And here is Taranto's fisk of Josh's response. Josh might as well close up shop. He really blew it with his last 9 months of pushing the "Bush lied!" meme. He is so burnt!
Best of the Web Today - July 13, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
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?
Note that Marshall doesn't provide any links to the "egregious commentary," which presumably includes our item yesterday explaining why, contrary to Wilson's accusation, it's highly unlikely that the revelation of Plame's identity violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Marshall has lost that argument, and he knows it, so "why argue?" Instead he changes the subject:
If there's no legal case and no political problem, why don't the senior administration officials who leaked her identity just come forward?
If their rationale is a good one and they face no legal jeopardy, what's the problem?
It seems like a great opportunity to clear the air, settle the story, ascertain the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
Doing so will save much of the money being spent on the investigation Mr. [Patrick] Fitzgerald [the special prosecutor] is running. They can save themselves a lot of attorneys' fees. And they can have a free opportunity to explain the rationale behind their decision and why they believed it was the right thing to do in the context.
I can only assume by their silence that they're rather less confident about the quality of their explanation and the degree of their legal jeopardy than their many voluble defenders in the conservative press.
Now, let's review what's happened here. On July 14, 2003, Robert Novak reported the following:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.
This turns out to be true, as even Marshall now admits. But Wilson, in a Sept. 16, 2003, interview with Marshall, denied it (link in PDF; quote on pp. 19-20):
For those who would assert that somehow she was involved in this, it just defies logic. At the time, she was the mother of two-year-old twins. Therefore, sort of sending her husband off on an eight-day trip leaves her with full responsibility for taking care of two screaming two-year-olds without help, and anybody who is a parent would understand what that means. Anybody who is a mother would understand it even far better. Secondly, I mean, the notion somehow that this was some nepotism, that I was being sent on an eight-day, all-expense-paid--no salary, mind you--trip to the Sahara Desert. This is not Nassau we're talking about. This is not the Bahamas. It wasn't Maui. This was the Sahara Desert. And then, the only other thing that I can think of is the assertion that she wanted me out of the way for eight days because she, you know, had a lover or something, which is, you don't take lovers when you have two-year-old kids at home. So, there's no logic in it.
Hat tip to blogger Gregory Djerejian for unearthing this quote. So Wilson was peddling, and Marshall was eagerly reselling, the story that Novak's sources falsely asserted the nepotism claim in order to blow Plame's cover so as to punish Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration.
To be sure, it's theoretically possible that the sources accurately asserted that Plame had recommended Wilson for the Niger junket but their true agenda was to reveal her identity as payback to Wilson. But if so--if, as Marshall claims, the Plame trip link is "clearly irrelevant"--why would Wilson go to the trouble of lying about it? In any case, Novak's sources stand accused of a serious crime, and their accuser has impeached his own credibility by falsifying an element of his story. That strikes us as highly relevant.
As for Marshall's demand that the sources go public, this is a dishonorable bit of demagogy. Does anyone really believe that if they came forward with an innocent explanation, Wilson and Marshall would apologize and let the matter die? Not a chance--and Wilson's other erstwhile defenders would go on the warpath again too. Marshall's smarmy suggestion that Novak's sources are guilty until proven innocent is only the merest hint of the smear campaign they would endure if they were foolish enough to follow his "advice."
Reform in Reuterville?
Writing in National Review Online, journalist Tom Gross has some damning revelations and some encouraging news about Reuters' coverage of Israel:
Some of Reuters's Palestinian stringers are honest and courageous. But, according to several ex-Reuters staffers, they feel the intimidating presence of Wafa Amr, Reuters's "Senior Palestinian Correspondent." Amr--who is a cousin of former Palestinian minister Nabil Amr, and whose father is said to be close to Arafat--had this title specially created for her (there is no "Senior Israeli Correspondent," or the equivalent in any other Arab country) so that her close ties to the Palestinian Authority could be exploited.
As one former Reuters journalist put it: "She occupies this position in spite of lacking a basic command of English grammar. The information passed through her is controlled, orchestrated. Reuters would never allow Israeli government propaganda to be fed into its reports in this way. Indeed, stories exposing Israeli misdeeds are a favorite of Reuters. Amr has never had an exposé on Arafat, or his Al-Aqsa Brigades terror group."
But things may well be improving. Lately, with a new Jerusalem bureau chief, Reuters has taken some steps to ensure greater balance. For example, it no longer claims Hamas's goal is merely "to set up an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza" (which it is not), but instead writes that Hamas is "sworn to Israel's destruction" (which it is).
