The lone voice in the wilderness

This woman’s got the right idea:

Surrounded by idiots
Caption: Marge Trowbridge, a lone supporter of President George W. Bush, carries a sign claiming she is surrounded by idiots as she walks in front of an anti-war protest on Ocean Avenue in Kennebunkport, Maine, Saturday afternoon Aug. 26, 2006. President Bush is visiting his parents for the weekend as part of his summer vacation. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia)

You go, girl =d>

Here’s more of the types of idiots she’s talking about.

Update: Speaking of idiots

Who would you rather be ‘subservient’ to: George Bush or Hamas?

The answer to that, of course, is neither: The President is a servant of the people, not the other way around, and Hamas is – well, Hamas. And the only people who want to be subservient to them are people who elect them into office. And those who support them. People like Jimmy Carter, who had the audacity to suggest in an ‘explosive’ critique of Prime Minister Tony Blair this weekend that the PM was “compliant” and “subservient” to President Bush:

Tony Blair’s lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter.

“I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair’s behaviour,” he told The Sunday Telegraph.

“I think that more than any other person in the world the Prime Minister could have had a moderating influence on Washington – and he has not. I really thought that Tony Blair, who I know personally to some degree, would be a constraint on President Bush’s policies towards Iraq.”

Though I personally am not surprised I am extremely disappointed by Jimmy Carter’s behavior. With each day, each editorial piece, he comes closer to securing his place as one of the most embarassing presidents in US history and not just because he tries to undermine the US via the United Nations and not because he supports Hamas over Israel, but because he is now denigrating the one ally who has been with us through thick and thin in Iraq. What purpose does this serve, exactly? Sure, it’s a free country and he has a right to say these things, but is it right to say? Apparently to Jimmy Carter is because Jimmy Carter has forgotten that there are definitely right things to do and wrong things to do. Siding with Hamas is reprehensible. Undermining the US at the United Nations is out of line. Strongly implying that our strongest ally in the war on terror is a virtual lapdog to the President is undiplomatic and stupid. Sadly, Carter knows none of that and continues on his campaign to denigrate US foreign policy under Bush, and now he’s trying to do so by attacking our allies.

Carter, like so many other far left defeatist Democrats against the Iraq war, knows that the most surefire way to influence public opinion against a war they don’t like is to undermine it via negative interviews, blistering speeches and/or opinion pieces, and underhanded tactics at world bodies the US has to work with like the UN. There’s a reason that Carter was a one term President and you’re seeing it here.

The best thing Jimmy Carter has ever done for this country was Habitat for Humanity. Just about everything else he’s done, though, has been a failure. He was a failure as president. The North Korea nuke “deal” (the one he got a Nobel for) back in the early 1990s he brokered with Clinton was a disaster, as we found out early on in Bush’s first term, and he has added absolutely nothing to the public debate regarding how to handle the many crisis’ going on in the Middle East. He was absolutely worthless on Middle East issues as president, so why do so many take him seriously now? Because he’s a pacifist do-gooder who hates George W. Bush and does not support Israel, and who uses whatever pulpit he can get, along with the prestige of being a former President, to make that well known to anyone who will listen.

Essentially, he’s a mouthpiece for the Nutroots. He’s also a mouthpiece for Hamas, one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the Middle East, if not the world.

If he considers Blair “subservient” to President Bush, I think it’s fair to say that former Prez. Jimmy Carter is subservient to Hamas. With that in mind, when all the chips were on the table, who would you pick to be on your side? The guy who is ‘subservient’ to President Bush, or the guy who is subservient (really subservient) to Hamas?

Now would be a good time for another Reagan video, with this one being where he used the famous line to Carter, “There you go again.” Very fitting now, I think:

Hat tip: Allah

More: Blue Crab Boulevard doesn’t mince words on Carter, either.

Speculation: Armitage was the Plame ‘leaker’ and it was done so without malicious intent

Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and The Nation’s David Corn have a new book coming out titled Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War which asserts that the State Department has known ‘for years’ that former Dep. Sec. of State Richard Armitage was the ‘leaker’ in the overdramatized, over-hyped by the far left l’affaire de Plame. Via Isikoff’s write up about it in Newsweek:

In the early morning of Oct. 1, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell received an urgent phone call from his No. 2 at the State Department. Richard Armitage was clearly agitated. As recounted in a new book, “Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War,” Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across a column by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused a huge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had been trying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnist himself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided a tantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a “senior administration official” who was “not a partisan gunslinger.” Armitage was shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who the leaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was “in deep distress,” says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. “I’m sure he’s talking about me.”

Armitage’s admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department’s legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson’s wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage’s role remained secret.

Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn’t thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame’s identity. “I’m afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing,” he later told Carl Ford Jr., State’s intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had “slipped up” and told Novak more than he should have. “He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f—ed up. My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat,” Ford recalls in “Hubris,” to be published next week by Crown and co-written by the author of this article and David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation magazine.


