Posted on 07/13/2004 12:56:12 PM PDT by NavySEAL F-16
Josh Marshall Pounds the Table As Joe Wilson's credibility has collapsed, David Corn has been silent. Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman has gone back to attacking his old employer. But Wilson has one defender left: blogger Josh Marshall, whose efforts to keep alive the Valerie Plame kerfuffle increasingly remind us of Mike Kinsley's defense of monkeyfishing. We beg your indulgence as we quote Marshall's latest posting on the subject in full, though in two parts (the bracketed explanations are ours):
There's been a rush of egregious commentary about the Niger uranium story in the last couple days. And one point we hear again and again is that if Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, played a role in recommending him for the trip to Niger, as the SSCI [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] report [link in PDF] clearly states, then this wholly changes the legal and political implications of the administration officials' decision to reveal her identity in the press.
As I pointed out a couple days ago, legally it is clearly irrelevant. Political impact is of course both subjective and unpredictable. So, though we might all venture opinions, there's very little way to know.
But, really, why argue?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Admin. Mod. Can you add (in defense of Joe Wilson) after the title. Thanks.
Well, I suppose we'll just wait for the grand jury on that one, eh, Josh?
But really, why argue?
Yes, I'm sure you'd rather not.
actually, legally, it absolutely matters - recall Novak originally said the person who told him Plame had referred Wilson (supposedly "outing" her in the process) was doing so strictly in the realm of explanation as for why such an individual would have been selected for the trip - not for the purpose of harming her or the country.
Yes, I know. This character Josh whatever is dreaming.
Legally it doesn't matter. The intent of the disclosure doesn't matter just that the identity was disclosed by a person who knew the disclsoed person was undercover.
Is this the same guy as: JOSHUA MICAH MARSHALL ?
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101fareviewessay82614/joshua-micah-marshall/remaking-the-world-bush-and-the-neoconservatives.html
Yes, one and the same.
You mean K as in Komrade!
Why would the WSJ waste time responding to the ramblings of some random douche named Josh?
Two weeks back Marshall looked at the Washington Post article which reports Susan's (forgot her last name) summary of the Intelligence Committee Report. By comparing it to the full report he finds it to be misleading at best. Worth reading.
Haven't had a chance to compare the above to Hitchen's article (posted elsewhere). It should be interesting.
OpinionJournal's "Best of the Web" is the second-best thing in the whole wide Internet.
The ad-hominems are there...but so are the facts.
The man reads the original sources and remembers what he reads...which puts him way ahead of me. On the other hand he writes like a third-rate gossip columnist which makes him annoying even when he's right. Not at all like Christopher Hitchens or Charles Krauthammer who're compelling even when they're wrong.
Still there are so few who do they're homework that I feel compelled to read Marshall regularly.
The man reads the original sources and remembers what he reads...which puts him way ahead of me.
Namely, has Josh Marshall ever delivered on any of the umpteen devastating scandals that he's promised. The question to that is overwhelmingly negative -- for Josh Marshall.
I also wonder about his practice to publish multiple paragraphs in multiple posts pointing to scandal in the highest reaches of the administration and then end with a one sentence caveat that it may be all rumor. And then caveat the caveat by saying "I'd bet not."
Marshall can't find major media work. He's proven to be such a hack follower of the DNC daily talking points that CNN has cast him adrift...that's CNN, for God's sake!!
But the first thing Marshall says after the WaPo article is start to place doubts about the reporter's credibility. This in spite of her repeating in some cases exactly what the Senate committee said.
He has repeatedly come out and said that there were going to be "bombshell" and "tectonic shift" causing reports that he was going to put out.. Nothing of the sort (HUGE) has ever materialized. He is, quite simply, a gasbag. His biased political reporting aside, I've never seen him deliver anything earthshaking. I have, however, seen his rumored forthcoming HUGE stories end up nowhere with not much explanation where they went. He is of no consequence.
All taken from www.zonitics.blogspot.com
Josh Marshall and TPM are of absolutely no consequence to me. I find him less than annoying, I find him irrelevant, like all liberals.
Josh Marshall is a complete hack. He used to be a decent journalist but he's completely sold out. In case you didn't know, Sid Blumenthal has taken him under his wing as a protege. *shudder*
The only serious point the author makes is that Marshall doesn't follow up on many issues he raises. So what? He's surely got faults and that appears to be one. It doesn't negate any of the facts or interpretations he DOES present.
Now here's a more serious criticism:
Chritopher Hitchens covering more or less the same ground.
Much, much better. Deeper understanding of the issues and laws, clearer, extremely well-written (Hitchens is no more a friend of the Administration than Marshall).
None the less, they don't cover exactly the same ground and Marshall makes me think.
The quote from zonitics is essentially one long ad-hominem attack against Marshall.
Actually, these were all comments by different posters. If you had gone to the site, you would have realized this.
It doesn't negate any of the facts or interpretations he DOES present.
For me this does, you can't put out rumor and innuendo under the auspices that you are a serious journalist and then ignore the consequences.
I am glad that Marshall makes you think. I think he's a hack who has sold out for his 15 minutes of fame. He has no credibility with me because you just never know when he's telling the truth or obfuscating for his own self-aggrandizement.
At least with Christopher Hitchens you know exactly where he stands on everything. No quibbling by that man.
Joseph Wilson vs. the right-wing conspiracy
I conclude from it that
a) Iraq DID try to buy yellowcake from Niger
b) Plame DID recommend her husband for the trip (recommend. Not suggest)
It's interesting to compare this report with Wilson's letter (published elsewhere in this issue) and Marshall's observation about the error in Schmidt's WaPo article. Note that Marshall was correct and the Post acknowledged it...but he was wrong (at least in my view) in his IMPLICATIONS - that Wilson and the Leftists were generally right about what Wilson had to say about Iraq and Niger.
Note also how much partisan crap (from all positions) surrounds the issue, how often half-truths and distortions are endlessly repeated.
I'm sure, by the way, we haven't heard the last of this. The Senate Intel report and the British Butler report hardly qualify as gospel and may yet turn out to be whitewash.
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.