Friday, March 16, 2007

Memo to the GOP Spin Team: The Babe Just Kicked Your Ass


I knew the way they would play this one - I swear if I just got rid of all my morals, I could write for the Republican spin machine. For example, I sensed the Valerie Plame slant today would concentrate on her undeniable babe-like qualities. Drudge went with a cute little headline about how she was ready for her close-up, showing a picture that might have been a beauty pageant contestant primping for a shot at Miss Congeniality.

Then the Babe came in and kicked them in the balls. This was a real FOX, not the phony news kind. The spin on this had been allowed to go unchecked for way too long, but today it was time for the Mary Matalin set to take a seat along the wall and check out the Homecoming Queen.

You remember Mary Matalin, don't you? She'd been calling Joe Wilson a lying bozo, even while she worked for Dick Cheney. Well, here was Joe Wilson's wife testifying that it was Mary, Cheney, and all their little buddies who've really been lying. Wait, what's the administration phrase for that? Oh yeah, "Who've been having hazy memories."

One thing was immediately obvious that shredded the GOP case in an instant: Bozos don't land women like this. It was obvious who was credible, and even more important in the spin world, it was clear who was cool. Who would you rather hang out with at a party? Scooter Libby or Valerie Plame? When Valerie finished, the GOP talking points looked like a little pile of torn up cheerleading pompoms on the floor.

One talking point was that Valerie had been behind her husband's trip to Africa. This was a classic tactic by the family values, chicken-hawks to make Joe seem like a henpecked "girlie man" as Arnold loves to say. The only problem was that according to Valerie, it is not true. Oh, by the way, girlie men don't land women like this, either.

Next was the idea that she was not really a covert agent. Not only did Valerie say that she was and only a handful of people knew it at the time, she also said that whole networks of contacts and agents were lost because of the outing of her identity by members of the Bush administration. This made sense. In fact, even if she had retired the knowledge that she used to do this work puts her colleagues who haven't retired in extreme peril.

When spies are exposed, the results usually include lethal termination, and if Valerie's testimony is true, people who put their lives on the line for the United States were probably killed. Fortunately, for the GOP the real damage is classified to prevent more intelligence assets from being lost.

Now, from this testimony yesterday, does it sound like she was retired?

"In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the counter-proliferation division of the CIA, still as a covert official, whose affiliation with the CIA was classified." She worked on, "solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed WMD programs. I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence. I loved my career because I loved my country."

She was repeatedly and specifically asked if she had been on overseas CIA missions within the last 5 years - the statutory definition of covert. She said she had and a top CIA official backed her up.

That takes the magnitude of what happened here back to the original level of outrage, before the GOP spin machine played it down all these years. If she is to be believed, she risked her life for America. And the reason the Bush people would go to the extent of risking other people's lives? To keep the lid on their little box full of BS they were using to get us into Iraq.

It really is amazing how spin works. It dulls the truth so that when it finally comes out, it seems less serious. Yet, when you really ponder the damage these scoundrels did to the United States of America, this was a gigantic crime.

Are all potential assets in the future, going to worry that some political creeps in the White House might expose them if it suits their political agenda? This could have long-term implications for our national security.

Yes, Valerie says it destroyed her career and made her fear for the safety of her family. All to try and get back at Joe Wilson for saying the intelligence on Iraq was cooked - which it was. But what about the future? Bush and Cheney have harmed our ability to gather intelligence from now on. They have hurt America for reasons that are criminal. What do you call that? Let me sum it up:

To try and prevent their treasonous reasons for going to war from becoming known, Bush and friends committed more treason by selling out our undercover people. Sounds like an awful lot of treachery when you look at the end results. Meanwhile, the GOP is howling about the Scooter conviction saying it is unwarranted, when if justice had prevailed, every major player in the White House and at least one at the State Department would be in prison or worse. In that sense the spin worked.

