Politics

Lunch: $950, Anonymity: Priceless

|

Valerie and Joe Wilson

It's really too bad that Karl Rove/Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby/Dick Armitage/whoever ruined Valerie Plame's life by destroying her priceless anonymity. Still, there's an upside: Now you can have lunch with Plame and her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson for the low, low current asking price of $950.00.

The bill of fare:

Includes lunch for two(2) with Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson and a signed book.

We don't remember who told us, but you'll have lunch with Ambassador Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame at a "safehouse".

Lost in the din of the leak scandal that has consumed Washington is the very personal impact on the willowy blond CIA operative at its center. Plame, 42, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, has become the most famous spy in the world, but her career has been derailed. It appears likely she will leave the CIA, some acquaintances say, but she hasn't publicly signaled her plans.

Having lunch with these two fascinating and compelling people will surely be a fantastic experience to remember forever!

Currently, the Wilsons are trumped by breakfast with Alan Greenspan and Andrea Mitchell (going for $26,000.00), but they're actually beating out tea with Madeleine Albright ($650.00) in the auction to support the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial.

NEXT: Something Else To Worry About

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Those of us with an emotional attachment to this country and its well-being actually do consider the anonymity of covert agents working to protect as from foreign enemies precious.

  2. One of our local civic clubs just called. They’ll feed me lunch for a twenty-minute talk on gun control, concealed handguns or something.

    So I guess I’m like the Plames, only at the bottom end of the scale.

  3. covert agents working to protect as from foreign enemies

    Unless, of course, those foreign enemies are Al Qaeda…then we make fun of our brave agents, no?

  4. $950, and it’s supposed to be like the movie Indecent Proposal?

  5. Who picks up the tab for lunch?

  6. $950 is a lot. Usually “lunch” with a willowy blonde costs $350 or $450 with a “greek” salad.

  7. Greek salad or roast beaver?

  8. Does that mean we’d be eating in Milwaukee?

  9. Ummm,
    If I read you guys right

    you are all just nasty

    that being said, the devil from “Animal House” just appeared on my shoulder saying…

  10. Unless, of course, those foreign enemies are Al Qaeda…then we make fun of our brave agents, no?

    Depends upon how well they are doing. When they do as badly as they did in the Moussaoui case (pre-9/11) or McVeigh case, then they deserve all the scorn that you might heap on an overweight cop eating a donut to celebrate his latest forced entry raid. Even though you don’t always get to know the names.

  11. How much to have lunch with just Joe’s hairdo?

  12. That was covered at 12:08

  13. Plame’s still with the CIA and people are still dragging mud on this one? Color me impressed. Aside from the whole “tell us your sources or you go to jail bit” this entire story ended when she was outed.

  14. Unless, of course, those foreign enemies are Al Qaeda…then we make fun of our brave agents, no?

    One senses a flip-flop on this matter, which could be applied to both sides, but in lieu of actually catching anyone overtly changing their tune, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree to point fingers like that. (Can you count how many metaphors I mixed??) If you really doubt Democrats are sincere or consistent about this, you’d probably best grumble to yourself and make note of it for when the inconsistency actually shows itself.

  15. Valerie Plame is kind of hot.

    Will there be broken glass available?

  16. Yo Joe
    Just cuze she bought the jr g-man spy kit at Woolworths doesn’t make her a covert agent…if I could see her super secret decoder ring? that might clinch the deal…

  17. What are you, the HR Director the CIA?

    The CIA requested a federal investigation of the release of her identity, and has already stated that she was covert.

  18. Joe- I don’t think anyone is making fun of Plame’s role in the CIA. But the idea of paying close to a grand to have lunch with her is amusing.

  19. The CIA requested a federal investigation of the release of her identity, and has already stated that she was covert.

    Why let facts get in the way of a good partisan narrative??

  20. If she wanted to be anonymous and covert what was she doing in that Who’s Who in America book?

  21. Why the snark over Valerie Plame appearing in public and not maintaining her anonymity? When she was an undercover spy, her anonymity mattered. Now that she’s no longer an undercover spy, her anonymity doesn’t matter anymore. Is this really so hard to understand?

    And is it really news that famous people charge money for personal appearances? When did Reason start mocking people for trying to make money?

    The point of the scandal is not that Rove, Cheney, et al, hurt some poor woman’s career — it’s that they burned an undercover CIA agent in order to slander someone who wrote an op-ed piece criticizing the president. If you think suppressing criticism of the president is more important than maintaining an effective intelligence service that can control nuclear proliferation to America’s enemies, fine, no scandal. It’s no surprise that Republican loyalist bloggers have taken this position, but this crap doesn’t belong on Reason.

  22. Capitalizing on my fame as a Hit & Run commenter, I’m offering to allow people to send me money for lunch. Not to have it with me, mind you, just to fund my lunches. In return, I’ll post each donor’s name here.

    For tomorrow’s lunch, my price is US $1,000,000. In those new dollar coins, please.

  23. Guy,

    Letting the public know that Mrs. Wilson was married didn’t endanger her work and colleagues.

    Letting the public know that she worked for the CIA did.

  24. For tomorrow’s lunch, my price is US $1,000,000. In those new dollar coins, please.

    Wow, serious about TANSTAAFL around here huh.

  25. joe:

    Guy Montag has thoroughly proven his trollerificness. Just ignore him.

  26. Guy,

    No, the lunch itself is cheap, but we have to self insure in Florida.

  27. $950? That’s nothing. It costs me 3,000 gold pieces to have second breakfast with Arwen.

  28. Bergamot,
    Thanks for the link. I was at the Safe House just once in 86, had a great time. Glad it’s still operating.

  29. I would pay $10 to see her naked.
    I would.

  30. So, Madeleine, what do you say to us finding a more private spot to enjoy the rest of our tea?

  31. Only $950?

    Jeez, any self-respecting Deputy Minister in Ottawa can easily spend 3 or 4 times that much, even correcting for the exchange rate.

  32. …what was she doing in that Who’s Who in America book?

    According to your link the Who’s Who entry was for her husband. I doubt that she was identified as a CIA agent in it. As joe points out she did have a public persona as an ambassador’s wife. She also had a public persona as an employee of a CIA front company. That’s another secret revealed.

    It’s one thing to destroy someone’s career as a cheap political trick. But destroying the cover of an agent, her front company and exposing her contacts is despicable.

    I know goddamn well that all the Bush toadies who think this is a big fucking joke would not be taking it so lightly if it had happened under different circumstances.