Armitage’s central role as the primary source on Plame is detailed for the first time in “Hubris,” which recounts the leak case and the inside battles at the CIA and White House in the run-up to the war. The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

Captain Ed writes in response:

This means that the Department of Justice knew the source of the Plame leak within four months of its occurrence. It also knew that the leak had no malicious intent. Patrick Fitzgerald, who almost certainly knew of it within the first days of his investigation, never attempted to indict the man whom he knew leaked the information. Why, then, has Fitzgerald’s mandate continued after the first week of October?

Fitzgerald took the case on September 26. If this book is accurate about its dates, the DoJ and Fitzgerald would have known about Armitage’s role as the source of the leak five days later. Instead of either charging Armitage or closing down the investigation, Fitzgerald went on a witch hunt. He didn’t even talk to Scooter Libby until two weeks after Armitage’s confession. A year later, Fitzgerald had reporters Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper imprisoned for contempt of court for refusing to divulge a source about a leaker from whom Fitzgerald had already received a confession.

This shows the danger of independent investigators who answer to star chambers instead of the elected representatives that have electoral accountability. The entire Fitzgerald investigation is a massive waste of money and energy, an ego project for one man, a wild-goose chase without the goose. Up to now, we all thought that Armitage never came forward or did so much later in the process. This time line shows Fitzgerald as a dangerous Cotton Mather with a briefcase. What else should we think of a prosecutor who hauls people into court and jails them for contempt when his culprit confessed at the very beginning?

All of that assumes, of course, that Fitzgerald knew about Armitage’s role almost from the get-go as the ‘leaker’ – I’m not so sure that’s the case, but perhaps we’ll find out more in the coming weeks.

I should also point out that Isikoff, and especially Corn, are not known to be ‘admin friendly’ writers, so it should be mildly amusing to see how all the Bush-haters on the left spin this news into “it was still Rove’s fault that Plame’s cover was blown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”, something they’ve been continuing to do even after it was reported back in mid-June that Rove was not going to be indicted in this ‘case.’

I eagerly await Tom Maguire’s comments on this.

Update I – 12:02 PM: Maguire responds to a point made by Talk Left’s Jeralyn Merritt in her post on this story:

[JM:] And Ari Fleischer is a key witness against Libby. Somehow, I suspect Ari Fleishcher has given more to Fitzgerald than we know.

[TM:] I am still betting that Ari was the source for Walter Pincus.

A point about Armitage’s October surprise that he was Novak’s source – that buttresses Rove’s claim that he did not realize he was a source for Novak as well.

I happen to think we are at only the second level of cover-up as we peel the Armitage onion – in the current version, he attributes his Plame knowledge to the famous INR memo, but (IIRC) emptywheel made the point (per some newspaper story) that the genesis of the Niger trip had been kicked around the intel community for a year or more.

Since Armitage has what looks like an intel background, he may well have kept his won CIA contacts for all sorts of back-channel news.

Update II – 3:02 PM: Maguire weighs in at his blog.

Update III – 3:11 PM: Greg Tinti has video of Novak’s reaction to the Newsweek piece. He also links up to Ann Althouse, who wonders about the reactions from liberals who pushed the “ROVE DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!” angle:

Liberal Values finds the silver lining: “Maybe this will put an end to all those conservative blogs which are spreading preposterous claims that it was Joe Wilson himself who revealed his wife’s identity.” Yeah, put an end to all those conservative blogs.

Can you never back off and say that your side overdid it? It would improve your credibility you know.

But that would involve admitting that “Bush’s Brain” did nothing wrong here, and that is something that those who salivated for so very long over the possibility of Rove doing the perp walk cannot and will not bring themselves to concede.

Fox’s Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig freed

Excellent news!

More: Jules Crittenden writes about war correspondents and expresses his relief over the release of Centanni and Wiig.

I am, along with many of other conservative bloggers, pundits, etc, often very criticial of war reporting – whether it comes out of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Lebanon, but Jules’ column reminds us that there are some hard-working war correspondents who put it on the line by reporting from the danger zone not because they have an some hidden agenda, but because they really want to give us the full story of what’s happening in the region. Crittenden speaks from experience on covering wars in the Middle East because he’s been there. So a tip of the hat (for what it’s worth) to those dedicated ‘war tourists’ (as a friend of Crittenden’s described them) who go to places in the Middle East your average Joe Reporter would rather not.

Rick Moran also provides an important reminder:

Maybe the good that comes out of this incident is that conservatives will realize that it doesn’t matter to our enemies whether reporters write sympathetic pieces about them or whether they do highly critical new stories on their movement. What matters is that they are American. That’s all that matters. The rest is so much chaff.

Extensive coverage and linkage of Centanni’s and Wiig’s release can be found over at Malkin’s.