alleged cover in a column that tried to explain how a liberal Clintonite like Wilson got the job from the CIA to check out reports that Saddam was looking to buy uranium in Niger.
Since Rove is so universally despised by Bush critics, the rumor that he was the initial leaker fell like manna directly onto the plates of Bush detractors.
Here at last was the opportunity to (yet again) attack Bush as an idiot pawn, vilify his advisers as warmongers willing to victimize a suburban soccer mom, galvanize the feminist vote against the administration (a career girl was being slimed) and reinforce the belief that the war in Iraq was based on deception.
There was definitely joy in Mudville and at the Democratic National Committee.
Problem is, they got it wrong. In the recently published "Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War," authors Michael Isikoff and David Corn revealed that Novak's source was actually Richard Armitage, a State Department official who worked closely with Colin Powell.
And worst of all for Bush haters, Armitage was actually a vocal critic of the Iraq war.
Uh-oh, time out. This was not supposed to be in the liberal playbook. Suddenly, the alleged web of lies and deceit spun by Rove and Cheney and other administration operatives had a lot of holes.
No longer was Plamegate the creation of vindictive Republicans with an axe to grind who wanted to draw blood from a partisan critic like Wilson. The source of the leak was none other than a well-liked war opponent and D.C. insider.
In the interest of fairness and accuracy, you'd expect that news to hit the cover of every mainstream paper and magazine that profited for months from assassinating the character of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
Maybe Katie Couric would demonstrate what a treasure she really is and read the entire Washington Post editorial on-air.
Maybe Anderson Cooper would do a Katrina redux and decry the hurricane of hyperbole surrounding the case.
Maybe Oprah would reduce Arianna Huffington to tears, and Dr. Phil would analyze the New York Times editorial board.
Maybe someone could apologize to Judy Miller. Or Karl Rove. Or Dick Cheney. Or Scooter Libby. Maybe someone could teach prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald a lesson in professional ethics.
For the sensitive folks who were so worried that an innocuous ABC miniseries on 9/11 would defame President Clinton, setting the record straight should be important, right?
Apparently not. Like the shrunken sweater that no longer fits, Plamegate has lost its appeal. That's what happens when the truth gets caught in the wrong spin cycle.
They will .. Loons have very short memories
Armitage, candid for a cabinet post if Kerry got elected, is done for.
He's toast, and will live in shame for the rest of his life.
Colin Powell is totally discredited, for knowing long before the Fitzgerald appointment, that Armitage was the leaker. He is totally discredited now. He can now avoid a political future for real, not just saying so in humble cliches.
Fitzgerald is now known by all as the buffoon that he is and was. Conservatives have known it all along. Some liberals still think he has credibility (good, let them keep this story alive).
Novak told it like it was regarding Armitage, revealing him as a nothing less than a traitor.
Meanwhile, Judith Miller stays quiet about it all rather than coming out with her version of the truth, meaning she realizes her total role in all this, and her time is jail, was a total waste -- to her and to us.
The Wilson's are white trash, in a league with the Clinton's (yep, both of the Clinton's, not just Bill).
Now what about Plame & Wilson's lawsuit claiming Rove, Cheney, Libby, and Armitage "violated their constitutional rights in retaliation for Wilson's criticism of President Bush."? Are they just going to put their tails between their Jackass legs and drop the suit or are they going to let this howler reach court? Wouldn't you like to hear that testimony. Bwa ha haaaa! Maybe they'll settle it by paying the accused $400,000 to forget about the whole thing. Maybe they'll just sue hapless Armitage now.
Neither is she even close to what I consider "beautiful" as is witten in the article. Not even close.
She does have nice white teeth, however. I gotta give her that.
I'm shocked that the Daily News printed this. The libs there must have been asleep at the switch to let this one slip by them. Good article.
I used to see her as pretty sweet looking. Now I see her as ugly.
It's funny how your opinion of a person's physical appearance can change as that person's character is revealed over time. And that works in both directions - - a person you get to know as a truly terrific and generous person looks better to you as time goes by, and a person who you learn is selfish and devious looks worse to you as time goes by.
Nope, she has never appealed to me much. While I do agree with the rest of yer comment I just never saw her as all that atractive-even in the first pic I saw of her.
And yes, I guess I do see her as far less atractive now.
It's an amazing thing. I am pretty sure that the bitter, socialist Democrats who dominate the Daily News' editorial pages fastened their seatbelts, gritted their teeth, and told themselves, "This makes us look more balanced, this makes us look more balanced, this makes us look more balanced," when Christine M. Flowers' column crossed their desks.
On the other hand, I have noticed over the years that the Philadelphia Daily News actually does a fair, objective job of reporting the news. They report the news straight up, whether it hurts or helps their party. That paper has a whole lot more integrity than the Inquirer, believe me. I have absolutely no respect for the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Ditto on the Inquirer. I've given up reading either of them except the sports page. Probably why I didn't realize the Daily News is a little balanced.
Right on the head!
That's something I've been wondering about. Do we know for sure how involved Powell was with Armitage's leak, or how much he knew about it?
That had to be an op-ed. The Daily News hasn't the conscience to write an editorial like that.
It didn't take long for a "so what?" attitude to develop...
We know it is bigger than just Wilson and Plame and Armitage- at the same exact time this spin was gearing up with the Wilson's as figureheads in the states, the same sort of actions were being taken by antiwar radicals in Italy, the UK and in Australia. I personally don't think Democrats are that well coordinated to pull off that much nonsense single handedly.
Fitzgerald is on one of the most critical of all terrorist investigations- the financial nexus between Iraq and al Qaeda, the terror charities, and the nuclear proliferation network, and no doubt others unnamed. The Saar group, Global Relief Foundation, Iraq's front group network, the Holy Land Foundation, Hamas and Hezbollah- if he can be sullied in the trivial matter of leaking the name of a pencil pushing media star then it may be to the advantage of those financial networks under investigation.
Bookmarked for A.M.
save for later
That is an excellent suggestion, but I doubt that the MSM will do it.
The only palpable lies in this whole flim-flam have been those of Mr. Wilson, yet Mr. Libby, whose memory seems to only vary from that of some reporters', is being prosecuted for perjury and under that dead-stupid lying-to-a-federal-officer law?
O'Donnell to apologize for being... A LIAR! CREEPY LIAR!
I don't watch much Cable News or TV.
Is this Hollywood nut still around the pundit circuit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.