    People who’d be outraged if Hillary threw out a five dollar government ashtray are being mighty frivolous about the destruction of much more costly assets.

  33. Wow, serious about TANSTAAFL around here huh.

    It’s not a free lunch if somebody else buys it for me.

  34. $950? I paid 200 grand to get outta bed with my ex. That was a great bargain, even at that price.And I didn’t have to do lunch with her anymore, either.

  35. These fees go towards an RFK memorial fund or something.

    Not directly to the Plames.

  36. Letting the public know that Mrs. Wilson was married didn’t endanger her work and colleagues.

    Letting the public know that she worked for the CIA did.

    If that was so dangerous, how come Richard Armitage–who confessed to being the leaker–wasn’t prosecuted? How come no one was prosecuted for the crime of letting the public know she worked for the CIA?

    Face it, this whole non-scandal is only useful as another example (if other examples were needed) of how Bush’s PR machine is as elegant and graceful as an arthritic drunken bull in a china shop.

  37. How much to spend a night snorting coke with Roger Clinton?

  38. If that was so dangerous, how come Richard Armitage–who confessed to being the leaker–wasn’t prosecuted?

    Because Richard Amitage wasn’t close enough to the White House to generate the necessar headlines to interfere with Bush’s agenda.

  39. Since when did Reason become Anti-Capitalist?

    🙂

  40. “Face it, this whole non-scandal is only useful as another example (if other examples were needed) of how Bush’s PR machine is as elegant and graceful as an arthritic drunken bull in a china shop.”

    Ya can’t spin bullshit because it looks the same from any angle. The Bush Administration is like a bizarre episode of Hollywood Squares, except the first answer isn’t a flip joke in Washington, it’s a cover up lie or justification with wiggle room. Later on we all find out the real answer and have a good laugh.

    If this is a non-scandal, why did Scooter Libby lie about it?

  41. If that was so dangerous, how come Richard Armitage–who confessed to being the leaker–wasn’t prosecuted?

    Because Richard Amitage wasn’t close enough to the White House to generate the necessary headlines to interfere with Bush’s agenda.

    You’re absolutely right, joe, but I never thought I’d see you admit that the whole investigation was a political hit job with the purpose of hurting the Bush administration rather than bringing the leaker to justice.

  42. Dove hunting with Dick Cheney.
    Make-up tips from John Edwards.
    Pretzel eating contest with George Bush.
    ANSWR rally with Dennis Kucinich.
    Drag party with Rudy Giuliani.
    Staring contest with Nancy Pelosi.
    Proxy baptizing with Mitt Romney (or Harry Reid).
    Parallel parking lessons from Barack Obama.
    Acting lessons from Fred Thompson (or Hillary Clinton).
    Diet tips from Mike Huckabee.
    Sausage eating contest with Denny Hastert.
    Video diagnosis class from Trent Lott.
    Golf tips from Jack Abramoff.
    Refrigerator repair from William Jefferson.
    IM’s from Mark Foley.

  43. “So, Madeleine, what do you say to us finding a more private spot to enjoy the rest of our tea?”

    Aaaaaaaahhhh! Make the hurting stop!!!

  44. Guy Montag: did the “Who’s Who” article claim that she was a CIA operative? Isn’t that the issue? Nobody disputes that Valerie Plame was a person with a name. It’s the whole CIA thing. Jeez.

    RC Dean: I don’t know if it was a hit job as much as an investigation where the prosecutor was lied to and got pissed. It seems more like a personal affair, though admittedly it was pretty stupid for Scooter Libby to lie. Perhaps there’s an innocent explanation, but if the Prez or VP’s office had nothing to do with the leak, why the lies? Is it the same thing as saying Reagan had no idea about funding the Contras, so Ollie North has to get fired and we’ll never really know the truth?

  45. Abdul,

    “If that was so dangerous, how come Richard Armitage–who confessed to being the leaker–wasn’t prosecuted? How come no one was prosecuted for the crime of letting the public know she worked for the CIA?”

    Good question. I’m looking forward to Fitzgerald’s report. I could speculate, but it would be just that.

    FYI, both Fitz and the CIA have stated that she was a covert CIA employee.

  46. “joe | March 22, 2007, 2:42pm | #
    “So, Madeleine, what do you say to us finding a more private spot to enjoy the rest of our tea?”

    Aaaaaaaahhhh! Make the hurting stop!!!”

    as you wish:

    “okay Joseph. Janet will come along to play”

  47. RC, you twit, that was the cowardly troll who’s been posting under my name.

  48. Wait one minute. Andrea Mitchell and Alan Greenspan are married???

  49. I’m going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.

  50. I’m going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.

  51. I’m going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.

  52. I’m going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.

  53. I’m going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.

  54. You can say that again.

  55. -joe

    I wish I had a troll upon whom I could blame posts that I wish I had re-read before hitting Submit.

    I’m not saying you’re guilty of this, but dude, I’d milk it.

  56. You’re absolutely right, joe, but I never thought I’d see you admit that the whole investigation was a political hit job with the purpose of hurting the Bush administration rather than bringing the leaker to justice.

    The leaker was know before Scooter was even interviewed.

    It was like:

    1. Let’s investigate!
    2. First guy: I did it!
    3. We can’t get Bush on that one, let’s keep asking people stuff!
    4. AH HA! That Scooter guy disagrees with that reporter guy!
    5. Kangaroo Grand Jury
    6. Kangaroo Court
    7. Damn! We still don’t have the VP!

  57. I’m going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.

    It gets frustrating when they don’t do anything about it after you point it out.

    This one day I got so desparate . . .

  58. Guy, you legal genius, I’m not sure you’re aware of this, but there isn’t actually any doctrine of “only the first guy could be guilty” in our system of jurisprudence.

  59. “It gets frustrating when they don’t do anything about it after you point it out.”

    Eh. I figure 50 to 100 of my span comments per thread should be a pretty good motivator, either to the pindick thug in question or to the editors.

  60. If this is a non-scandal, why did Scooter Libby lie about it?

    That’s where we get back to Bush’s PR mishaps. Maybe scooter thought he was doing something illegal. Maybe he didn’t want the whole thing thing coming back to him because it was immoral but not illegal. Maybe he really does have a bad memory and Tim Russert chuckles at the idea of putting the innocent in jail.

    The whole mess started because Bush wanted to send the message that Saddam seemed to be pursuing WMD. The message the world got is that Bush employs weaselly liars.

