Johan goldberg gives it the old college try, but his attempts to muster Swiftian levels of satire and parody fall well short of the minimal criteria of success. This was from the LA Times.

Jonah Goldberg:

The Joe and Valerie show

Libby was convicted, but the Wilsons are the ones profiting from dishonesty.

March 8, 2007


SURE, SURE, "Scooter" Libby might go to jail. His career is in tatters, his life a shambles. Even Denis Collins, the omnipresent juror-journalist, says he and his peers feel sympathy for Libby, the "fall guy" in this whole spectacle. But really, who is the real victim?

Joe and Valerie, of course.


"The golden couple targeted by White House machine," as described by one British paper this week, have had to put up with so much. There's no need to dwell on the early hardships faced by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV: that arduous junket to Niger helped along by his wife, Valerie Plame; the endless cups of sweet mint tea he had to drink; the awkwardness that his findings, as privately briefed to the CIA, supported President Bush's famous "16 words" although he said the exact opposite on the New York Times Op-Ed page and in 12 trillion television studios.

A man of less mettle might grow frustrated with the effrontery of the Washington Post's editorial page calling him a liar, a blowhard and the real destroyer of his wife's career. Simply because it's true hardly justifies stepping on his story line. Don't they know he's the author of a book, "The Politics of Truth," and a winner of awards for his self-proclaimed courage for "speaking truth to power"? Why should a bipartisan Senate intelligence report cataloging his dishonesty and distortions stand against a man with such important hair?

The Great Dissenter's burden doesn't end there. Joe wanted to appear on equal footing, as befits his stature, with Katie Couric on the "Today" show. Instead he was stuck in D.C., and his "one chance to sit face to face with America's sweetheart" was dashed. And it must have been those cheap partisans who forced the ambassador to sell himself to the John Kerry campaign, to call for the frog-marching of Karl Rove, to call Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol a "drunk." Joe's a statesman, darn it!

Then there's our gal Val. Oh, the price she's paid. Almost every night, the ex-CIA officer has to see file footage of herself in that stunning white gown and those tiresome pictures of her and Joe posing in their Jaguar for Vanity Fair. CNN ran a segment comparing her to James Bond and Mata Hari. The comparison wasn't perfect, CNN said: "Mata Hari supposedly blew a kiss to the firing squad that executed her. Valerie Plame seems more inclined to kiss her husband." It's right about that. Plame told Vanity Fair she spilled the beans about her CIA status after her third — or fourth! — make-out session with Joe "The Animal" Wilson. Thank goodness Al Qaeda doesn't read Vanity Fair. Not only would they find out what Plame looks like, they might discover Joe's remarkable interrogation technique.

The Wilsons' civil lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Rove et al — filed, they assure us, "with heavy hearts" — claims that the White House's revelation of her identity put her life and the lives of her children in danger. (Never mind that it wasn't the White House who outed her but Richard Armitage over at the State Department.) Even after baring all for Vanity Fair, the golden couple clearly take every effort to maintain their privacy. While heading for a vacation getaway, Wilson couldn't resist giving one last interview at the Houston airport. One of his sons blurted out for everyone to hear, "My daddy is famous, my mommy is a secret spy." Clearly the pressures of the Wilson family code of silence had gotten to the lad.

Just last month, the golden couple was spied lunching with Morgan Fairchild at the Four Seasons in Washington. The trio supped on soup and salad and shared a lovely mushroom risotto, which probably won't be on the menu wherever they send Libby. You'd think the golden couple would rate higher than the faded star of "Falcon Crest." But there's a buzz that she might play Valerie in the movie Warner Bros. has just green-lighted about Valerie's life. Other boldface names under consideration include Sharon Stone and Gwyneth Paltrow, so it was really a kindness for the Wilsons to even take the meeting.

