Allow me a mordant chuckle at the selling out of Somerby. Stick to Gore, Bobby.
Posted by iamcoyote at August 12, 2005 09:10 AMSomerby is just shouting louder and louder on these points, because he knows that he was wrong with his intial writings on it. And the only thing he knows how to do now is to insist that he was right all along.
Posted by Shuttlecock at August 12, 2005 09:44 AMWho reads Somerby any more? That is so 2003.
Posted by Ampracific at August 12, 2005 09:51 AMI think what you have to ask is why is Somerby writing in this way...what gives...why does he have an axe to gring against Joe Wilson...
Posted by John B. at August 12, 2005 10:22 AMgrind, not gring, methinks...
Posted by John B. at August 12, 2005 10:23 AMUnfortunately, Somberby's greatest strength of picking apart statements has also been shown to be his greatest weakness. I really don't know what sort of beef Somberby has had with Wilson, but his hatred towards the guy has been consistent from the getgo. Many bloggers can't figure it out either. What the fuck is his deal? Can he not read the Senate report himself? Can he not read Wilson's words himself?
He's so far out on left field on this one I don't think he'll ever return. His credibility's been shot on this one issue long ago. I think it's what another posted has stated - he stuck his neck out so far to bash Wilson that he's now in his own hole and continues to pour dirt on himself. His only means of defense for himself is to simply dig his hole further. Unfortunately, more dirt gets thrown on his head.
Idiot in action. It's like watching a dog drink antifreeze.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at August 12, 2005 10:48 AMSommersby surely continues to delude himself, aritificially nit picking details about Wilson, who has been much more available then say Libby or Rove, to explain their story.
The qustion remains why?
The answer- the warhawk dems continue to think they have an interest in covering for Bush in order to support the war.
Biden and Sen. Clinton and their pyramid are very out of step with their own base on this.
Ironically Sommersby ultimately does the most damage to Gore, by standing with the liberl hawks, who feel it is better to fight than solve our energy problems. A Gore win in 2000 would have brought realistic energy policy front and center from day one, obliviating the American need for an Iraqi conquest. Why defend Gore if you are blindly defending those who would have opposed his policies?
Bush ultimatley always stands with exisitng monopoly interested, Gore through-out his career was about technical innovation and balanced responsible approaches to natural resource questions. It is the ruthless backing of status quo over innovation, that has brought the nation to its current domestic and foreign policy mess.
Why support this Bob, particularly when the parties you are defending ultimately are opposed to what you believe?
Posted by patience at August 12, 2005 11:04 AM'Twas only our national security involved in that mission, maybe the should have taken the first drunk or underemployed comic to come down the street.
What say you, Bob?
Posted by Flamethrower at August 12, 2005 11:51 AMAm I wrong? Aren’t all these thousands of words to confuse the difference between the meaning of the words suggested and selected.
Rove, Libby and the State Department Memo all state that Ms. Plame selected her husband which is patently false since she has never had the authority. She did suggest her husband to her superiors for the trips to Africa.
Posted by Jim S at August 12, 2005 11:53 AMSorry, for the error. The State Dept. Memo used Valerie Plane’s married name Mrs. Wilson. The memo wasn't clear that she had suggested her husband to her superiors for the trip. The White House ran with the smear that she selected her husband raising the charges of nepotism and feminism. What is interesting is the smear was identical to all of the reporters suggesting coordination and one source of information.
Posted by Jim S at August 12, 2005 12:21 PMSorry, folks. I come down on the Howler's side on this issue. You folks are way too far ahead of the story, based on speculation, interested-party quotes, etc. As long as there seems to be (up to now) a competent, unbiased, non-leaking investigator, why don't you just let the facts unfold in due time and debate the results at that time? Somerby's larger point is well taken; you're following the methodology of the Clinton-haters in your thirst for Rove's (or anybody's)blood. Sure, Somerby's not perfect; he's often over-the-top and nit-picky. But I don't see him as a pro-war "liberal hawk" because of this issue. He's also correct in pointing out that there are other angles to the Iraq run-up to war that could be pursued and are based on actual facts (Cheney, Rice) rather than the speculative approach to the Plame story, at this point.
Posted by Glen at August 12, 2005 03:58 PMTo Jim S.:
Actually, the State Dept memo referred to her as 'Valerie Plame Wilson.'
Posted by erasmus at August 12, 2005 05:36 PMI too mostly stopped reading Somerby when he went ballistic on the MSM handling of the "sixteen words." But at least he seemed rational back than which is more than I can say for his anti-Wilson screeds.
If an employee in any organization has a relative or a friend that is avaialable and qualified for a position that a boss or colleague is looking to fill, are they not supposed to mention it? That's stupid and not how organizations work. Plame was not the decisionmaker, Wilson was qualified and Wilson wasn't compensated for his services. Where the fuck is the scandal in this?
Posted by Marie at August 12, 2005 09:44 PMEverybody knows that Valerie Plame is all powerful and 100% responsible for sending Joe Wilson to Niger while she removed every WMD in Iraq, and she is responsible for every single intelligence failure that resulted in 9-11. We think she may also be responsible for the high cost of oil, the housing bubble and the declining recruitment numbers, but we will wait for Senator Roberts to conclude his investigation before saying anything about it.
It's all so clear to me now. There is only one thing to do.
A private military corporation must immediately run a sweep to find the real head of the CIA. When her small children are doused with cold water then sodomized on film she may reconsider her foolish statements about being an employee. Bob Somerby can wave some glow sticks for added incentive.
The only question left is which multi national military corporation should get the no bid cost plus contract to carry out the mission?
Posted by grannyinsanity at August 12, 2005 10:13 PMWilson mentions Cheney appointing his daughter.
By definition, as you note, nepotism is on relation, that his relation listed solid qualifications for his trip excludes the use of the word as it pertains to either instance. BS is parsing a contradiction.
The mention of Cheney says a lot, his daughter ran Near East affairs which included direct oversight of niger, her husband was in Homeland Security/State coordinating efforts in North/Central Africa.
The nepostim charge is fit for the Cheney family. Wilson only highlights it, the conclusion is obvious.
Liz Cheney was a senior position in Near East affairs, he husband in DoHS. Both dealing with items directly related to procurement policy/security under the May 03, 2001 re-organization of the Intelligence Community directly overseen by Bush/Cheney as their first objective after the challenged 2000 election.
Posted by Mr.Murder at January 18, 2006 09:36 AM