    Big Public Relations SNAFU

  61. “The leaker was know before Scooter was even interviewed.

    It was like:

    1. Let’s investigate!
    2. First guy: I did it!
    3. We can’t get Bush on that one, let’s keep asking people stuff!
    4. AH HA! That Scooter guy disagrees with that reporter guy!
    5. Kangaroo Grand Jury
    6. Kangaroo Court
    7. Damn! We still don’t have the VP!”

    Yeah and that political grandstanding is so much more important than finding the leakers of other classified information who have yet to be prosecuted, like whoever leaked the classified info about the program monitoring international phone calls to or from suspected terrorists.

  62. Abdul,

    The phrase you’re looking for is “If only the czar knew!”

    How about this possibility – Libby lied because blowing the cover of a covert CIA agent is such an appallingly irrepsonsible, corrupt thing to do that he was trying to head off the scandal that would inevitably result from the world finding out about it.

  63. RC, you twit, that was the cowardly troll who’s been posting under my name.

    Well, I moused over to check the email address and it was your usual. Sorry.

    FYI, both Fitz and the CIA have stated that she was a covert CIA employee.

    And there is nothing illegal about disclosing someone is a covert CIA employee unless it meets the very specific requirements of the statute – it was done knowingly, she was posted overseas, etc.

    There is no reason to believe that Armitage’s leak was illegal. The question is, why, since Fitz knew who the leaker was so early in the investigation, he continued to investigate?

    If the leak was illegal, why didn’t he charge Armitage? If the the leak wasn’t illegal, what exactly was he investigating?

  64. RC:

    perhaps there was more than one leaker, and Fitzgerald wanted to investigate thoroughly to confirm or eliminate this possibility

    also, grand juries often have to give immunity from prosecution to get testimony otherwise unavailable due to fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination. perhaps something like that was in play here.

    we’ll know more when Fitzgerald issues his report, unless the whole thing gets redacted.

  65. joe, the whole “blowing Val’s cover is horrifying” thing wears a little thin in light of the facts that (a) she had already been compromised years before (thus no more overseas postings), (b) she went to work at CIA headquarters every day, and (c) her husband made himself a very public figure on the very topic of her CIA work.

    Lets face it – once the Ambassador decided to make a second career out of publicizing his views on WMD in the Mideast, his wife’s covert status as a CIA analyst on WMD had a very short half-life. If we’re looking for moral culpability here, I think you start with him.

  66. The phrase you’re looking for is “If only the czar knew!”

    Just to be clear joe. Are you saying the democratically elected president of the united states is morally equivalent to the pre-revolutionary russion monarch?

    I think you’ve just a new land-speed record for hyperbole here at H&R.

  67. perhaps there was more than one leaker, and Fitzgerald wanted to investigate thoroughly to confirm or eliminate this possibility

    This only works if the leak was illegal, which apparently it wasn’t since Fitz never indicted Armitage.

    The whole investigation was a giant sham. Either the leak was illegal, or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t there should have been no investigation. If it was, why wasn’t Armitage indicted? He was never given immunity, after all.

  68. “Either the leak was illegal, or it wasn’t.”

    I would have loved to see this argument 10 years ago: Either the blowjob was illegal, or it wasn’t.

    Being innocent of the underlying conduct does not give one the right to lie to prosecutors in a criminal investigation.

  69. The whole investigation was a giant sham. Either the leak was illegal, or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t there should have been no investigation. If it was, why wasn’t Armitage indicted? He was never given immunity, after all.

    Exactly right.

    If it was, why wasn’t Armitage indicted?

    Because he does not lead to Cheney, he leads to Powell.

  70. Conspiracy theories, while entertaining, do not give gov’t officials lying power.

  71. But Clinton did it, But there was no underlying crime, But Armitage was the guy, But this was a political prosecution, But this was personal, But Fitzgerald is Irish like the Goddam Kennedys, etc.

    Are there more justifications for lying to prosecutors?

  72. R C,

    I owe you an apology for calling you a twit. I’m sure you can understand why such a thing would make me angry, but I should not have taken it out on you.

    “And there is nothing illegal about disclosing someone is a covert CIA employee unless it meets the very specific requirements of the statute – it was done knowingly, she was posted overseas, etc.”

    Exactly. We now know that she was covert and had very recently been working overseas, which leaves other possibilities. Perhaps Armitage didn’t know her status, for example. And there is the important point about other leakers which, lo and behold, there were, working in tandem, at the direction of Dick Cheney.

    The important point here is that, even if Fitzgerald knew who the intial leaker was, determining whether that action and the dozen or so other overt acts of blowing her cover met those very specific requirements is a task which requires investigation.

    Lifelong Republican and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, after exhaustively investigating the matter for several months, determined that they did not, and that’s good enough for me.

  73. Just to be clear. Bill Clinton provided misleading responses while under oath in a civil action that had nothing to do with his official duties as POTUS. Bill then used the concept of executive priveledge to impede the investigation of his actions in that civil action.

    Scooter Libby lied to investigators about distributing information during political activites when the distribution of that information may or may not have been an actual crime.

    The only common thread between these two events is the overzealous actions of a special prosecutor.

  74. Seriously, RC, we know for certain that this CIA agent’s identity was leaked. We know that, under certain circumstances, that could be a crime.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it is inappropriate to investigate whether those circumstances were met?

  75. It would be nice if there was a rule that anyone caught lying (along with other acts of moral turpitude) couldn’t serve in government. Criminal prosecutions are another story and should follow the usual standards, whatever they are 🙂

    Naturally, this all assumes that we can know the truth, sans bias, spin, and statistics. Good luck with that, right?

    I won’t mention the need for a professional truth seeker, a government bouncer. . .oh, the heck with it. I’m bored with the topic myself.

  76. Dont turn around, uh oh!

    Der Commissar’s in town, uh oh!

    He’s got the power and your so weak

    And your frustrations won’t-a let you speak.

    Ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay.

  77. Lets face it – once the Ambassador decided to make a second career out of publicizing his views on WMD in the Mideast, his wife’s covert status as a CIA analyst on WMD had a very short half-life. If we’re looking for moral culpability here, I think you start with him.

    That was beautiful.

    A covert operative’s cover is blown in an act of petty revenge against her husband for being critical of the war… and it’s the husband’s fault.

    Judges?

    10/10! World class mental gymnastics!

  78. Val,

    Call me.

  79. call me, call me, anytime, call me

  80. Those of us with an emotional attachment to this country and its well-being actually do consider the anonymity of covert agents working to protect as from foreign enemies precious.

