Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Putz's final word on Plame.

He blames the whole thing on Fitzgerald. (updated twice below) (updated a third time)

NOW HE TELLS US: Patrick Fitzgerald says Plame was covert.

Tom Maguire is unconvinced: "Folks who think the prosecutor gets the first and final word will be satisfied with the current state of play. For myself, I would at least like to see the defense response (Newsweek says we will get one this week) and I continue to hold out hope that the CIA Counsel will respond to Congress, which will then generate a leak to Novak, if he likes the answer, or to Newsweek otherwise." I'd just like to see this kind of outrage generated on behalf of leaks that actually hurt the war effort.

"Now he tells us"? This isn't news, if you live on Planet Earth.

No correction. No apology. No acknowledgement that he's been wrong about this all along. And I love the insinuation that Plame's outing didn't "hurt" national security.

And of course, no criticism of the Bush Administration, for outing a covert CIA agent, who was working on Iranian WMD when she became political roadkill.

Very nice.


For more on this, see Greenwald.


Tom Maguire writes below in comments,
Well, not all of us think that Fitzgerald saying so provides the final word; hence, not all of us need to admit we were wrong.
Um, how do you get Fitzgerald "saying so" from declassified CIA employment documents? And do you think Michael Hayden lied to Waxman?

So to recap: The CIA lied about Plame's status to the DOJ when it initially asked Ashcroft investigate the matter. Then Ashcroft launched an investigation, then recused himself from the investigation, because he knew it was just a partisan lie that Plame was covert. Then Fitzgerald lied when he said publicly during the trial that Plame was covert. Then Michael Hayden lied to Waxman and Reyes when they questioned Plame. Then Plame lied to Congress.

Now Fitzgerald's lying again?

Tom, do me a favor. Wherever it is you're getting that stuff you're smoking, can you score me some too? Because it's really, really good shit.


Someone at Salon apparently noticed that Putz, erm, has been wrong for 2 years.

Quoth the Putz,
Just talked to a reporter from Salon who wanted to know if I was going to "retract" an earlier blog post in which I said it looked as if Plame wasn't covert. I noted that one normally issues a retraction for original reporting, not commenting upon other people's news stories.
Translated: "I'm not responsible for anything I write ever. Heh."

Notes Greenwald,
There you have it. Reynolds thinks he is free to spew all sorts of false statements and never retract them when proven wrong because one does not issue retractions when "commenting upon other people's news stories" -- even if what one says is factually and completely false.
Well, to be fair to Putz, he's not free to spew false statements. He's free to spew false commentary on other people's false original reporting.

Take that, Emm-Ess-Emm!

No comments: