A Pathetic Wolf


Go ahead.  Laugh at Wolf Blitzer.  You know you want to do it.

And you wouldn't be laughing about a natural disaster, or at its victims, but at a member of the media elite trying to relate (or trying to appear to relate) to a resident of middle America in a patently condescending fashion.   Blitzer (video below) on the ground with a tornado victim, says to a young woman and her baby "But we're happy you're here; you guys did a great job and you've got to thank the Lord, right?  Do you thank the Lord for that split-second decision?"

Hesitating, the woman (whose theological views differ from mine) replies "well, I'm actually an atheist."

Well, she actually is courageous, remarkably so.  Digby comments

I don't know what Blitzer's personal religious views are, but he comes across in this segment as attempting to talk down to the "little people" of Oklahoma as one of them by using their religious vernacular. Blitzer doesn't seem like the Bible-thumping type, but he is extremely condescending and constantly out of his depth. Fantastically for her, the tornado victim he was interviewing had the courage of her convictions and embarrassed the heck out of him.

But it goes beyond that because the alternative is so very easy and, yes, so politically correct.   Prompted by the interviewer, the interviewee could have responded as does virtually everyone in an even vaguely similar situation and agreed that God has smiled upon her.   She might have ascribed her good fortune to the Almighty, thereby implying that God had the good sense to single her out for favor.

But she did not.  With a notable sense of grace, the woman stated her opinion, which served as an inadvertent rebuke to an anchorman playing reporter, and a poor one at that. She might have given God the credit her life was spared- while that of so many others wasn't- and pleased the network newsman.

Privately thanking God, in whatever way the individual wishes, is a personal act one willingly chooses.   A reporter not covering a religious story should not, in courtroom vernacular, "lead the witness," but instead allow the individual opportunity to express herself in the sacred or secular manner she chooses.  Blitzer needn't have pursued an expression of gratitude for the Almighty from his subject.  There will be plenty of people now, and in the next disaster, who will do so unprompted, in some cases sincerely, in others not.   For them and for all the others, it is a choice no network personality, eager to trivialize religious faith, should attempt to influence.

Share |

And In Conclusion

Unlike most debate moderators, Wolf Blitzer in Tampa allowed the candidates time to go after each other, to allow the candidates to get on the record their differences with each other. Say what you (or I) will about Blitzer, he did not put himself forward as the show but allowed the spotlight to be focused on the debaters.

Still, he ought not to have ended by asking each each of the individuals what he/she did on summer vacation. Or something like that.

The CNN anchorman asked (transcript of part 4 of debate, here)

You know, Americans are looking at you. They also want to know a little bit more about you....I want to go down and get your thoughts on something you would bring to the White House if you were the next president of the United States .

Time limit did not permit the moderator to ask what really was on his mind: Who was your favorite "Seinfeld" character? What is your favorite comfort food? If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?

Share|

Repeating A Conservative Talking Point

It would be easy to ridicule Wolf Blitzer. After 41 years in the news business and 21 at CNN, he should know better. And as an employee of a center or center-right news organization, he does not have the excuse of working at GOP TV to excuse his ignorance.

So what was the Wolfman doing last night in Tampa (transcript of first part of debate, here) repeating a damaging urban myth? Rephrasing a question from a woman identified as belonging to the Tea Party of Pleasanton, Blitzer commented asked Newt Gingrich "How do you do that? How do you protected seniors, balance the budget?"

Fine so far, but then Wolf added "So much of the budget goes to defense and entitlements like Social Security, Medicare."

Except that Social Security is not part of the federal budget and has its own funding mechanism. It does not, and has not, contributed a dime to the budget deficit though, arguably, it has helped alleviate it. When- until last year (as part of the economic downturn- the Social Security trust fund took in more than it paid out, the federal government borrowed from it to set the budget deficit figures artificially low. Alternatively, it enabled congress and the president to lower continually the tax rate.

The myth that Social Security contributes to the deficit frames the national debate and prompts calls to "reform" a system that can pay out all benefits, without "reform" or "strengthening," for 27 more years.

But naivete is barely more forgivable than ignorance (though for a CNN reporter/anchorman, such ignorance is stupefying). On September 9, I blogged

Similarly, the President urged Congress to cut payroll taxes further and to extend the reduction to employers. It is not clear whether the resulting shortfall in Social Security revenues would be completely made up by a transfer of funds from the general budget. If so, Obama's idea is a good one, given that the payroll tax takes proportionately more from the working and middle class than from the wealthy, a decrease thus allowing taxpayers to keep more of their paycheck and stimulating the economy more than would an income tax.

But as Nancy Altman of Social Security works explains

"This could eventually lead to the unraveling of Social Security," says Altman, a co-chair of the advocacy group Social Security Works.