    But only if it embarrasses the eeeeeeevil Bush Administration. If it doesn’t, then the CIA is, of course, doing nothing but meticulously grooming new Blowtorch Bobs to torture thousands upon thousands of peaceful third-world revolutionaries.

    You’re as fake as you are partisan, joe.

  81. “But only if it embarrasses the eeeeeeevil Bush Administration.”

    That is a BS statement. I don’t know any lefties who think that CIA agents are inherently evil, and I live in a very, very blue area. They view them as dedicated civil servants and probably wonder if they have a union. Please stop confusing the left-wing ideas of a 19-year-old college freshman with real politics.

  82. Loundry,

    Wow, you’re not nearly as good at figuring out my motivations and feelings as I am yours.

    What is this, 1977? I’m supposed to hate the CIA because I’m a Democrat? Whatever.

  83. Lamar,

    When I was a freshman in college, I actually signed a petition to have the CIA officer in residence thrown off the GWU campus. Because I was so rebellious and progressive, you see.

    Then I turned 18.

    Loundry, are you still in college?

  84. ATTENTION REASON HIT & RUN FANS

    Akira MacKenzie, H&R’s lovable “Village Atheist,” sci-fi geek, and bipolar curmudgeon would like to have lunch with YOU… for a reasonable fee.

    –Hear his blunt, in-your-face, buffalo-style outlook on matters of religion, philosophy, and politics… whether you want to or not.

    –Discuss and test his nearly limitless knowledge of pop culture and obscure facts until your nauseous.

    –Or just shut up and bask in the genius that is Akira MacKenzie you insignificant worm!

    Send $1000* in small, unmarked bills to PO Box 5555, Foggy Bottom, WI, 53555 and maybe–just maybe–he can slip you in for a burger an McDonalds… your treat.

    *Attractive females between the ages of 18-25 can apply for a discounted rate provided they attend a private two hour reception after the luncheon at an undisclosed Motel 6 room. Party favors will be provided. No fat chicks.

    NO REFUNDS.

  85. Akira: you *ARE* the man!

  86. With all of this leaking going on around Washington, I think I finally understand why the Metro system smells like piss so often.

  87. Yo #6
    I was making fun of her covert status, if I’m not mistaken it was a default designation …she was a pencil pusher and if she was in danger from the disclosure of her name/status, why hasn’t she been wacked…where’s the danger

  88. And your frustrations won’t-a let you speak.

    joe,

    You’ve come up with another reason to institute the Office of the Censor–he’ll/they’ll terrorize DC so much that everyone will shut their traps. Ah, the silence alone would make it all worth while.

    The first Chief Censor simply must have a German accent. . .or at least the ability to fake it. “Vhere are der papers, Frau Speaker?”

    Akira,

    Offer to take your donors to the McDonald’s on 17th Street–the one Clinton famously used to eat at. It’s like sleeping in the Lincoln bed. . .but with Hit & Run’s Akira!

  89. Was I the only one who looked at the picture and imagined Joe Wilson asking, “Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?”

  90. If I buy one of these lunches, I’m going to ask Val repeatedly if she ever slept with James Bond.

  91. And I’ll sing the “Spy Who Loved Me” throughout the meal.

  92. But only if it embarrasses the eeeeeeevil Bush Administration. If it doesn’t, then the CIA is, of course, doing nothing but meticulously grooming new Blowtorch Bobs to torture thousands upon thousands of peaceful third-world revolutionaries.

    People whose sole political principle is “my party good, other party bad” tend to assume that everyone thinks that way.

  93. “But only if it embarrasses the eeeeeeevil Bush Administration.”

    Tsk Tsk.

    Now, you know that the liberal democrats are seriously and sincerely concerned about our national security.

    Why just look at the way they’ve equally denounced the leaking of classified info about that NSA international phone call surveilance program and have been equally as vigorous in demanding any and all leakers who revealed the info about it be found and prosecuted as they have done about the Plame affair.

    Oh wait, — never mind.

  94. “It gets frustrating when they don’t do anything about it after you point it out.”

    We’ve still keeping an eye on you, David.

  95. Why just look at the way they’ve equally denounced the leaking of classified info about that NSA international phone call surveilance program and have been equally as vigorous in demanding any and all leakers who revealed the info about it be found and prosecuted as they have done about the Plame affair

    And the Pentagon Papers guy should be in jail, too!!!

    Because there is no difference between whistle-blowing of potentially illegal activity and leaking for political attacks.

    All leaks are created equal.

  96. Illegal Big Brother spying on citizens without warrants, the covert status of a CIA employee – six of one, half dozen of the other.

  97. Haven’t read all the above comments yet, so pardon me if I’m repeating here:

    These two are gigantic media whores who have zero credibility. Based on her behavior over the past couple years, being “outed” was probably the happiest day of Valery Plame’s life. She and Joe “I forgot to mention I ran into Iraq’s official uranium negotiator” Wilson can spend the rest of their lives trying to get their names and faces in every media outlet in the world to talk about the damage done to them by having her name mentioned in a media outlet, and there will be those lining up to applaud them. This is a goddamned farce.

    Yeah, a little vitriolic, I know. But they’re selling fucking dinners!? No matter where you stand on the whole “scandal”, you’ve got to think this is getting absurd. Considering their whole beef in the first place, my irony meter is about to overload.

  98. Yeah, Dave, and have seen how rich and famous John Walsh has gotten since his son Adam was murdered?

    Best thing that ever happened to him, I say.

  99. Hmm, I wonder what people who worked with Valerie Plame have to say about her work.

    http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

  100. “Yeah, Dave, and have seen how rich and famous John Walsh has gotten since his son Adam was murdered?”

    Is it even worth explaining how ridiculous that is?

  101. Is it even worth explaining how ridiculous that is?

    Yes it is, because I can’t see any fault in dragging out dead sons to make a political point.

  102. Rather than risk getting into an argument with Fake Joe, I’m opting out of this one.
    And if we do that, the Fake Joes win.

  103. “She and Joe “I forgot to mention I ran into Iraq’s official uranium negotiator” Wilson…”

    Don’t denigrate the other half of the team – Valerie “Some guy just passing by my desk was the one who suggested Joe go to Niger” is no slouch in the whopper department herself.

  104. “Rather than risk getting into an argument with Fake Joe, I’m opting out of this one.”

    Heh, there aren’t any real Joes.

    They’re all fake.

