Instapundit links to Mark Steyn on the Valerie Plame outing and says “Read the whole thing.” So, I read the whole thing, and I found one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces I’ve read since… since Monday or so.
It’s another “Isn’t the real issue…” piece. In this case, the “real issue” is why Wilson was sent to Niger.
Steyn says:
An agency known to be opposed to war in Iraq sent an employee’s spouse also known to be opposed to war in Iraq on a perfunctory joke mission.
Wilson went to Niger in February 2002. The war in Iraq was just a twinkle in the administration’s eye. The war in Afghanistan (which Wilson supported) had recently finished. Bush made his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, in which he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the “Axis of Evil”. He had not approached Congress, the United Nations, or the American people for support of a war on Iraq. The push wouldn’t come for a few months.
I’ve been following this story pretty closely. If anyone could find a statement from Wilson opposing the war on Iraq prior to his trip to Niger in Feb. 2002, I daresay that I would have heard about it. I’ll be embarassed if I’m wrong, so please go ahead and embarass me.
Here’s some information that Steyn thinks the reader has no need to know when answering the confusing, confusing question Why was Wilson sent to Niger?
No, what’s relevant is Wilson’s hairstyle. It’s kind of long, you see.
Steyn’s piece is larded with Wilson-bashing, as is the style at the time. Great stuff, like “Wilson comes over like a total flake — not a sober striped-pants diplomat but a shaggy-maned ideologically driven kook whose hippie-lyric quotes make a lot more sense than his neocon-bashing diatribes for leftie dronefests like the Nation.” Steyn doesn’t point out the little-known loophole in the law that makes it legal to release the identity of undercover agents if they have a liberal spouse. I guess it speaks for itself.
When Clifford May said that everyone knew about Plame, he at least had the excuse of ignorance. Mark Steyn has no such excuse when he writes,” Even if you accept that it’s technically possible to leak something that’s widely known around town…” It wasn’t widely known around town. Her relatives didn’t know. He neighbors didn’t know. The CIA asked for a formal investigation, and Bush himself called it “a very serious matter”. It’s hard to giggle this off, but I’m impressed at the effort.
He slips in “and published in the guy’s Who’s Who entry” as if the name “Valerie Plame” is the secret. Smart people who play stupid are extremely irritating. One more time:
“There is a person named Valerie Plame”- not a secret
“There is a person named Valerie Plame who works for the CIA”- big honking secret.
Steyn pretends not to understand why the Administration would want to discredit Wilson by revealing the identity of his wife; he argues that this information actually enhances his credibility. It doesn’t matter whether you think it was a good idea: obviously it wasn’t, but it happened. Novak himself says that he got the information from two senior Administration officials.
Steyn criticizes the NY Times for a headline that says that he “What I Didn’t Find in Africa”, when Wilson only visited Niger. Then he says,
One alleged colleague says he’s worked with her for 30 years, which seems unlikely, as she’s only 40 and if the Company was that good at spotting early talent it would be in a lot better shape.
Steyn seems to be questioning the integrity of Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, FOX News commentator, and registered Republican. No surprises there. But Johnson said “three decades”, not 30 years. 80s, 90s, 00s. No mystery.
Finally, Steyn says,
But her time as a NOC looks to have ended five years ago
Says who? If Steyn has access to the records of NOC CIA staff, someone should take it away immediately. If not, he’s just speculating.
Steyn does not improve his credibility when he says “the rogue State Department” is “acting like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the House of Saud”. He does not enhance his credibility by saying of Wilson, “Imagine Michael Moore and his ego after dropping 300lbs on the Atkins diet and you’re close enough.” He does not enhance his credibility when he lists the terrorists’ forces as “the Western media, the UN and the moth-eaten French pantomime mule of Messrs Chirac and de Villepin.”
Mark Steyn, everybody. This is what we’ve come to.
Well just for one thing (having not read the whole thing yet)
“But, despite the media’s efforts to oomph it up into Watergate — or ‘Intimigate’ — it doesn’t make any sense as a conventional political scandal.”
that’s a joke! After years and years of ‘Travelgate’ and ‘Whitewater’ and ‘Haircutgate’ and all the other bogus scandals of that other presidency, and the startling lack of interest in various shady spots in W’s career, the idea that the media are suddenly being tough on pore ole Frat and ‘oomphing up’ something is…
ludicrous.
It’s the middle ages again. What was the Monty Python bit about logic and proof of a witch?
Ah yes. If Wilson weighs the same as a rat, then he is one.
It’s a fair cop.
I’ve been reading a lot today about this “instapundit.” Can someone tell me who it is, and why he or she is deserving of such attention?
The few times I’ve followed a link I haven’t seen the type of hard-hitting commentary and objective analysis I’ve come to expect from Crooked Timber and Little Green Beste. Rather, I’ve seen a couple of sentences with some private joke and a link to something of little interest.
“Smart people who play stupid are extremely irritating.”
So true, so true.
Chun, the only reason anybody pays attention to him is the disconcerting fact that he is the #1 blog in eyeballs and links.