All this should have been the story, but there was something else: Who won the battle of public opinion today? In our celebrity world, who had the star power? The politicians who lied us into a war, or the super-cool, beautiful agent? This was a bunch of bumbling losers versus one of those women in a James Bond film. You tell me.

I have to give the right wingers credit - they were correct about that: Valerie Plame is a total babe. It's tough to imagine that Ann Coulter is even from the same species.

31 Comments:

At 7:15 PM, Anonymous butch said...

Good Lord, Bill.....which hearing did you watch? The cruxt of your assessment is, "The only problem was that according to Valerie, it is not true."

According to Valerie? In other words, she lied to Congress. That is the position you'd take if she were 'on your side', isn't it? There are independent witness accounts and written documents that prove she recommended Joe for the Niger trip. She is as big a liar as her husband. Hey, good publicity for her upcoming book and movie though....

Bill, you obviously are a very smart guy, but just like in the movies, you are easily suckered by a femme fatal.

 
At 7:37 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

The people who she says are lying,
have done it over and over again on video. Dick Cheney, for example.
I'll put her credibility ahead of their absence of credibility any day.

 
At 7:42 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

I noticed on second reading that you avoided the covert agent part. I assume your contacts in the CIA told you that was a lie too?

 
At 7:44 PM, Anonymous butch said...

Bill, you sound just like the righties that want to believe everything Ann Coulter says. You want to believe her because she supports your bias and she does not look like Michael Moore. Her credibility was destroyed when this 'covert' CIA agent allowed her husband to write an op-ed (albeit lying one) in the NEW YORK TIMES and when she decided to POSE ON THE COVER OF VANITY FAIR.

At her appearance before the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, Valerie Plame Wilson flatly denied playing a role in the choice of her husband for a CIA mission to Niger. "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him," she said. She also testified that a Senate Intelligence Committee report which concluded she did suggest her husband was wrong. In particular, Mrs. Wilson said a CIA reports officer who, according to the Senate report, told Senate investigators that she had suggested her husband, "came to me almost with tears in his eyes. He said his words have been twisted and distorted."

Tonight a key senator is disputing Mrs. Wilson's testimony. In response to an inquiry from National Review, Senator Christopher Bond, vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, released the following statement:

"I stand by the findings of the Committee’s report on the Niger-Iraq uranium information, including the information regarding Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.

We have checked the transcript of the comments made to the Committee by the former reports officer and I stand by the Committee’s description of his comments. If the reports officer would like to clarify or change his remarks, I’m certain that the Committee would welcome his testimony.

We have also checked the memorandum written by Ms. Wilson suggesting her husband to look into the Niger reporting. I also stand by the Committee’s finding that this memorandum indicates Ms. Wilson did suggest her husband for a Niger inquiry. Because the quote [the portion of the memo quoted in the Senate report] obviously does not represent the entirety of the memorandum, I suggest that the House Government Reform Committee request and examine this memorandum themselves. I am confident that they will come to the same conclusion as our bipartisan membership did."

She is a parisan liar like her husband. But it seems that won't keep you from tucking her picture between your matress and box spring (let me know if that was too 'graphic'...although I doubt this is a 'family blog')

 
At 9:05 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Too graphic? Frankly, with this hottie it wasn't graphic enough. Once more, no word on her covert status. The problem was when it landed in the papers. The GOP position is she wasn't a covert agent so none of this matters.
You do realize that someone who has been in a foreign country working with other agents, can never be safely exposed. Otherwise, the other country thinks back to when she was there and sweeps up the people that she worked with.
The claim that exposing her identity was no big deal, is the weakest part of the GOP case, which is why you avoid it here.
By the way, is Christopher Bond related to James Bond?

 
At 11:04 PM, Anonymous butch said...

Covert status? Ok. Hey Bill, who was found guilty of compromising her covert status? Hint: the answer is NOT Scooter Libby.

 
At 1:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Butch,

Somehow I just get the feeling that when Pres. Bush had his photo on the aircraft carrier under the banner "Mission Accomplished" that you were there. Or you wished that you were there. Talk about being suckered.

