home

WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial

The Wall St. Journal (free link) assails Fitzgerald and backs Scooter Libby today.

There is all the difference in the world between seeking to respond to the substance of Mr. Wilson's charges, as Mr. Libby did, and taking revenge on him by blowing his wife's cover, which was the motive originally hypothesized by Bush critics for the Plame exposure. The more of Mr. Fitzgerald's case that becomes public, the more it looks like he has made the terrible mistake for a prosecutor of taking Joe Wilson's side in what was essentially a political fight.

Christy at Firedoglake responds. And check out the perfect photo for her post.

< Barry Gibbs: "Don't You Remember Me?" | R.I.P. Billy Preston >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#1)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    Please dont bother responding to PPJ's nonsense which should be arriving by manure spreader soon.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#2)
    by swingvote on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    Just a technical point, but OpinionJournal.com is not the Wall Street Journal, even if Taranto does write for the paper on occasion. Beyond that, it's an argument, nothing more.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 01:05:48 PM EST
    Yup. FDL's got it about right. FWIW, a friend put together a book of proverbs. Among them was one the WSJ is surely well-acquainted with: "money has no smell". The backstory goes that Vespasian's son questioned the decision to tax public lavatories, to which Vespasian held a coin to his nose, asking him whether it smelled. WSJ's editorial page has been rolling around and dealing in neo-con crap for far too long to have any scruples left - so long as it helps them and theirs make more money, it's all right. Regardless of where else you might get a shot to publish, you won't get on their op-ed unless you are a confirmed member in good standing and True Believer of the Church of the Neo-Con Almighty Dollar. Moving on, I'm waiting to see if the courtroom laughs at Scooter's "I forgot" the way they laughed at Safavian's answers on cross-examination....

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 02:48:34 PM EST
    OpinionJournal.com is not the Wall Street Journal,
    justpaul, wrong again: "Editorial page website from The Wall Street Journal"

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:16:51 PM EST
    Man, this hijacked media thing is much worse than not funny anymore.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#6)
    by swingvote on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:34:39 PM EST
    Sailor, Try reading the site once before you profess to know what it is or is not based on a single snippet of text. The WSJ has its own website, and had the link provided been to that site, it would have been appropriate to use WSJ in the title of this post. As the link provided actually links to another website, one which has a significant readership of its own, it is far more accurate, not to mention intellectually honest, to say "OpinionJournal.com Backs Libby in Editorial". Yeah, I know, that intellectual honesty thing gets in the way of attacking your enemies, and probably confuses the hell of you on both counts, but it's still worth the effort.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 03:54:29 PM EST
    j.p - Maybe you could clarify how not designating the right source would "get in the way" of attacking Libby's defense and critiquing the article? You sound more like you're engaging in desperate, weasly attempts to find something-anything to attack in this post. As I say, maybe you can clarify.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:19:55 PM EST
    jp- What is your point? The link is the WSJ's opinion page. It clearly identifies it on the header.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    The point is, he still hasnt dug up anything significant on the Reid - free Girl Scout cookie connection, but he needed to get a troll in.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dana on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 04:35:38 PM EST
    "... terrible mistake for a prosecutor of taking Joe Wilson's side in what was essentially a political fight."
    No, it was essentially treason.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:14:50 PM EST
    jp, are you truly blind, or can you just not see? it has to be one or the other, for you to have completely missed the huge letters, right at the top of the site, that said "from the editorial pages of the wall street journal". unfortunately, the wsj has gone from being a respectable, conservative business periodical, to a partisan hack, which is why i don't bother wasting my time on it any more. i can the same business data, unflavored, elsewhere.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 06:53:17 PM EST
    About as convincing as the editorial the WSJ ran last summer about how we all ought to thank brave and noble Karl Rove the whistleblower. Like the earlier piece, it's shot through with a puffed-up bravado that desperately tries to distract the reader's attention away from their feeble and unconvincing arguments. "Three years later they show we were right about Joe Wilson and his false allegation that President Bush lied in that year's State of Union address about Iraq seeking nuclear materials in Africa." Hunh????? How do you figure that?

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#13)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 07:16:41 PM EST
    cpinva says
    unfortunately, the wsj has gone from being a respectable, conservative business periodical, to a partisan hack
    cpinva, I beg to disagree. They were always partisan hacks on their Ed pages, they continue to have pretty good reporting. And it's amazing how often the facts pages and the opinions page contradict each other;-)

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Tue Jun 06, 2006 at 07:51:11 PM EST
    Yeah, I know, that intellectual honesty thing gets in the way of attacking your enemies, and probably confuses the hell of you on both counts, but it's still worth the effort.
    justpaul, the site is owned by the WSJ and prints the WSJ opinion page. they say so on the masthead. You owe me an apology.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 04:34:32 AM EST
    cpinva, I beg to disagree. They were always partisan hacks on their Ed pages, they continue to have pretty good reporting.
    good point sailor. maybe, they just didn't used to be as flagrantly obvious about it, or the editorial writers did a better job. in any event, they're turning into the washington times.
    Three years later they show we were right about Joe Wilson and his false allegation that President Bush lied in that year's State of Union address about Iraq seeking nuclear materials in Africa." Hunh????? How do you figure that?
    ok, let's review: in the sou for 2003, bush stated that there were credible reports that iraq had attempted to purchase yellow cake. in his op-ed piece, fmr. amb. wilson specifically identified his mission as determining if iraq had purchased yellow cake from niger. the distinction is critical. mr. wilson's mandate was only to ascertain whether or not iraq had actually acquired yellow cake, not if it had unsuccessfully attempted to purchase it. this he did, and wrote a report about it. technically, the wsj was right, and joe wilson was wrong, with respect to bush's statement in the sou. however, the question than becomes: just how credible were those reports that bush referred to? turns out, not very, by both the cia and nsa's own determination, which they had relayed to the white house, prior to the sou. this administration, and its friends/allies, have committed enough provable acts, without a need to make them up. stick with the facts.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 09:42:17 AM EST
    about Joe Wilson and his false allegation that President Bush lied in that year's State of Union address about Iraq seeking nuclear materials in Africa."
    for the final freakin' time! Even incurious george said he shouldn't have put the words in! Sheeesh!

