Conservatism is Dead!
Wall of Shame: Let's have a hand for John Tierney.
posted Tuesday, 1 November 2005
Treason apologist John Tierney makes basic factual errors in today's New York Times Op-ed page in his continued desperate attempts to close the Plame floodgate. This is what happens when a reporter places party ideology over basic facts. Unlike Nicholas Kristof, who did the responsible thing and recognized that this is a serious matter, Tierney continues to have his head in a world of Republican fantasy. If you hear a giant sucking sound, that is his credibility going down the drain. This places Tierney straight into my wall of shame.
First, he cheers the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, as he seems to think this will bring closure to the case. But I call it something else -- denial. Tierney is like the masses under Communism who think things will get better in 1935 since 1934 could be no worse. Then, when things don't get any better in 1935, they say the same thing about 1936. Fitzgerald has specifically said that Rove remains under investigation; this is straight from his press conference.
Then, Tierney tries to smear Fitzgerald as a partisan operative, saying that Fitz prosecuted Libby because he is a Republican, not a Democrat. But, in fact, Fitzgerald is a Republican and appointed by a Republican AG's staff; does this mean that John Ashcroft is suddenly a Democrat? Does this mean that Fitzgerald is a Republican for going after Mayor Dailey's people and a Democrat for going after the Bush administration? This is doublethink, not objective news analysis.
Tierney then goes on to quote Samuel Gross, a law professor at Michigan, as saying that perjury cases were rare. But that just makes my point for me in showing how serious this case is. The fact that this case is rare means that the lies found were blatant, that they obstructed Fitzgerald from finding the truth, and that they had a partisan political motive in ensuring the reelection of George Bush.
Tierney then expresses incredulity in wondering how Joe Wilson needed only eight days to discover that there was no uranium in Niger. But first of all, Wilson had extensive experience and contacts in Niger, which was why he was selected in the first place. Secondly of all, every single Uranium mine in Niger was heavily monitored by the IAEA, which means they would have raised the alarm with the world if they had detected anything unusual. This was pointed out by Wilson in his rebuttal; if Tierney wants to advance the discussion, then let him address that issue.
The fact that Wilson only needed eight days to determine the lack of evidence involving uranium sales to Iraq again makes my point for me. The case was so obvious that no reasonable person with knowledge of the area could conclude that there were uranium sales.
Tierney then engages in another case of right-wing doublethink. He admits that there Wilson brought back "scant evidence." But then he says that "scant evidence" bolstered the case for uranium sales to Iraq. That is yet another example of doublethink. You can't say that there is scant evidence, but that it bolsters your case. The reasonable thing to do in that situation would have been to send Wilson back, if you think he told something worth pursuing.
Then, Tierney engages in an ad homenim attack when he slams Plame for posing in Vanity Fair. Big deal. Anybody can do that if they can't answer the arguments. And the problem is, Plame's name was not at issue. Everybody knew her name. The secret was the fact that she worked as a NOC for the CIA. And telling the identity of an NOC to a person not authorized to recieve it is a felony under Sections 793 and 794.
Tierney then asks why Plame represented the CIA in meetings with other agencies? The problem is that the people at these agencies had security clearances that allowed them to recieve classified information. The media was not. Big difference.
Finally, Tierney rests by quoting what he thinks is the most thoughtful analysis of the case in some friend-of-the-court briefs during the Miller case. But I call them the most ignorant. They provide no evidence that the CIA was somehow cavalier about protecting her and that they are covering up their own shortcomings. And even if that is the case, that brief ignores the specific law that addresses this issue. It is called Section 793. Google and Findlaw are their friends. I suggest Tierney use Findlaw and Google before he can talk about Plamegate with any kind of credibility.
First, he cheers the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, as he seems to think this will bring closure to the case. But I call it something else -- denial. Tierney is like the masses under Communism who think things will get better in 1935 since 1934 could be no worse. Then, when things don't get any better in 1935, they say the same thing about 1936. Fitzgerald has specifically said that Rove remains under investigation; this is straight from his press conference.
Then, Tierney tries to smear Fitzgerald as a partisan operative, saying that Fitz prosecuted Libby because he is a Republican, not a Democrat. But, in fact, Fitzgerald is a Republican and appointed by a Republican AG's staff; does this mean that John Ashcroft is suddenly a Democrat? Does this mean that Fitzgerald is a Republican for going after Mayor Dailey's people and a Democrat for going after the Bush administration? This is doublethink, not objective news analysis.
Tierney then goes on to quote Samuel Gross, a law professor at Michigan, as saying that perjury cases were rare. But that just makes my point for me in showing how serious this case is. The fact that this case is rare means that the lies found were blatant, that they obstructed Fitzgerald from finding the truth, and that they had a partisan political motive in ensuring the reelection of George Bush.
Tierney then expresses incredulity in wondering how Joe Wilson needed only eight days to discover that there was no uranium in Niger. But first of all, Wilson had extensive experience and contacts in Niger, which was why he was selected in the first place. Secondly of all, every single Uranium mine in Niger was heavily monitored by the IAEA, which means they would have raised the alarm with the world if they had detected anything unusual. This was pointed out by Wilson in his rebuttal; if Tierney wants to advance the discussion, then let him address that issue.
The fact that Wilson only needed eight days to determine the lack of evidence involving uranium sales to Iraq again makes my point for me. The case was so obvious that no reasonable person with knowledge of the area could conclude that there were uranium sales.
Tierney then engages in another case of right-wing doublethink. He admits that there Wilson brought back "scant evidence." But then he says that "scant evidence" bolstered the case for uranium sales to Iraq. That is yet another example of doublethink. You can't say that there is scant evidence, but that it bolsters your case. The reasonable thing to do in that situation would have been to send Wilson back, if you think he told something worth pursuing.
Then, Tierney engages in an ad homenim attack when he slams Plame for posing in Vanity Fair. Big deal. Anybody can do that if they can't answer the arguments. And the problem is, Plame's name was not at issue. Everybody knew her name. The secret was the fact that she worked as a NOC for the CIA. And telling the identity of an NOC to a person not authorized to recieve it is a felony under Sections 793 and 794.
Tierney then asks why Plame represented the CIA in meetings with other agencies? The problem is that the people at these agencies had security clearances that allowed them to recieve classified information. The media was not. Big difference.
Finally, Tierney rests by quoting what he thinks is the most thoughtful analysis of the case in some friend-of-the-court briefs during the Miller case. But I call them the most ignorant. They provide no evidence that the CIA was somehow cavalier about protecting her and that they are covering up their own shortcomings. And even if that is the case, that brief ignores the specific law that addresses this issue. It is called Section 793. Google and Findlaw are their friends. I suggest Tierney use Findlaw and Google before he can talk about Plamegate with any kind of credibility.
comments
Obamathon