Time to climb out of the flight suit good buddy. Look around and see how you have been suckered by Rove's machine. Kind of sad and kind of cute at the same time.

 
At 8:33 AM, Blogger carla said...

Covert status? Ok. Hey Bill, who was found guilty of compromising her covert status? Hint: the answer is NOT Scooter Libby.

No one has been found guilty of compromising Plame's covert status because there's never been an investigation into the White House on this matter.

This came out yesterday during the Waxman hearings.

 
At 10:13 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

I love when Waxman said they didn't have the clip of Bush promising a White House probe so look for it on the Daily Show. That's not the exact quote but he mentioned the Daily Show. Proud times for comedy writers everywhere.

 
At 2:54 PM, Anonymous butch said...

"...there's never been an investigation into the White House on this matter."

Carly, are you high?

 
At 3:10 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Carla's probably referring to this: "Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, told a congressional committee today that he was aware of no internal investigation or report into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. The White House had first opposed Knodell testifying but after a threat of a subpoena from the committee yesterday he was allowed to appear today. Knodell testified that those who had participated in the leaking of classified information were required to attest to this and he was not aware that anyone, including Karl Rove, had done that. He said that he had started at the White House in August 2004, a year after the leak, but his records show no evidence of a probe or report there: "I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office," he said. Rep. Waxman recalled that President Bush had promised a full internal probe. Knodell repeated that no probe took place, as far as he knew, and was not happening today."

 
At 4:16 PM, Anonymous butch said...

Maybe, but then she was merely being foolish because the cruxt of the comment was "found guilty". An internal probe does not establish "guilt". An external criminal investigation...ie Patrick Fitzgerald's does. To say wrongdoing by the WH was not investigated is just plain stupid.

 
At 4:45 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Come on, Butch, don't chase anyone away. It has to be frustrating trying to defend your side but you have the skills to do it without the insults.
I am curious how you feel about the main point: The Niger story was a crock and Bush and Cheney went right on pimping it long after they knew better. Were they being deceptive. We know they were about tying 9/11 to Saddam but were they on this part of it?

 
At 5:38 PM, Anonymous butch said...

Not trying to chase anyone away - I said the assumption was stupid, not the person who made it. I'm a smart guy, but sometimes say (and write) stupid things....please, no one disagree too much...

Bill, you are also obviously a smart guy....and you also sometimes say stupid things. For example, that the Niger story was a crock. It wasn't, it was absolutely true and our CIA, Britain's M15, Israel and Russia all still stand by the original story. Where it has been distorted by the left, anti-war types is to say that Iraq never "obtained" yellowcake from Niger. However, the original charge was that they "sought" yellowcake. Better re-read those infamous 16 words again.

But again, if you believe lefty sites like DailyKos more than balanced, objective sources like Factcheck.org, this won't matter to you:

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

 
At 6:25 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Condi: So yes, it is unfortunate that this one sentence, this 16 words, remained in the State of the Union. But this in no way has any effect on the president's larger case about Iraqi efforts to reconstitute the nuclear program, and, most importantly, and the bigger picture, of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

 
At 6:46 PM, Anonymous butch said...

Condi's opinion at the time she made that statement does not change the FACT that the Niger statement was founded on good information that it was probably factually correct.

Look past the political rhetoric (from both sides) and focus on the known facts surrounding the issue. What do you find? The '16 words' were correct' and Joe Wilson and his bride are opportunistic liars.

 
At 8:10 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Standing up to the Bush/Cheney war machine makes Joe Wilson a political hero. But I'm curious: Is there anything from this administration's pre-war arguments that you consider erroneous? Did they get anything wrong in your eyes? The rest of the world has moved on to the debate of whether they knew it was wrong and just lied, or were they merely mislead by the intelligence community. That's where most Republicans are by the way - that they made mistakes with the aluminum tubes, etc...
Most of my side maintains that they deliberately mislead America into war - that they knew the information was weak and they stripped it of its caveats and presented it as fact.