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#17)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 10:02:51 AM EST
    From the article... "A year later the 16 words were declared to be "well-founded" by Britain's high-level Butler inquiry, as well as by a bipartisan report from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee." Sheesh. I read it. Should I not beleive it? That Joe Wilson told the truth is another in a long line of facts that are "believed" to be true by liberals in order to justify their ridiculous arguemnts but in fact aren't. Damn us trolls. Always sticking to the facts.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 10:25:34 AM EST
    Damn us trolls. Always sticking to the facts.
    Yes even when they are shown to be propaganda lies. Like Colbert said of your dear leader:
    The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change; this man's beliefs never will.


    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    ""A year later the 16 words were declared to be "well-founded" by Britain's high-level Butler inquiry, as well as by a bipartisan report from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee." Forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock in what the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Bush Administration enabler/stonewaller extraordinaire Pat Roberts, had to say about this matter. Speaking of Senatort Roberts, just wondering when if ever the long-promised phase II of the investigation into Iraq pre-war intelligence will be completed. We're waiting...

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    cpinva
    technically, the wsj was right, and joe wilson was wrong, with respect to bush's statement in the sou.
    SOTU-
    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
    Given that the 1999 claim by a rather shady source that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake from Niger was in 1999, the SOTU claim was not remotely accurate in any respect. Besides the British claim was only based on the forged and discredited Niger Docs.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 12:43:22 PM EST
    Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.
    Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.


    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 12:48:59 PM EST
    Key points from the US Senate Intelligence Committee : The language in the October 2002 NIE that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the IC knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.
    The CIA comments and assessments about the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting were inconsistent and, at times, contradictory.


    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 12:54:24 PM EST
    Again this Vanty Fair article by Steven Unger on the Niger Docs and WH campaign of deception is a must read. He quotes Josh Marshall about the difficulty of writing on the subject of govenrment PSy/Ops:
    "Most of the people you are dealing with are professional liars, which really leaves you with your work cut out for you as a reporter"
    and this:
    For more than two years it has been widely reported that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of intelligence failures. But in fact it is far more likely that the Iraq war started because of an extraordinary intelligence success--specifically, an astoundingly effective campaign of disinformation, or black propaganda, which led the White House, the Pentagon, Britain's M.I.6 intelligence service, and thousands of outlets in the American media to promote the falsehood that Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weapons program posed a grave risk to the United States.
    Unger

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    I saw that VF Squeaky, it's an amazing analysis, but I thought it overkill to swat a fly;-)

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    So the point is the WSJ and Sen Roberts are not reliable sources but a Vanity Fair article (was that the issue with Joe Wilson on the cover?) are?

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    So the point is the WSJ and Sen Roberts are not reliable sources but a Vanity Fair article (was that the issue with Joe Wilson on the cover?) are?
    Yes Slado it is, and it is the recent issue, not the one you heard had had Joe Wilson on the cover. But don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself. The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    Sailor- I just read it again. Nothing really new, as Laura Rozen, Josh Marshall, emptywheel, Murray Waas, not to mention our ace Jeralyn and others have presented all this before. The amazing thing about this article is that it takes all the above and creates a fuller narrative regarding the WH psy/ops campaign. Also it shows what a liar Leeden is. By quoting his supposed anti-Iraq war stance alongside his other writings urging war "faster, faster", we get a clear picture of the man. The Darth Vader mask that sits on his desk summs it all up: He is the dark side. No one I have read shows up Leeden for the evil schmuck he really is. The piece is not, in my opinion, overkill in the least. Long yes, but hardly overkill.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 02:55:52 PM EST
    slado, instead of moving the goalposts why don't you admit you were wrong, even bushco admitted they were wrong.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#29)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 07, 2006 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    Squeaky, I meant it was overkill in proving slado et al wrong. I also thought the article had info I hadn't seen before, especially what role ledeen played (and now says he didn't.)

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#30)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:01:32 AM EST
    The WH for political purposes conceeded the statement shouldn't have been in the SOTU. Fine. But that doesn't mean that Joe Wilson isn't a liar as cpniva suggests or that Libby or anyone is guilty of a crime, yet. Will you conceed that? Also what happened to the Rove indictment that was heating up the blogoshpere a few weeks ago? Just asking, not taking a shot.

    Re: WSJ Backs Libby in Editorial (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 08:40:19 AM EST
    The WH for political purposes conceeded the statement shouldn't have been in the SOTU.
    translated from trollese that mean the wh got caught lying.