Reuters no longer carries the highly misleading "death tolls" at the end of each story that lumped together Palestinian civilians, gunmen, and suicide bombers. (Agence France-Presse continues to do this.) And, apparently, there are plans to relocate Wafa Amr by next year.
Gross concludes by asking: "Is it too much to hope that one day soon Reuters might actually call terrorism terrorism?" It probably is, but stranger things have happened.
He Served Where?
"The Democratic National Convention will spotlight John Kerry's public service, with particular emphasis on the Massachusetts senator's time in the military, and include speeches by two former presidents and his family," the Associated Press reports:
With many voters still unfamiliar with Kerry despite more than two years of campaigning, the convention also has been designed to help people get to know his biography, including his experience as prosecutor, a lieutenant governor, a senator and a decorated Naval officer in Vietnam.
Now hold on just a second. Kerry was a decorated what--in where? That's right, apparently the rumors are true: John Kerry--at least if this AP dispatch is to be believed--served in Vietnam. It's been a well-kept secret, of course; apparently it was a traumatic experience and he doesn't like to talk about it. Also, he wasn't there for very long, another reason his jaunt escaped most people's attention. But if word of this gets out, it could change a lot of people's minds about John Kerry.
A Manatee and a Woman
The U.S. Senate is debating the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would write into the Constitution the traditional definition of marriage, thus precluding same-sex nuptials nationwide. If John Kerry bothers casting a vote, it'll be a "nay," reports the New York Times:
Referring to the amendment, which is expected to come to a vote in the Senate Wednesday, Mr. Kerry accused Republicans of "turning around, and for political purposes, in the middle of a campaign, for the first time in history, trying to amend the Bill of Rights."
One wonders which of the first 10 amendments Kerry thinks guarantees the right of gay couples to marry.
Meanwhile, this headline in the Bradenton (Fla.) Herald should give pause to anyone who doesn't worry that same-sex marriage will lead to a slippery slope: "Gay Manatee Couple Sue for Right to Marry." What next, a walrus marrying a dugong? Marriage is between a man and a woman, not two menatee.
Editors for Kerry
"An editor at The New York Times Magazine may have violated the newspaper's highly-publicized ban on political campaign contributions with a $1,000 donation to John Kerry's presidential campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records," reports the newspaper trade magazine Editor & Publisher.
An editor at the New York Times supports Kerry? Isn't the Times supposed to be unbiased? Wow, this really changes our whole outlook on American journalism.
Living History
Teresa Heinz Kerry appears to have endorsed her husband's opponent. "At an outdoor concert that raised about $4 million for [John] Kerry," reports the Boston Globe, "Heinz Kerry got more personal. 'We need above all a president who is not fazed by complexity. A president who likes to read. A president who loves history.' "
That would seem to be President Bush. Check his bio, and you'll see he majored in history at Yale. Fellow Bulldog John Kerry, by contrast, majored in political science. On the other hand, the late Sen. John Heinz, yet another Yalie, majored in "History, Arts and Letters (a special-honors major)." So maybe Teresa is backing Bush because he reminds her of her first husband.
More Readers See AP as Arrogant
The Associated Press has a new poll that lists seven adjectives and asks if they describe George W. Bush and John Kerry. Here are the results:
"Decisive": Bush 67%, Kerry 45% (Bush by 22%)
"Arrogant": Bush 52%, Kerry 44% (Bush by 8%)
"Wealthy": Bush 90%, Kerry 85% (Bush by 5%)
"Likeable": Bush 66%, Kerry 62% (Bush by 4%)
"Honest: Bush 53%, Kerry 53% (even)
"Compassionate": Bush 59%, Kerry 60% (Kerry by 1%)
"Intelligent": Bush 63%, Kerry 83% (Kerry by 20%)
The poll also asked, "Who makes you feel more optimistic about America's future?" Fifty percent said Bush, 44% Kerry, 1% both and 4% neither.
So what headline did the AP put on its dispatch about the poll? "More Voters See Bush as Arrogant."
The wire service did change its headline on a later version of the story: "Bush Seen Decisive, Kerry Smart." This is much less biased, though AP seen ungrammatical.
The Kerry Explosion
Here's an interesting little Google result: A search for the phrase "Kerry blasts" turns up 8,340 pages, while "Bush blasts" comes up with just 2,820. Kerry seems to be doing almost three times as much blasting as Bush.