So as this debate rages on, here you come with your take: That they were right about their case for war. So is there anything they got wrong? Can they be wrong in your eyes? I know you kept going back to the Saddam link with the terrorist camp to show he was tied to 9/11 after all. I guess that's the question: Do you think Saddam ordered the 9/11 attacks? Don't feel alone. The percentage of people that did was quite high, especially after the idea was marketed by an administration that wanted to go into Iraq from before they even took office. So are you in that group? Is there anything that they got wrong here?
Right now your official position is that even when they themselves admit they were wrong, they were still right. That's taking blind allegiance to another level.

 
At 8:50 PM, Anonymous butch said...

You are complicating 'my side's' position. No one thinks Saddam was directly involved in 9/11. 'My side' maintains that Saddam was willing to cooperate with terrorists and if he were able to eventually develope transportable WMD's - chemical or radioactive - he would readily provide them to terrorist groups that would seek to deploy them on our soil.

I think that Saddam's past actions - invading his neighbors, gassing his own people, attempting to assassinate an ex-President of the US, shooting at ours and UN forces in no-fly zones, and his attempts to obtain uranium from Africa - supports the case that he would have provided our enemies with the means to attack us as soon as he obtained the capability to supply them. Why is that such a stretch for you to understand?

 
At 9:13 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

"No one thinks Saddam was directly involved with 9/11"?

Good we're making real progress here. When President Bush sent a letter to Congress asking for the authority to use force against Iraq, he wrote:

"to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

So if he didn't really think Saddam was behind 9/11 then this was a lie. That means he lied us into a war. Nice to have you on our side, Butch. I think you'll like it. It's a lot less hassle defending a position when you're actually in the right, rather than just on the right.

 
At 11:51 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Butch, when you get done not answering this, I wish you would address the following question: Do you now believe that Valerie Plame was a covert agent under the statutory definition during the time of the Novak column?

 
At 12:25 AM, Anonymous butch said...

Why would I not answer such an easy query? First of all, you not only take a quote from the JRAUUSAFAI out of context, but you misquote it completely by lopping off the end of the sentence. Funny you forgot the part that read, "...or harbored such persons or organizations;" that should have followed the 'period' you erroneously placed at the end of your quote. And then, of course, you completely ignore the entire paragraph that preceded it:

"Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;"

But of course, it is no longer relevant that Iraq was in direct violation of almost every UN sanction placed against it? I guess that because the UN itself, through its 'oil for food' program was enabling those violations makes it all 'OK' in your view?

As for the 'outing' of Plame, if she was "covert" and it was done by someone in the WH and not her oafish husband himself, there would have been someone charged for it in the Fitzgerald investigation. That it didn't happen wasn't from a lack of thoroughness on the prosecutor's part. I think Libby and Rove were both dragged before the Grand Jury at least 3 times. Sorry St. Patrick didn't bring you your Fitzmas presents like you were promised.

 
At 9:06 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

See what just happened?
When the right wing is exposed to the truth they just do a little dance and move on. Take Valerie Plame. For literally years the right wing has been saying she wasn't really covert. If you've been paying any attention to this case you've heard it over and over again from the many right wing flames. Then when it turns out not to be true - when it turns out that yes, Valerie Plame was covert, Butch just calls her an "opportunistic liar" - apparently she was looking for an opportunity to ruin her career. Now we've got a new spin. Butch now is saying "if she was 'covert'''. So after years of the right wing insisting that she wasn't covert, making this not a serious crime in their eyes, they are just going to dance away when it turns out they were 100% WRONG about it. That's what you call spin. Lie, get caught, move on.

