Kingdom of Idiots

I was in one of the deeper enclaves of the Kingdom of Idiots.

One could say I am nitpicking. But I really do not like 60 minutes, anything that does not fit their storyline ends up on the cutting room floor.

Here is my exchange with Count highhopes
The Outing of Valerie Plame
I love how they criticized Novak for naming the CIA front company Valerie Plame used.
However they left out the part where Mr. Novak states that was the company she said she worked for when she donated to the Al Gore campaign.

Just a inconvenient fact to seeBS.
...
Heir to the Throne:
That's an odd thing to bring up. It means something to you? Libby's lawyer, Joseph A. Tate, is a well-known, rather large contributor to the Democratic party and its candidates. What do you make of that? Is that also an "inconvenient fact?" It's difficult to see what you are getting at.
...
seeBS/60 minutes gave the impression that Mr. Novak/The White House named the CIA front company Valerie Plame to get back at her.

Leaving out the part where Mr. Novak states that was the company she said she worked for when she donated to the Al Gore campaign does not help give that impression.
...
Heir to the Throne:
I don't know what Tom Delay's lawyer has to do with the Plame case. Nothing I would suppose. Why do you ask?

I'm still puzzled why you think Valerie Plame making a contribution to a Democratic candidate is an "inconvenient fact."

Your understanding is that the 60 Minutes producers and editors purposely left out this "inconvenient fact" in an effort to falsely leave the impression Novak was trying to "get back" at Valerie Plame? Who could come to this impression? I don't understand. Why would Novak be trying to "get back" at Valerie Plame? Are you certain you aren't the only person that got this impression? I did not. It would never occurred to me that Novak has any reason to "get back" at Valerie Plame. What did she do to him?

As far as I can see, Novak outed the CIA agent and then for good measure he outed a CIA dummy corporation used by agents for covert purposes. I think we can both agree he did exactly those things. You say the addition of pointing out that Plame made a contribution to a Democratic candidate is a significant "inconvenient fact" that somehow changes these basic facts? I don't see how. I don't understand your reasoning. I don't understand how you got the impression that Novak has a reason to "get back" at Valerie Plame. I don't see how you came to the conclusion that 60 Minutes' omission of a campaign contribution forced this false impression upon you.
...
You mentioned Libby's lawyer is a democrat. My mention of Delay's lawyer being a democrat was to illustrate that your statement of Libby's lawyer being a democrat is meaningless.

It is not about the campaign contribution. It is about 60 minutes editing of Mr. Novak's statement as to why he mentioned her CIA front company. They make it appear that he just said Valerie Plame worked for this company which is a CIA front company instead of she donated to Al Gore and listed them as her employer.
That is the inconvenient fact.
...
"In recent years, she told people she worked at an energy consulting firm called “Brewster-Jennings & Associates.”

Robert Novak, the columnist who first printed her name, revealed that, too. “And she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates. There is no such firm, I'm convinced,” Novak said on CNN."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/60minutes/main994753.shtml

Here is the full quote
The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting Wilson's ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson's "wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates."

"There is no such firm, I'm convinced," he continued. "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

Links of the Day

Pardon For Libby
You Know How You Can Tell When Joe Wilson Is Telling A Lie?
The indictment, take 2
Top Ten Kos Kidz Reactions to the Alito Nomination
Before Novak, The Joe Wilson Speech that Made Clear His Agenda
Dump the special prosecutor law
Quotes to remember
At The Behest Of The Comedy Channel
Machtpolitik
Sony Attacks PC's Worldwide With DRM Rootkit
Libby's Defense?: Materiality
Don't blame feminism.
"So was the feminist movement some sort of cruel hoax?"
Will the Dems now force the House into closed session?
Scenes from the Mainstream Media
Vanity Fair Excerpts Mary Mapes’ New Book Highlighting Rathergate
Pro-Choice? Who's Pro-Choice?

Monday, October 31, 2005

Links of the Day

The Myth Of Dragging Wilson's Wife Into The Niger Case
THE BIG LOSER in the Libby affair
McCain’s Soft Spot in South Carolina
So Much for that "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" Stuff
Campbell Brown’s Puff Piece On Joe Wilson
Tony Snow Exposes Bill Maher As Clueless Moron

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Links of the Day

Early Thoughts On Libby Indictment, Fitzgerald
Andrew Sullivan Outraged
Scooter Libby evidently lied
Question Of The Day
PlameGate - Libby Lies About Lying
The Libby Indictment - a few preliminary thoughts
Our 27 Months of Hell Brought to Us By Lyin’ Joe Wilson

Friday, October 28, 2005

Links of the Day

Good Night, Good Luck and Good Riddance
Better To Be Wrong Than Gutless
CLINTON SCANDAL STATS
Battle Royale: "Partisan" vs. "Propagandist"
The Incredibles
Gray Lady Likes A Quagmire When The UN Is In Charge
Clooney on CBS: Just "A Couple" of Soviet Spies in 1950's Government
"Possible Civil Suit Looms As Threat in CIA-Leak Case"
Another DeLay Scandal?
How Covert Was Valerie Plame? (cont.)
CPL. JEFFREY B. STARR: WHAT THE NYTIMES LEFT OUT
Explaining Liberals to Our Conservative Readers

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Links of the Day

Milbank/Pincus write wrong
Moore Hypocrites Than True Believers?
Left Wing Heroes
The White House Cabal?
Baby Steps Towards The Truth
A WaPo Whopper Re Wilson?

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Duchess Lynn Cullen calls for impeachment of George W. Bush

Yesterday, a local talkshow host (Duchess in the Kingdom of Idiots) Lynn Cullen was complaining about the Wall Street Journal "doublestandard" on perjury. She also said that even if Fitzgerald found no wrongdoing, we should impeach George W. Bush based on what she read (i.e. New York Times) and her "critical thinking".

I sent her the following email:
"From the WSJ editorial page
"Let's stipulate that the law is the law, and if Bush
Administration officials lied to a grand jury in the
clear and obvious way that Bill Clinton did, they
should be prosecuted."

That is why you did not read it.

It is nice to know you now see perjury as a crime.
However only if it is a republican.

I also love you calling for the impeachment of George
W. Bush based on your "critical thinking" about the
"lies" for the war with Iraq. You claimed that even if
Fitzgerald found no wrongdoing George W. Bush should
still be impeached because you know the administration
is guilty.

Let me use the same standard with Bill Clinton. Based
on my "critical thinking" even if Star found no
wrongdoing, Bill Clinton should still be impeached for
File/China Gate because I know the administration is
guilty..

And no I do not accept your B.S. Clinton is not the
president dodge."

The end comment is because when Lynn is shown how the Clinton Administration
did the same or worst as the Bush Administration, she screams out "Clinton is not the
president anymore". That and "Can't you republicans get over Clinton".