  105. So you’re saying “Joe” is just a generic name for the representation of the collective lefty partisan conciousness? He’s the Borg Queen of blue states?

  106. I love it that I’m so intimidating to argue against that people have to impersonate me to try to make me look bad.

    How many of you have your own internet stalkers? I’m up to at least two.

  107. If I buy one of these lunches, I’m going to ask Val repeatedly if she ever slept with James Bond.

    I’ll affect a British accent and ask her “So, shall we shag now or shag later? YEAH BABY!!!”

    But then some evil bald guy will interrupt our meal. Oops.

  108. Wow, I can’t believe I’m actually eating lunch with you two! OhMyGodOhMyGodOhMyGod!

    Can I ask you something?

    What’s Lawrence Eagleberger REALLY like?

  109. I love it that I’m so intimidating to argue against that people have to impersonate me to try to make me look bad.

    You do well enough on your own.

  110. When I was a freshman in college, I actually signed a petition to have the CIA officer in residence thrown off the GWU campus. Because I was so rebellious and progressive, you see.

    Then I turned 18.

    It’s nice to see you admit that the heart of “progressive” politics comes from the ignorant idealism of whining college students. If only more of your “progressive” ilk would have such rare moments of candor. (Those scare quotes are EARNED and I will not deny you them.)

    What about turning 18 makes the CIA palatable? Oh, that’s right, it really has nothing to do with the CIA. They’re just a tool in your toolbox of embarrassing the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Bush Administration.

    Again, you’re as fake as you are partisan, joe.

  111. “You do well enough on your own.”

    Apparently not, given how many “not joe” comments you feel the need to post.

    Loundy,

    I turned 18 under a Republican president. Which pretty much makes the rest of your point about me fall apart. As usual.

    I matter waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too much to you.

  112. That is a BS statement. I don’t know any lefties who think that CIA agents are inherently evil, and I live in a very, very blue area.

    How unconvincing. Demonizing anyone resisting communism is a long-standing “progressive” tradition. This notion of “standing up for the CIA” and “standing up for America” (that statement to “progressives” is like garlic to a vampire) is very recent in “progressive” circles, and only because it embarrasses the eeeeeeeeeeevil Bush Administration.

    They view them as dedicated civil servants and probably wonder if they have a union.

    Painting them as victims of the eeeeeeevil Bush Administration makes them palatable to “progressives”. They need a union! But when it comes to the distasteful war in Afghanistan, which many “progressives” hate, there’s not much love for the CIA, is there? Be honest. Go visit joo-hating Daiy Kos and tell me what you find. (Cue “anti-Israel is not anti-Semitic” talking point.)

    Please stop confusing the left-wing ideas of a 19-year-old college freshman with real politics.

    If you consider the heavily-pandered-to “netroots” to be “19 year old college freshmen” then you better keep a low profile. Those “progressives” are hateful and vengeful, and any Democrat who fails to lick their toes faces their wrath. I’m guessing you’re a Hillary voter. (Maybe you’re even a *Lieberman* voter! You’d be in big trouble…)

  113. I turned 18 under a Republican president. Which pretty much makes the rest of your point about me fall apart. As usual.

    Non sequitur.

    Again, thanks for admitting that your politics come from stupid, rich college brats. It’s nice of you. 🙂

    I matter waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too much to you.

    Likewise!

  114. “But when it comes to the distasteful war in Afghanistan….” The one virtually every liberal in Congress voted for?

    Loundry believes everyone left of center is a radical leftist.

    Once again, Loundry, are you still in college?

    “Again, thanks for admitting that your politics come from stupid, rich college brats.”

    My FORMER politics. I’m going to narrow it down – Loundry, are you a college freshman taking a remedial literacy course?

  115. Loundry believes everyone left of center is a radical leftist.

    Wow, you’re not nearly as good at figuring out my motivations and feelings as I am yours.

    My REAL thought is that no one who is left-of-center refuses to repudiate and exclude the radical leftists. They’re completely welcome under the “progressive” umbrella. Apologists for North Korea? Anyone but Bush, right?

    My FORMER politics.

    I see. Care to detail how much of your “former” politics you now regard as evil? I’m curious.

  116. Loundry,

    No, I don’t care to have a discussion with you.

    You are rude, and incapable of discussing ideas.

  117. “How many of you have your own internet stalkers? I’m up to at least two.” – joe

    Wow, are you really that desperate for attention? If so, it certainly throws a whole new light on why you spend so much time here despite the number of rhetorical beat-downs you take.

  118. “Wow, are you really that desperate for attention?”

    Nah, it’s just the risk you take when you have the stones to discuss politics in a community where you’re the minority.

    Some people cannot tolerate anything more intellectually challenging than a mutual admiration society.

    Sad, really.

  119. joe,

    That’s sad, because I finally thought that our discussion was getting somewhere. You admitted that some of your “progressive” ideology was wrong (maybe even “evil”, but we didn’t get that far), and I was hoping that you would explain how much of it you had repudiated and why. This is important because, unlike most everything else you write, it appeared to be honest.

    And I want to be especially clear about this because it’s the reason why I mock you so heavily. I think you are a partisan; meaning, you are loyal to your team in spite of all facts and reason. This the very nature of being “fully committed” to your team: if you would be swayed away from your team by facts or reasoning, then how “loyal” are you, really?

    That’s why I call you “fake”. Your arguments aren’t real. They’re designed to destroy the “bad guys”, not at finding out facts and achieving greater understanding. If you’re welcome here, then I see no reason why Bush-worshipping Christian Coalition partisans shouldn’t also be welcome as well. You and they are two sides of the same coin: fully committed to the team.

    It’s also unfair of you to say that I’m not capable of discussing ideas while at the same time seeming much more interested in ad hominem attacks than you are about answering substantive questions, such as whether or not it is true that left-of-center people refuse to repudiate and exclude the radical left in the same way that right-of-center people (such as Bill O’Reilly, for instance) have repudiated and excluded the Ku Klux Klan. In that respect, O’Reilly has more honor than you do because he’s interested in kicking out the extremist nutcases wheres the left-of-center seem to embrace their own extremist nutcases because they, mujahedin and all, are somehow less evil than the pig Bush.

    I’m gay, and I think you suck. I really, really think “progressives” are pathetic losers.

  120. “it certainly throws a whole new light on why you spend so much time here despite the number of rhetorical beat-downs you take.”

    Heh, he spends so much time in here because it’s the only place he can mouth off to other people and get away with it.

    In the real world, he’d be squashed in about 5 seconds.