Now we have Butch back in full confidence mode, accusing me of lopping off sentences and not printing the paragraph that followed - even though this letter to Congress has - for years - been cited by numerous sources as proof of President Bush's attempt to tie Saddam to 9/11. Okay, Butch, I'll print the entire rest of the letter including the part where I supposedly put in a period. (Hint: Butch is working off a different document than the one I was.)
Here's a quote from Butch's comment: "Why would I not answer such an easy query? First of all, you not only take a quote from the JRAUUSAFAI out of context, but you misquote it completely by lopping off the end of the sentence. Funny you forgot the part that read, "...or harbored such persons or organizations;" that should have followed the 'period' you erroneously placed at the end of your quote."

Okay, Butch, here's the rest of the quote:

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

My original quote ended after September 11, 2001. The period was the President's - or whoever wrote this for him. Butch should apologize for accusing me of "lopping off the end of the sentence" but he probably won't, and frankly that's okay. I get a kick out of Butch and mistakes happen. I guess he's miffed that I left off the "Sincerely, GEORGE W. BUSH." Of course the "sincerely" part is a lie - as Cheney and Bush have pointed out later, they never said Saddam was behind 9/11. Maybe it's the President's name that Butch is mad about me leaving out. The right wing is very proud that the President can spell his own name.

Valerie Plame was a covert agent and the right wing told you for years she was not. What else are they telling you that is complete BS?

 
At 10:27 AM, Anonymous butch said...

I never said she had never been a covert operative....and neither has anyone else that I know of 'one the right' or 'left'. The question is whether she had that status at the time she was 'outed' (by Richard Armitage...NOT Rove or Libby - sorry lefties).

It is my understanding that according to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it is a crime to 'out' a covert operative if they have been stationed overseas within the past 5 years on an extended assignment. Plames last overseas assignment ended more than six years prior to the Novak column.

But heck, don't take my word for it. You respect this dynamic duo so much, take it from the words of Mo-Joe himself: Here is Joseph Wilson himself, talking to Wolf Blitzer on CNN: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

Opportunistic liars.

 
At 11:41 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Butch, I like you man. We're just going to have to disagree on this. Go Ducks.

 
At 2:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I liked you a lot better before you said "Go Ducks".

 
At 6:02 PM, Blogger LaurelhurstDad said...

Butch and the other puppets of the neocons remind me of a toy robot, programmed by a master to march forward carrying the banner of war.

The robot does fine marching until it hits a wall. Not having a brain, it keeps on marching, the feet making ruts in the floor, until the battery starts to run down. The master, not being very bright himself, tries to fix the situation by putting in new batteries.

The robot keeps marching, going nowhere. The master adds oil to the failing gears, and scrounges for more batteries, (taking them from the smoke detectors in the individual states --err rooms in his house).

Still the robot makes no forward progress, but it has used up all the batteries and oil available.

It's not the robot's fault, as it has no ability to do anything but what the master tells it to do. The master's buddies get rich, selling robot services.

When the robot finally falls apart, the master has already left his office to retire in splendor, and the service people retire to Dubai.

 
At 11:02 PM, Anonymous butch said...

laurelhurstdad, that analogy is really clever. No, seriously, I mean that. Really...the whole robot thing...really clever. Now, if you could just compare me to the moss invading my lawn you'd really be on to something.

 
At 3:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's tough to imagine that Ann Coulter is even from the same species."
Got that right, You look in to Valerie Plames eyes and they are like two azure pools where one would willingly drown in love. Look in to Ann Coulters eyes and you will likely be turned to stone. She literally makes me shudder.

 
At 11:08 AM, Anonymous Tenskwatawa said...

Bill, having now scanned thru these many-most comments of all your posts, it turns out to be gibberish spit-spat between you and a tape recorder. So why would I?

I think you don't personally know this puke who puts that voice here. 'Personally' as in as little as when I came and we met and shook hands and put for each other our faces and demeanors to our names. If I am wrong and you do have personal acquaintance with such an ignoramus puss, then, (first, I'm sorry for you), perhaps there is one teeny tiny shred of savoir faire, (doing what you know about), however inconsequential, for your spitting in the ocean to change its corrosive salt content.