Perhaps this is because Bush is delegating blasting to the vice president. And sure enough, "Cheney blasts" comes up with 1,870 pages, while "Edwards blasts" returns a paltry 253.
Still, add them all up and you have 8,593 Kedwards blasts--more than 85% more than the 4,690 for Bush-Cheney. (Sorry, "Beney" isn't euphonious.) We're not sure what this means, but we hope some expert will study the matter further.
Got to Put My Cheaters On
WRAL-TV of Raleigh, N.C., reports on a local campaign appearance by John Edwards over the weekend:
A wide range of people turned out to see Edwards--Democrats, Republicans, even a convicted peeper.
Edwards' staff said the candidate had no idea he was speaking with Samuel Ferebee on Sunday morning. Ferebee spent four months behind bars for secretly looking at a girl changing her clothes in a store in New Bern.
He is also banned from Duke University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill campuses over accusations of stalking female students.
The Secret Service questioned Ferebee, but said he had a right to be in the crowd.
Jeepers creepers, where'd he get those peepers?
Terror Theat to Kedwards?
"We've got better vision, better ideas, real plans. We've got a better sense of what's happening to America--and we've got better hair."--John Kerry, July 7
"He boasts that while the Americans possess nuclear weapons, he has seen 'something in the form of a hair dryer' that causes 'the most horrible death possible' by suffocation."--New York Times, July 12, reporting on an al Qaeda terrorist's secretly recorded phone calls.
So Where Will They Make Buicks?
"GM Plants Will Be Used to Create Aids Vaccine"--headline, (London) Independent, July 13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Do You Suppose He'll Do There?
"Bear Retreats to the Woods"--headline, Democrat and Chronicle (Rochseter, N.Y.), July 13
Not Too Brite--CLI
"An Iranian man who struck a suicide pact with his new bride over their guilt for having pre-marital sex is being held by police after he backed out on his side of the bargain," Reuters reports from Tehran. "The man helped to hang his wife but then changed his mind about killing himself."
Oddly Enough!
Reuters' sense of humor is even sicker than usual here; the last sentence in the dispatch reads: "Pre-marital sex is taboo in the Islamic state where some girls have to go through a virginity test before tying [the] knot."
(For an explanation of the "Not Too Brite" series, click here.)
Of Subs, Screens and Springs
Our item yesterday on mathematics, animal husbandry, Michael Moore and submarines brought numerous responses. Most took issue with Bill Sneed's proof that 2=1, about which more in a moment. Meanwhile, reader Mike Tierney
Well, I must admit I was never in the Navy. I was an Air Force Reservist. But my cousin, who was in the Navy, told me the submariners have to use screen doors when they get water for showers, otherwise the fish will get into the boat. After reading "Not Too Brite" yesterday (Australian surfer killed by shark), I just hope they have really strong screens!
Indeed. Al LaPointe suggests some alternative idioms:
In my 19 years of experience in the U.S. Army, I have encountered countless fascinating ways to describe just how pointless things (other soldiers, officers, civil servants, training exercises, political decisions, etc.) can be. Most of them are inappropriate for a fine family publication such as yours. Some are gentle enough without losing their edge, though. I can just imagine one of John Kerry's sailors (back in Vietnam) declaring that his boss is "as messed up as a soup sandwich."
John Kerry served in Vietnam? Reader Tom Neven of Colorado Springs, Colo., raises an entomological objection:
There are no mosquitoes in Colorado Springs! No flies, and no termites, either. Nada on the roaches, too. It's too high (6,000 feet above sea level) and dry here. Only bugs we deal with are yellow jackets, spiders and ants. Oh, and every few summers, the Miller moths, which, alas, make screen doors mandatory.
As we predicted, we heard from a few math purists (but no more than 200 of them) who took issue with the proof that 2=1. Here's reader Lee Nelson:
Oddly enough, your proof seems to imply that James Taranto is God. The mathematical formulations you put in through the quadratic equation "work," since a=b, if and only if a=1 and b=1--i.e., they do not work if they are true variables.
At that point you factor out the (a-1), but because a=1, dividing by (a-1) is dividing by zero. Dividing by zero gives infinity. Therefore, if Taranto plans to use this proof to substantiate the editorial we, he is claiming to be an infinite being--God, in other words. Would this be why lefties think the Journal editorial page is our bible?
The other 199 or so readers who responded, however, said we can't divide by zero. God is all-powerful, so presumably he can divide by whatever number he wants. Thus you may rest assured that we are a mere mortal, though we have no objection to anyone reading this column religiously.
opinionjournal.com |