  121. “Because there is no difference between whistle-blowing of potentially illegal activity and leaking for political attacks.

    All leaks are created equal.”

    LOL, potentially illegal activity, eh?
    That’s just your opinion – not a fact.

    Classiffied information is classified information.

    There’s no particular reason why I should accept your personal opinions as the nature and value to national security (or the legality) of the activity, person or program being classified.

    You certainly can’t prove that Plame’s pencil pushing desk job at CIA headquarters was any more valuable to national security than the NSA program.

  122. “This is important because, unlike most everything else you write, it appeared to be honest.”

    And this is why I’m not bothering with you.

  123. Gil,

    Tough talk for a guy who won’t even type an email address.

    Wussy.

  124. “I really, really think “progressives” are pathetic losers.”

    I’m sorry, Loundry, you were saying something about ad homenim attacks and “my-team vs. the other guys” partisanship?

    LOL.

  125. I’m sorry, Loundry, you were saying something about ad homenim attacks and “my-team vs. the other guys” partisanship?

    You caved pretty quickly on the “I’m not bothering with you”. It’s a shining testament to my irresistability, or to your “progressive” weakness, both of which are legendary.

    What is my team, joe? How can I be partisan when I don’t have a team? Something tells me you wouldn’t be so critical of me if I were to write, “I think fundamentalist Christians are pathetic losers”. Would that be a kind of partisanship that you decry?

    (Yes, it’s true that I think fundamentalist Christians are pathetic losers. “Progressives” are even worse, though.)

  126. I think you have a lot of prejudice, a lot of anger, and very few interesting ideas.

  127. ‘You caved pretty quickly on the “I’m not bothering with you”.’

    You misunderstand; mocking and insulting you isn’t a bother. More of a pleasent distraction.

    Trying to have a useful discussion with you about ideas would be a bother.

  128. Some people cannot tolerate anything more intellectually challenging than a mutual admiration society.

    it should be about the learning. Like me & T.!

  129. Seriously, RC, we know for certain that this CIA agent’s identity was leaked. We know that, under certain circumstances, that could be a crime.

    Are you seriously suggesting that it is inappropriate to investigate whether those circumstances were met?

    Not at all.

    But I am pointing out that Fitzgerald knew very early in his investigation exactly who the leaker was, and apparently concluded that no crime was committed because he never charged the leaker.

    Having concluded that the leak was not illegal, as he must have done since he never charged the person who made the leak, just what was he investigating, again?

  130. I think you have a lot of prejudice, a lot of anger, and very few interesting ideas.

    Prejudice? Pot, kettle, black.

    Anger? Pot, kettle, black.

    A very few interesting ideas? Nice opinion!

    You misunderstand; mocking and insulting you isn’t a bother. More of a pleasent distraction.

    What, a “progressive” finding joy in being mocking and insulting? You are a rare bird indeed! Typically, “progressives” are so kind, forgiving, uplifting, and chock-full-of-humor. You have defied the “progressive” stereotype once again.

    Trying to have a useful discussion with you about ideas would be a bother.

    Yes, it would be a bother for you to reveal exactly what parts of your “progressive” politics you have repudiated. That is one of your ideas that I have a great deal of interest in. Why not reveal it?

    And why not say why left-of-center folks refuse to expel the radical left from the “progressive” agenda like Bill O’Reilly eschews the Ku Klux Klan? Wouldn’t it be classy of “progressives” to hold the extreme left in scorn, particularly after you have admitted that you left them and their stupid, juvenile politics in the dust?

    I can see why those kinds of discussions aren’t of any interest to you: they wouldn’t serve to make your team look good. Hence, it’s a waste of time for a partisan like you.

  131. Loundry:

    My bad, I thought you were serious with your eeeeeevil Bush Administration stuff. Heck, if progressives were really like your sketch of them, I’d be disgusted too. Fortunately, I live in NYC, know 100’s of liberals, and none over the age of 20 that think the way you describe it.

  132. Ahhh, I see. You are using “progressives” to refer only to the radical, shrill left. That isn’t really accurate. I understand if you want to paint with a broad brush, make all lefties out to be radicals, but you should know that only Bill O’Reilly makes that mistake (and intentionally).

  133. “Gil,

    “Tough talk for a guy who won’t even type an email address.”

    Just telling it like it is. You are the one who has been incessently spouting off in every thread in here for years, not me.

    The ONLY reason for such behavior is the one I stated.

    And e-mail addresses have nothing to do with it.

    “Wussy.”

    Nope.

    You are the liberal – not me.

  134. R C,

    “But I am pointing out that Fitzgerald knew very early in his investigation exactly who the leaker was, and apparently concluded that no crime was committed because he never charged the leaker.”

    1. There was more than one leaker, as has been amply documented. There is no “we only charge the first guy” doctrine in our legal system when dealing with a group effort.

    2. Knowing that Armitage leaked is not the same thing as knowing whether his leaking violated the law. Once his identity was know, Fitzgerald had to look into whether the other requirements for a charge were met, and this required an investigation.

  135. Loundry,

    I don’t give a shit what you think about me, about progressives, about liberals, about the difference between the two, or about who is denouncing whom.

    I’ve had interesting discussions with decent human beings with brains in their heads about where far-lefties go wrong. I have no interest in having such conversations with the likes of you.

  136. Does anyone else get the sense that the Bush apologists had their “Patrick Fitzgerald is a partisan fanatic” talking points ready for an expected mass indictment, and are working a little too hard to apply them to the actual situation?

    We’re supposed to believe that Fitzgerald’s very restraint in only issuing one indictment, and none at all on the charge of blowing an agent’s cover, is evidence of his irresponsible, partisan behavior.

    And yet can there be any doubt that R C Dean would be calling him exactly the same names if he’d issued half a dozen indictments on the cover-blowing?

  137. Ahhh, I see. You are using “progressives” to refer only to the radical, shrill left.

    Wrong. I am using “progressives” sardonically, but also as the umbrella group that includes your effete, manicured upper-west-side friends and also the peaceful-yet-violent radical left whom your snobby friends either pretend don’t exist or pretend are plants by Karl Rove, but either way still regard as one-million times less evil than the Pig Bush.