If I am right and you firsthand don't know the wombat from adam's off-ox, then, Bill, friend as thou art, you are sucking gas plowing in the loser zone.

Who'd want to read it? butshit is lying from the time he opens the browser.

And, man!, you seem to not know any better than engaging admiration in the crock of nonsense being shovelled in your face and burying your facility, half-life by half-life.

I think you think that taking this clod seriously shows you appreciate and respectfully value every single visitor who ascii's and you shall answer. I think you think that you can't 'afford' to alienate a single one of them, but your pandering to the poopy troop is revulsive to a regiment of reasonables en masse, saving one to lose a hundred, penny wise and pound foolish. To us, speaking for myself, it looks like something out of Candid Camera and Allen Funt's got you talking to a sack of flaming dogshit on your doorstep.

If the entire comments section is you talking to a telephone pole, why get involved? We come, we read your posted proses, we go. Don't step in the dogshit.

Hell, YES, he is trying to chase anyone engaging you away, you can tell because he said he's NOT. It is always your first and most reliable clue: the word 'NOT' in manifest politics instead of advocating itself in the affirmative.

What is conservatism? 'It is NOT liberals.' 'It is NOT taxes.' 'It is NOT regulation.' 'It is NOT allowing immigrants in.' 'It is NOT responsibility for others and humankind.'

Yeah, but what IS it? Well, in a word: Hate. Starting with itself, at home, like where charity begins.

Later, there is, "I did NOT say that." When, forthrightly, that is exactly what he said.

Just a thought, Bill. Just saying ... in the commenting section, there's no they're there.

---

Postscript, contributing in the affirmative: HERE is a 'blog', by another 'friend' of mine, someone I met, and know 'personally,' to the extent that face-to-face, asked-and-answered, he told me his birthdate, (and in my book, it don't get any more personal than birthdays -- they're like belly buttons, everyone has one). You perhaps won't realize it's a 'blog' since he wrote it himself. It is the Best Blog in Oregon, the most stimulating, the most exciting, the most heady, it just gives me (and you?) goosebumps when the homepage flashes up in the browser. Yeah, you can leave comments about his creative writings, or supply links to related material, and he allows whatever your contributions are to be seen by all ... IF you got something worth saying. And that is a Really Big IF. It was easier for me to get my letters printed in the NY Times than it is to get him to even acknowledge I said anything; sure, that is indistinguishable from being Ultimately Snobbish if you can't distinguish a difference, but let's just say he don't suffer fools gladly ... actually, not at all. And why should he ought? Go ahead, click the link, try it, you are not going to like it.

A second (postscript) link for you, from my yesterday's browser bouncing, is a concise (5 pages in 9-point typeface) history and explanation of the world we live in. You're maybe not going to like it, either, but it is on-topic and nails Plame to a 'T'. Further, it is the Big Picture in which we are, The Frame of The Worldview, and the context in which all news can sensibly be put, and out of which all jokes for Leno can misdirectionally derive.

Petras is another one, like Lutus, who never wastes your time listening to him, and expects reciprocation.

 
At 12:07 PM, Anonymous Paul Mangwana said...

it's obvious that she has dark pubic hair. i hear rumors that she has a very thick bush and it's tatsty...

 
At 12:37 PM, Anonymous George Charamba said...

You will also notice how oily her skin looks in this photo? She is wet between her legs after she has worked out. She loves being had for lunch when she is sweaty. Joseph Wilson does not enjoy a woman's natural fragrances.
She has a nice pungent scent of natural tuna along the crack of her ass when you kiss her bare ass cheeks during sex. Joseph Wilosn was caught on a an NSA monitored call complaining about this to Congolese diplomat who had a Venezeulan agent in his office, thus the NSA tap.
One also gets to see a thick clump of dark pubic hair when she takes it form behind. the pubes come out of her lips into the ass crack. It is a lovely sight if one is into beavers. Joseph Wilson does not appreciate beavers very much.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home