Posted by Ed Hulse on 09/12/06 15:12

David Totheroh wrote:

> > And that, I take it, justifies putting similar words in Reagan's mouth.
> > So much for the concern about fictionalizing history....
>
> No, but neither does it justify putting words in MY mouth. I said
> nothing about justifying false quotes, I merely presented what I
> believe to be an accurate quote by an official spoksman for the Reagan
> administration (the truth or falsity of which, I note, you fail to
> address while you're falsely accusing me).

Please, Mr. Totheroh, don't be disingenuous. What reason would you
have for introducing Pat Buchanan's remark into the conversation, other
than to imply that by not specifically condemning it Reagan somehow
endorsed it? What Buchanan said (yes, he said it) has absolutely no
bearing on the fact that entire conversations were fabricated for the
Reagan miniseries, and that they occasionally included inflammatory and
derogatory remarks that were out of character and to which the series'
critics objected. You can argue that the dramatist has the right to
distort history in this way; that's another discussion. But the high
dudgeon is unwarranted inasmuch as you chose to drag in a red herring
in a rather futile attempt to deflect my point.

> > > Novak has said lots of things, like that he used the term "Agency
> > > operative" when he says he meant 'employee.' For someone who's been in
> > > Washington as long as he has, it doesn't pass the smell test. What he
> > > says contradicts your implication that his confirmation came from
> > > "WHO'S WHO." "Novak will later write that he originally acquired the
> > > information from an official who is "no partisan gunslinger." Novak
> > > says, "When I called another official for confirmation, he said:
> > > 'Oh, you know about it.'"" The documents are ambiguous about who
> > > he met first, Armitage or Rove. And in any case, documents show that
> > > Libby leaked the info more than 2 weeks before Novak spoke to both
> > > Armitage and Rove.
> >
> > Mr. Stone, meet Mr. Totheroh.
>
> Again, I note your unwillingness (inability?) to even try to refute the
> facts of the matter that I present, and instead substitute personal
> innuendo and attack of my character. It may, in this day and age be a
> pragmatically effective approach short term, but it is a very weak
> argument, logically speaking. I don't know you Mr. Hulse (just as you
> don't know me) but from what I've heard from mutual acquaintances, I
> expected a higher level of discourse.

Sorry to disappoint you. Perhaps I've been listening too much to Air
America and it's rubbed off on me.

Frankly, I didn't think that any attempt "to refute the facts of the
matter" was worth the time it would take to compose, nor worth the
amount of cyberspace it would consume. For this reason: it's evident,
Mr. Totheroh, that you're not prepared to accept anything as fact that
doesn't bolster the conclusions to which you have already arrived.
Several times now Novak has stated, publicly and unambiguously, that
Armitage was his primary source, and that he got Plame's name from
Wilson's WHO'S WHO entry. (I didn't *imply* the latter point, by the
way, I simply reported it.) But this isn't good enough for you; it
doesn't pass your "smell test." If sworn first-person testimony won't
convince you, what could I possibly produce that would alter your
preconceived notion?

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your remarks as quoted above, but
from them I take a suspicion that Novak is not to be taken at face
value. If this is so, is it your belief that Novak was part of the
"conspiracy" to discredit Wilson? That would be most odd, because
Novak has been a critic of the Iraq War since the idea was first
bandied about in 2002. On occasions too numerous to list here he has
expressed views that put him, like Buchanan, squarely in the Republican
Party's isolationist wing, which would hardly make him an ideological
comrade to, or accomplice of, the neocons pushing a preemptive strike
on Iraq. Furthermore, he has been sharply critical of the Bush
administration in many ways. In fact, he has taken exception to nearly
every domestic-policy initiative of the administration save the tax
cuts. So if you're spinning a web of conspiracy theories, you surely
must know that a Novak strand doesn't really mesh with the others.

But then, in debating this and other Bush-related issues over the
years, I have found that no facts are sufficient to change the minds
--or even soften the perceptions -- of rabid Bush haters (or, to use
Krauthammer's term, suffers of BDS [Bush Derangement Syndrome]). If
Karl Rove says "up," they will reflexively say "down." If Dick Cheney
says "white," they will forcefully argue he means "black." And then,
of course, there are documents. Always, documents. Seldom actually
seen but always referenced -- documents offering irrefutable proof that
Bush is responsible for every injustice suffered anywhere, by anybody,
since he took office in 2001. That these documents frequently fail to
materialize, and that when they do they are sometimes fraudulent (as in
the National Guard case), matters little to the confirmed Bush hater.
He will brandish them proudly, like the sword of truth. Except, of
course, for documents that provide exculpatory evidence -- which are
dismissed out of hand as having been trumped up by Bush loyalists.

You make several claims that "documents" show this or that about the
Plame affair. Could you please cite these and direct me to them?
Surely they must be posted somewhere on the web; a URL would be much
appreciated. Obviously you're not referring to Patrick Fitzgerald's
documents; as part of grand-jury proceedings they would be sealed,
wouldn't they? In the interest of maintaining "a higher level of
discourse," I should review the documents to which you've obviously had
access.

[Back to original message]