    Let me make it clear: disown the radical left much like the right has disowned the Klan, and I will stop grouping you along with the radical left.

    you should know that only Bill O’Reilly makes that mistake

    It goes far beyond BOR and you know it, and it’s not a mistake. If you accept the support of the radical left and regard them as less evil than the Pig Bush, then you ARE the far left. And the same goes for the right and the KKK: if the right accepts the support of the KKK and regards them as less evil than John Kerry, the the right IS the KKK. I have seen mainstream Conservative writers and politicans denouncing the Klan, but I rarely, if ever, see any “progressive”, anywhere, utter a peep about the radical left, except to say that they are a plant by Karl Rove when their disgusting antics are revealed on the Internet.

  138. I’ve had interesting discussions with decent human beings with brains in their heads about where far-lefties go wrong. I have no interest in having such conversations with the likes of you.

    The reason I come off as “the likes of you” is because you have been a consistenly insulting and mocking “progressive” bastard on this board. It doesn’t mean that I can’t have an intelligent conversation; it just means that I don’t suffer fools, particularly when they’re being foolish. When you push, I tend to push right back. I can’t claim to be better than you in this regard.

    So I propose that we wipe the slate clean and forgive each other, and perhaps we can have a real conversation. All I ask of you have to do is turn off the mockery and insults and answer two questions, and I will become as docile as a kitten.

    1. Why won’t you condemn and exclude the far left? (Something along the lines of, “International ANSWER does not belong in the progressive movement” would go far with me.)

    2. What parts of your far-left ideology have you repudiated and why?

  139. Hey, I know this game!

    Why don’t you (liberals, Muslims, whatever) denounce the radicals?

    We do, look here and here hand here.

    Yeah, but why don’t you denounce them MORE?

    Well, look, what do you want-

    Hey, all I know is that I NEVER hear you people denounce them, so that shows that you’re one yourself!

  140. Loundry,

    What part of “I don’t want to to talk about Jehovah with you. Get off my porch,” don’t you understand?

  141. joe,

    I was serious about wiping the slate clean. Snark off, sarcasm off.

    I know the game you’ve mentioned because I suffer from it all the time. I’m a gay man, and I constantly have to cope with the fact that I’m pigeon-holed into “gay culture” by other, more prominent gay people. I don’t talk like that, live in the “gay ghetto”, reflexively vote Democrat, etc. I have to denounce the freaks prancing in the odious “gay pride” parade because I do not want to be associated with them. And if I don’t make a point of denouncing them, then people automatically assume that I consider the denizens of the “United Gay Fisters” float to be my “bretheren”. It sucks, but it’s a fact of life.

    That’s not the game I’m playing with you. The behavior that I see from many liberals is that they rail and agitate over Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove as if they are pure, unmitigated evil. And these same people say nothing, nothing at all about International ANSWER or CAIR or many other disgusting groups which are, at times, allied with many people in the left-of-center camp.

    What conclusion am I supposed to draw from that? It appears to me that you think Bush is worse than International ANSWER and CAIR. It appears to me that you think that defending the North Korean shithole is a lesser crime than supporting the Bush administration. I don’t support Bush; in fact, I think he’s a lousy president. But I would agitate against North Korea one hundred times before I would ever agitate against Bush.

    I need your help on this one, joe.

  142. “Nah, it’s just the risk you take when you have the stones to discuss politics in a community where you’re the minority.” – joe

    Stones? Dude, a guy with stones doesn’t base his manhood on anonymous internet arguments.

    “Some people cannot tolerate anything more intellectually challenging than a mutual admiration society. Sad, really.” – joe

    That would be sad, if it were true of most of the regular posters here. It’s obviously not.

    But equally sad is the kind of guy who spends his time gadflying for negative attention and talking tough on message boards about his “stones.” I thought you were at least more grown-up than that…

  143. “””How much to spend a night snorting coke with Roger Clinton?”””

    Free as long as you supply the coke

  144. Loundry:

    Just to clarify, what is the left wing equivalent to the KKK? If it is the commies, then I would say unequivocally that no major left winger supports communism. But what is the left wing version of the KKK?

    It seems like you’re saying that you are going to lump in the radical shrill left in with center-lefties because the center-lefties don’t do enough to distance themselves from the shrill. I don’t really buy that. Has the right distanced itself from its base of fundamentalist rednecks? Nope. Do I call modern Republicans “neocons”? Nope. I am against this sloppy use of language. It seems to me that many people are trying to change the meaning of words by erroneous repitition. If I say that progressives favor communism when really just a few hippie potheads up on vermont do, then maybe the word progressive will be a bad word one day, just like the transformation of the word liberal. I don’t know about that. Why not use the most accurate word?

  145. Modern republicans = moderate republicans.

  146. Remember all that brew ha ha about investigating leaks. Bush said he would fire anyone leaking in his administration. Now many of the same people that was crying for leak investigations are now crying to pardon a man found guilty of lying about his part in a leak.

    If you “read” into their stance, now their problem is not with leaks, but if the leak was legal or not. Libby committed no crime (prior to lying) so it’s all good.

    What happened to that we must investigate and prosecute all leaks crowd?

    The reality is, all administrations leak, the press relies on it. No administration or member of the press is really interested in making it stop.

    I am still amazed by how many people are defending someone who lied to a grand jury. Why do these people love liars?

  147. It seems like you’re saying that you are going to lump in the radical shrill left in with center-lefties because the center-lefties don’t do enough to distance themselves from the shrill. I don’t really buy that.

    All I would really like to hear from you is something like this: “I can’t claim to speak for all liberals, but I reject the far-left and they do not belong in my camp.” I’d like to hear a lot more liberals say that, but, instead, I hear a lot of bitter, raging hate for “Chimpy McBushitler”. And I’ve heard that raw hate incessently since 2000. Liberals are more hateful toward Bush than Conservative Rednecks are towards gays, and I should know: I’m a gay who lives among Conservative Rednecks and has done so for years without incident.

    I think hating Bush has become a comfortable pasttime for many liberals, and I think that liberals underestimate the damage it has done to their repuatation. When someone says, “I’m a proud liberal”, I do NOT hear someone saying, “I stand against racism and fight against injustice.” Instead, I hear, “I am a seething, vengeful, hateful bastard!” That is what “liberal” means to me nowadays.

    Has the right distanced itself from its base of fundamentalist rednecks? Nope.

    Of course not. There’s only about 100 million of them, so they can’t afford to. Furthermore, many of these people have learned to stuff their racist feelings because they know that overt expressions of racism is politically incorrect. (This is a kind of political correctness I actually like.) The right has, on the other hand, openly eschewed groups like Fred Phelps (but they liked him when he was only attacking gays), the Klan, and white power groups. This is good and it shows the right’s willingness to move toward the center and exclude the groups which promote violence and hate — at least openly.

