Monday, July 18, 2005

Joe Wilson's Credibility Problem

If you're familiar at all with the facts of the Rove non-scandal scandal, among the things that you know with metaphysical certitude, is this:

Joe Wilson is a serial liar.

To put it a bit more gently, he has a serious credibility problem.


Joel Mowbray has a great column about what he calls Rove's saving grace, the "quicksand known as Joe Wilson."

Mowbray writes:


The virtual vigilantes circling Karl Rove have everything lined up for the brand of justice they see fit for “the Architect”: public humiliation, all-out character assassination, firing, near-fatal damage to the White House, and if they get the cherry on top, “frog-marching” the President’s closest advisor from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a federal prison.

There’s just one hitch: their entire political case rests on the quicksand known as Joe Wilson.

As part of the cynical campaign to destroy the man who guided Bush to four straight electoral victories, the Left has hailed Wilson as a hero. At first blush, the idiocy of exalting the man with a well-documented credibility problem would seem to rival the decision to roll the cameras as Dukakis gave the thumbs-up while riding in a tank.

But the Left’s entire rationale for the “Fire Rove” tidal wave is that revealing Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee was nothing more than a “shameful,” “despicable,” and “disturbing” act of “retaliation,” “retribution,” or “revenge.” If they admitted that Wilson layered lies upon lies, then logic dictates that Rove did no more than encourage a reporter not to be hoodwinked.

...Just over one year ago, the man married to the retired CIA operative formerly known as Valerie Plame was exposed as an opportunist who lied at almost every turn in an audacious bid to grab his 15 minutes—and a seven-figure book deal.

He was outed not by Rove, the White House, or some right-wing outfit, but by the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

According to the report, Plame “offered up” the services of her husband. She believed that intelligence surrounding Niger and yellowcake was bogus—she called it a “crazy report”—making it highly likely that her husband went there looking to confirm that conclusion. He did.

Or did he? The bipartisan conclusion of the committee was that Wilson's findings, if anything, served to support the belief that Saddam was actively seeking uranium for a nuclear program.

But Wilson revealed himself as the headline whore he is by grabbing the spotlight when the story first emerged about Niger and forged documents purporting to show illicit sales to Saddam. From the July 10, 2004 Washington Post:

He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”

“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents—purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq—were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.


Obviously, Wilson’s apologists don’t much like the bipartisan report.

Mowbray nails the problem facing the Left Rove lynch mob:

"[T]hey need Wilson to be credible. He’s not."

Nevertheless, the Left remains in denial about Wilson, at least publicly. That's understandable. Rove's critics have no choice but to consider Wilson reliable and truthful.

The entire Rove matter has become such a circus that it's really an embarrassment for the Left on so many fronts. So many Democrats and members of the press have sacrificed their own credibility by ignoring Wilson's lack of it.

More on Wilson's history of falsehoods and mischaracterizations, or if you prefer, LIES--

Read the
NewsMax story on Wilson's July 17 Face the Nation appearance.

Read Mark Levin's fantastic analysis.


It crushes Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame's claims that they have been victimized and discusses their unholy alliance with the liberal media.



To this day, despite all this evidence, the media embrace Wilson's story, evidence be damned. The media outlets that were used by Wilson, and published or repeated his lies, are very forgiving. They portray Wilson as he demands to be portrayed, not as he is. And they regurgitate the rhetoric about poor Valerie Plame — a patriot and victim endangered and ruined by politically motivated leaks and a powerful White House bent on discrediting her husband. Even Meet the Press’s Tim Russert, who fancies himself a hard-nosed interrogator, could not have a done a better job of misinforming the public and smearing the White House — cutting and pasting statements and video clips, and throwing softballs to, of all people, Bill Clinton’s (and now George Soros’s) hatchetman, John Podesta. Plame’s central and aggressive role in promoting her husband, who in turn hoped to damage the credibility of the president in the midst of a war — from her CIA perch — doesn’t even merit a mention. (Also, see Cliff May's excellent reporting about the Plame/Wilson/David Corn connections.)

And in an Alice In Wonderland-like storyline, the same media that demand confidentiality for their sources as a First Amendment right, also demand the identity of Bob Novak’s sources and the names of administration officials who’ve spoken to the media. They cheer the very criminal investigation they once claimed endangered their profession. Meanwhile, who’s under investigation? Not Plame and Wilson, who appear to have hatched this scandal, but those truly victimized by it — administration officials who, it appears, sought to correct Wilson’s lies. Their phone conversations with reporters and e-mails to colleagues are now scrutinized by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury as if they’re war criminals. No wonder Plame is the toast of the Washington establishment and appears in publicity shots in Vanity Fair with a big grin. Look what she’s wrought.

2 comments:

Mark said...

You have covered this so thouroughly that I am hard pressed to add anything of significance to it.
I am becoming a fan.

here is what i posted on my post today:

ADDENDUM: I discovered a very good blog over the weekend. Mary, over at FREEDOM EDEN cover's the issues of the day with insightful, and sometimes inciteful, commentary. Check her out.

Mary said...

HAHAHAHA

Thank you, Mark!

I like the insightful and inciteful!!

Thanks so much!