Millions of flies can’t be wrong.
Chun, prof instanitwit is a purveyor of mindless drivel to the already converted. Pay him no heed.
Excellent take-down of Steyn, another purveyor of mindless drivel.
To me, the Plame case is a litmus test of how far “rational conservatives”, libertarians, independents, and moderates will go in order to avoid supporting an evil Democrat. (The hard right, I’m convinced, will support Bush no matter what.)
But I’m not at all confident that they’ll turn — and a lot of the media has already signed on to Bush’s spin points. The Plame story could just disappear.
To me, even by conservative standards Bush has done a number of things which should make moderates and conservatives give up on him. But obviously my left-liberal opinion counts for nothing here, and all I can do is sit and watch.
Chun, the best description of instapundit is ‘Rush Limbaugh of the blogosphere’. He’s got a big audience, he’s very good at pumping out right-wing BS. He was also an early starter, and helped out a bunch of people who were just getting started.
His big technique is to link to a story and add a comment or two about how it proves whatever he wants proven. If/when challenged on the story, his standard response was to say that he hadn’t read it.
I used to think that this was at least clever of him, until I realized that he’s a law professor, and that he was just doing the blog equivalent of putting a friendly witness on the stand and leading the witness through some perjured testimony.
Is this the same Mark Steyn who argued that security in Iraq was not a problem and it was all some big hype?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/01/wsteyn01.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/01/ixnewstop.html
He’s a prat. Conrad Black’s pet poodle, the “quality paper” equivalent of the foaming mouth tabloid hacks who inconsistently rail against the world.
He’s also the same Mark Steyn who wrote that reports of intense heat in Iraq were just anti-war propoganda. A few weeks later, between two and five soldiers were dead from the heat.
…the idea that the media are…being tough on pore ole Frat and ‘oomphing up’ something is…ludicrous.
…the Plame story could just disappear…
Check out next week’s issue of Time.
And Ted, check this out.
From TIME, helpfully linked above,, which is generally unsympathetic to the Bush side on this story:
The answer is that Plame is just the latest casualty in a low-grade war that has raged for more than a year between the CIA and the White House about the nature and use of intelligence. It has been a constant, under-the-radar struggle between the ideological hard-liners of the Bush team against career intelligence experts at the cia—a fight over the validity of the evidence that the U.S. and its allies gathered about Saddam and his nuclear ambitions.
Hmm. So in addition to appearing to the world to be a well qualified former ambassador, Wilson had close ties to the see-no-evil CIA that had been at odds with the White House for over a year (well over a year, to hear the neocons tell it - they think the CIA has been wrong on Iraq for a decade).
And the position here is that Wilson’s CIA connection is utterly irrelevant to the story, and says nothing at all about his motivation, or his commitment to finding evidence supporting the Cheney side of the story?
Mr. Steyn does a bad job of compressing this point into the phrase “anti-war” but it takes very little imagination to know that he meant “anti-neocons”; the neocons had been openly targetting Iraq since 1998.
And since Mr. Barlow has been following this story pretty closely, he is no doubt aware that the description of his report provided by Wilson to the NY Times was at odds with the (verbal) report he gave the CIA. What he told the CIA included hints and feelers from an Iraqi trade mission trying to purchase, so he guessed, uranium. Which is why the CIA felt his report was inconclusive.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030711-cia01.htm
So let’s see - the Ambassador is hooked into the CIA side of the neocon-CIA tussle, and is publicly misrepresenting his report to the CIA. To say the White House acted in revenge confuses the words “revenge” and “rebut”.
Please tell me that that comment wasn’t posted by the real Tom Maguire.
Well, it may have been a bit snarkier than normal - I am grappling with various cold midicnes, and may have mixed myself a Rushbo special - but that was me.
In your world, “midicnes” is spelled “medicines”.
This is what passes as a fisking on the left? Mark Steyn doesn’t agree with your point of view, you point it out repeatedly, that discredits Steyn?
Wilson has made it quite clear that he has the goal of discrediting the Bush administration. He did not become a Democrat only after the trip to Niger, and in fact Bush did refer to Africa, not Niger, and the Brits stand by their story. To elide over this fact is just one more symptom of the pathetic depths the left has sunk to. Put words in the administration’s mouth, claim that they are what the administration “really meant”, even though you can find no actual words to support them, “imminent threat” comes to mind as the most famous example of this dishonest technique, then call them liars for saying what you say they said, pretending that their actual words do not matter.
Put words in the administration’s mouth, claim that they are what the administration “really meant”, even though you can find no actual words to support them, “imminent threat” comes to mind as the most famous example of this dishonest technique, then call them liars for saying what you say they said, pretending that their actual words do not matter.
Replace “imminent threat” with “Al Gore invented the internet” and you’ve got a pretty good rundown of election 2000.
Moptop is bang on. You lefties have a lot to offer but your current inability to control your tendency to lie like Joe Stalin is hurting you. Bush did not say or suggest or imply or hint there was an imminent threat. There are reasonable and just grounds to criticise Bush and the war. Pick one, but please stop making asses of yourselves.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review