    And that’s what I’d like to see happen on the left. You can start by telling me how much you think International ANSWER sucks. I would really like to hear that from a whole bunch of liberals, I really would. I think it would go far to repair the left’s awful reputation.

    But what is the left wing version of the KKK?

    The closest equivalent would be anyone that has anything to do with Jihad or the Mujahedin. The worst thing that liberals have done has been their uncritical support for the evil religion of Islam, especially since Islam is anti-woman and anti-gay. Those are two things that liberals are supposed to stand up for, and they wipe their asses with women and gays in the name of supporting “multiculturalism”.

    But the evil done in the name of Jihad absolutely dwarfs that done by the present-day KKK, which, by comparison, is a joke.

  148. Hi Loundry,

    As a non-leftist who despises the Bush administration, I would say that the Bush administration is worth fighting against more than ANSWER is because the Bush administration is in power. ANSWER most probably never will be.

    Of course, that doesn’t excuse “progressives” from ignorantly aligning themselves with a group as execrable as ANSWER, it just means we can afford to ignore ANSWER, but we can’t afford to ignore the Bush administration.

  149. What’s wrong with CAIR? I absolutely think Bush and Cheney are worse than CAIR.

    As for ANSWER, I’ve dissed them on this very board before.

    And you know what, Loundry? Dissing Chimpy McBushitler isn’t even remotely an expression of support for North Korea, communist politics, jihadist Islam, or Ba’athism. It’s an expresion of contempt for George Bush.

    “When someone says, “I’m a proud liberal”, I do NOT hear someone saying, “I stand against racism and fight against injustice.” Instead, I hear, “I am a seething, vengeful, hateful bastard!” That is what “liberal” means to me nowadays.” That’s your problem.

  150. Les,

    Thank you for your reply.

    Certainly ANSWER has less power than the Bush administration, so you have a good point.

    Getting the liberals here to condemn ANSWER was, in my words, “a start”. I think that Jihad groups (and there are many, many of them) are much, much more dangerous than the Bush Administration, and we should stand up to them first as they have tremendous power and hate all of us.

    But getting liberals to even acknowledge that jihad exists is a huge leap for them. Baby steps. Many of them still believe that Muslims become suicide bombers because of “poverty” or “imperialism”. It’s going to take a lot of cognitive dissonance for those lies to be shattered, particularly when the specter of white guilt is so pervasive in the liberal mind.

  151. I absolutely think Bush and Cheney are worse than CAIR.

    I’m not surprised to hear that. I would like to hear your explanations as to why you think that the Bush Administration is worse than CAIR.

    And you know what, Loundry? Dissing Chimpy McBushitler isn’t even remotely an expression of support for North Korea, communist politics, jihadist Islam, or Ba’athism. It’s an expresion of contempt for George Bush.

    It’s not just a single expression, though. It’s been 24/7, non-stop Bush Hate since 2000 with nary a peep about North Korea. This is why I think many liberals think that Bush is worse than North Korea.

    As for ANSWER, I’ve dissed them on this very board before.

    I know. I saw some of your other statements about that evil organization in another thread. Naturally, I would have liked to have seen you be more critical, but you and I have different values, so I’ll take what I can get. It was seeing those words of yours that inspired me to take a different tone with you.

    That’s your problem.

    If millions of people see you as an apologist for North Korea and Shari’a, then you’ve got a big image problem. I see the moderate right trying to expunge the Klan from their ranks, and I wish the moderate left (that’s you, correct?) would follow suit.

  152. Loundry,

    CAIR hasn’t hurt anyone. They haven’t started any wars, justified torture, or used their podium to turn Americans against eath other. None of these things can be said about Bush or Cheney.

    But there’s a bigger point I want to make.

    None of the energy you expend dissing radical gay men to get into the good graces of your redneck neighbors does a damn thing to change their minds about gay people. It merely confirms their belief that most gay men really are as vile as perverse as their prejudices suggest – even that nice Loundry says so, and he’s gay. But he’s one of the good ones.

    We convince prejudiced people of the decency of people like us by living decently, not by jumping through hoops to convince them that we’re not like those bad ones.

    Every racist I’ve ever met has a patter down to explain the difference between black people and niggers. I see absolutely no value in confriming that belief system.

    No hate, Loundry, and no judgement. You’re dealing with challenges – I’ll go so far as to say dangers – that I’ll never know, and you’ve gotta do what you’ve gotta to keep yourself safe and sane. But that doesn’t make it a virtue.

  153. “What’s wrong with CAIR? I absolutely think Bush and Cheney are worse than CAIR…CAIR hasn’t hurt anyone. They haven’t started any wars, justified torture, or used their podium to turn Americans against eath other. None of these things can be said about Bush or Cheney.” – joe

    joe officially jumps the shark again? I mean, what could possibly be wrong with an organization that openly aligns itself with Hamas, supports terrorism, etc?

    Here’s a quick fly-by of CAIR criticism from the Wikipedia entry:

    “CAIR has received criticism from a number of both governmental and non-governmental sources, for actions it has taken and people and organizations it has been involved with.
    The greatest source of criticism has involved CAIR’s ties to terrorism and terrorist groups.[9][10][11][12][13][14] As of 2006, at least four former CAIR officials have been charged with terrorism-related offenses. Critics claim CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, which is alleged to be a “front group” for Hamas.[15]
    Critics have also taken aim at CAIR’s fundraising and sources of funds. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR’s website solicited donations for what it called the “NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund.”[16] However, clicking on the donation link led to a website for donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF). It was later designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union and U.S., and shut down by the U.S. government.
    CAIR has also been accused of doctoring photographs and reporting fraudulent statistics about the Muslim population of the United States in support of its own private agenda. Finally, another source of criticism is that CAIR attempts to suppress criticism of Islamic terrorism and intolerance through accusations of racism and anti-Muslim bias.
    Investor’s Business Daily publicly condemned CAIR as being “the PR machine of militant Islam” after CAIR “dispatched its henchmen” to try to shut down the first Secular Islam Summit. [10]
    Among the numerous books donated to libraries in CAIR’s “library project” was former congressman Paul Findley’s ‘Silent No More’, which includes positive statements about convicted terrorist Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi.[17]

    Even disputed as these criticism are, it doesn’t bother joe in the slightest to say that he thinks guys with those sorts of connections are better than Bush & Cheney.

    Sad? Hate is even more blinding than partisanship, joe.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.