Sure, all this might sound glamorous to the lumpenproletariat who don't understand the Wilsons' plight. But such rubes can't comprehend that the only reason the Wilsons had to leap straight to a movie deal in the first place was that the CIA is holding up Valerie's $2.5-million book deal by slow-walking the clearance the book needs for publication. Doesn't anyone understand how development works? Clearly not the CIA, which claims that it still wants to keep secrets. Don't those people read Vanity Fair? That is, like, so 2003!

Lesser mortals might have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that they're having the time of their lives through a level of dishonesty dwarfing the transgressions that may send Scooter Libby to prison. But, thank goodness, the golden couple is better than that. They're troopers.


Xiao -- Yep, and also, they're NOT convicted felons!

...and on that day, I have no doubt, the new owners of the Times will fire Goldberg's ass.

that he hasn't been fired already. Obviously he either didn't take the class or failed it with an F-. (PC 101.) He should at least be required to write a thousand times "I will be politically correct and that means politically pink". How can a "journalist" (a real whore) be any other way?

That's why were all talking about him. All we need is for Geffen or one of the other big libs to take over the Times and restore it to its PC glory. Maybe bankruptcy would be on the horizon.

-- Modified on 3/9/2007 7:02:09 AM

In Goldberg's inaugural column in the LATimes last year, he called those in opposition to George W. (and his war in Iraq) "moonbats".

At this point, I tend to naturally switch off as any real discourse is impossible.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but current polling, and of course the election avalanche that installed a Democratic Congress, would indicate that the "moonbats" are now in the ascendency.

That is another lesson in PC he should learn. Derogatory and insulting names and labels can only be used by Certified PCers, not by the general riffraff that PCers are trying to reform.

You then "switch off" or in plain english, put your head in the sand, when your Lib buddies namecall so you can deny it happens.

Quite switchy but not very "truthy" of you.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but when your in the tank of the shithouse, the only direction there is is up.

-- Modified on 3/9/2007 11:36:30 AM

It's a case of avoiding the issue and attacking the man. The argument always goes: never mind the actions of Cheney, Libby and Rove; Wilson, now there's a jerk!  At least with Clinton one could say it wasn't wide of the mark.

BTW, I was wrong.  It looks like there will be no further prosecutions on this.  Fitzgerald went after Moby Dick and came back with a guppy.  I strongly doubt that this conviction will stand now whether because of pardon or appeal.  It's hard to guess about Fitzgerald's motivation for bringing it now-- except that he saw that Libby had lied.    

It would be funny if Bush pardons him. He let much more flagrant injustices go un-pardoned even when they were matters of life-and-death.

Irrational? Are you kidding?

Even the BI-partisian Senate committee said he was LIEING in is assertions to the NYTs that started the whole uproar.

I agree that the Libby trial was a travesty.

But that's as much as a side issue as Wilson's character.  The only questions pertinent to the inquiry were: 1) was Valerie Plame a CIA agent?  2) Did somebody blow her cover?  3) Did Libby lie about it?  

Now, how does Wilson's character enter into that investigation?  

So, when that "bipartisan" committee looked into it, why was Wilson's character even on the agenda.

(In about the same way a blow job had something to do with Whitewater).    

I'll tell you why they smeared Wilson, it was to draw out a big fat red herring every conservative apologist could sink their teeth into.  You sure have done it.  

Especially when it came out in the trial that it was Cheney's office, not Plame, who put Wilson there. Cheney and his men weren't called before the Senate committee, but the committee members were being good Republicans so they "Swiftboated" Wilson for the VP.

As far as I'm concerned, Wilson has been Clintonized, which means you can't trust a damn thing conservatives say about him now.  They've read and reread their own lies too much.

"was Valerie Plame a CIA agent?"

No

"Did somebody blow her cover?"

Nothing to blow

"Did Libby lie about it?"

According to the O.J. jury, but then again so did a lot of people.

"Now, how does Wilson's character enter into that investigation?"

YOU were the one that brought it up. His LIEING doesn't enter into it, but it WAS the reason for people FAIRLY discrediting him.

"that it was Cheney's office, not Plame, who put Wilson there."

Not so.

I know I didn't see too much merit in the National Review one you gave before.  It played a game at hiding certain facts in certain paragraphs and was played up to a readership that wanted to believe.  

But I'll read any others you could lead me to.

that I doubt I could easily find a source that you would "independantly" believe.

Much of my opinion comes from rational, critical thinking after hearing a lot of different people (on both sides) speak.

About Plame's "covertness". Even Fitgerald proves this by his lack of prosecutions, given that it was known that Armatige was the "leaker". There is also heresay that Wilson, himself said she was not (covert) on the day that Novack's column was published.

About Wilson's trip. It seems clear that Cheney ordered the CIA to investigate the Niger, Yellow cake bit and the CIA decided to send "someone". But it was Plame that suggested or finagled that the "someone" be Wilson. Doesn't it seem strange that the CIA would send anyone without them first signing the standard non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement?

About the yelow cake bit, the stickler seems to hinge on the difference between bought vs. sought.

http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html


-- Modified on 3/11/2007 2:46:26 PM

First I will mention that Richard Armitage accidentally leaking Plame's status did not discount simultaneous and criminal efforts to it in the VP's office. There was very serious efforts to do this.

Whether she was on a covert assignment at the time might or might not written in the law.  If I had time, I'd check. If you've blown her cover, it pretty much makes her useless for assignment, and could make her a target due to past assignments.  

I will point out, though, the jury didn't just rubberstamp and railroad a verdict.  They deliberated on this an extremely long time.  

One thing that also came out afterward: they liked Libby.  They despised doing this. They said they wished the real culprits behind this had been on trial.  

Do you think they didn't consider everything that you've said?  He's facing a very long time in prison now.  I don't think they'd do that to him unless they discovered by the law they could not cut him any breaks.  

Now, I don't believe the yellow-cake incident ever happened.  There is a problem of motive here: Iraq didn't have anything for which to process it.  It had no centrifuges, no way of processing the stuff.  Those things take years to put together. Look how long it took Korea and it is taking Iran.  They could not have disassembled them without very clear evidence.  No, I can't imagine them buying the yellow cake and having it lay around for years till they have something to process it with. Period.  

-- Modified on 3/14/2007 4:43:18 PM

If there were criminal efforts, where's the indictements? Accidentally or not, once she's "outed" she can't be "outed" again.

Listen to the jurors, they were SO politicaly motivated it's laughable. They deliberated because they knew what they were about to do was illegal and wrong.

I knew the trial was over the day I heard Libby's lawyer play the "he's the fall guy" card. It's all the jury needed since they really wanted to put Rove and Cheney on trial (for politcal reasons).

There's one problem. That's about as legal as jury nulification. That's why I called in inverse jury nullication.

About sentencing... Federal guidlines call for something closer to 12 to 18 months.

I'd like to see a pardon today, but Bush's balls seem a bit shrivelled lately. Libby's only challenge is to stay out of prision until after November 2008.

The further I look at the facts, the less they bear any resemblance to what you're writing. I don't know why.  I also don't know why it has a remote correlation to National Review that you find pleasing.  

However, I realize now all other conversation with you is pointless.  I can't see the world you are imagining, so I am at a hopeless disadvantage trying to argue about it.

Let's for the moment assume that that it's all true. Libby and the administration lied about pre-war intel and tried to cover it up.

Even if it's true, that "fact" had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what Libby was charged with. The actual FACT that the the jury SAID they wished they had heard from Cheney etal. or that they wanted Cheney etal. to be the ones on trial just shows how they over stepped their bounds.

You aren't suppose to charge someone with shoplifting and then get the jury to convict them just because they hang out with bank robbers.

There actually was a fair amount of evidence that Libby DID commit perjury, but I really don't think the jury convicted him on that evidence alone.

You would probably find it interesting, how many times I find myself thinking the exact same thing about several of your comments.

Yet, still I keep trying since you are one of the few here that seem to be intellectually honest.