She says it might look like a harmless one-year boost for struggling Americans. But Altman is certain Republicans will try to make the payroll tax cut permanent, which, she says, could lead to trouble for Social Security.

"The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be 10 years," she says. "And we see now that it's very hard once a tax cut is in place to repeal it. The fear is that once this cut is made it becomes permanent and all of a sudden Social Security's shortfall, which is very manageable at this point, would actually double."

When Republicans (who already are thought to be reconsidering their skepticism about extension of the payroll tax cut) get around to making the payroll tax permanent, they will make sure that the money is not replaced by funds from the general budget. That change, possibly sufficiently subtle to pass under the radar of all but Social Security activists, would be made whether with a GOP president or the acquiescence of a Democratic president.

So I was wrong, and Wolf Blitzer is uninformed, about the most popular government program in American history. No doubt he will acknowledge his shortcoming promptly.

Share|

Pointing Us In The Right Direction


Bill Maher was on to something.

Following the President's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Bill Maher was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. His nuggets of wisdom, included in the following portions of the discussion (video and text from Crooks and Liars):

BLITZER: I'm told, Bill, that the president of the United States has decided, despite what happened in Tucson, he will not specifically talk about guns in his speech tonight. He's going to do that down the road in a future speech in a few weeks. But, tonight, the word gun is not going to be there. You think that's a mistake, don't you?

MAHER: Oh, I do. That's a real shame.

And it's always down the road. And it's always finding common ground with this president. And that common ground always seems to be the ground where the Republicans are already standing on. So, no, that's a real shame, because this was again an opportunity, similar to the opportunity Ronald Reagan had in 1981, when he was shot.

At a moment like that, maybe people would be willing to go along with a -- sort of a different point of view. Even Dick Cheney said that. Dick Cheney seems to be to the left of Barack Obama on the gun issue. So, I guess it's true. He has moved to the center.

*****************************************************************************

BLITZER: Well, and it's helping him in the polls. There's no doubt about that. You can see, in our most recent job approval number, 55 percent. It was in the 40s, low 40s, not that long ago. So this move to the center, it certainly seems to be helping him with the American public.

MAHER: Well, we don't know what's helping him. Maybe it's the fact that there was a tragedy. People tend to rally around the president when there's any sort of a tragedy.

Remember, after 9/11, Bush's approval rating was 90 percent or something. I don't think that was because he got a lot smarter after we were attacked.

Maybe it's because -- Obama's popularity hiked because people have now seen the opposition. They got a good look at Boehner. Maybe they don't like that. Maybe people don't like someone who cries at the drop of a hat. People don't like a crier, Wolf.

*****************************************************************************

BLITZER: He's an emotional guy, John Boehner. You know, he's got -- he's got an incredible story. When you think about it, he was one of, what, ten kids growing up. His father had a little bar. They had a small House, one bathroom. And look, he's now the speaker of the House, second in line after the vice president to the presidency. So it's -- he's got an amazing story. And I can understand why he gets emotional.

MAHER: Wolf, first of all, get over it. That was a long time ago. It's America. Yes, we understand. People can rise up from places of humble beginnings and make something great of themselves. Most of that is anecdotal. Statistically, people don't do that any more.

America is not, I don't think, even in the top ten or maybe we're tenth in social mobility. Social mobility means the ability of one generation to do a little better than the generation that proceeded them, that spawned them. That used to be known as the American dream. That is the American dream. But we're like tenth in the American dream.

****************************************************************************

BLITZER: The fact that they got -- they're going to be sitting Democrat and Republican together tonight, date night on Capitol Hill. Is that good or bad?

MAHER: Oh, I think it's going to solve all our problems, Wolf. Yes. When a madman kills people at the Safeway, the problem isn't guns or nuts. It's that we haven't been polite enough to each other.

Yes, if Barney Frank and Rand Paul are sharing an armrest, I expect all our problems to go away.

You know, of course, as always -- as always, Wolf, it's symbolism. That's all we know how to do. We don't know how to actually solve problems anymore. We just know how to attack it symbolically.

And also, I don't even think it's helpful on that level, because it's actually good to see the parties sitting apart from each other. Because then you see which one cheers or which one sits on their hands according to what the president says, and you get a real feeling for how they feel about him.

The irony- or disgrace- of Barack Obama publicly less sympathetic than Dick Cheney to gun control; people liking a President at the time of tragedy, and this President because of the abysmal quality of the opposition; Boehner's story increasingly atypical in an America with declining social mobility; "date night" as mere symbolism, and counter-productive at that. That's four-for-four, a good night even for Bill Maher.

Maher was wrong- briefly- when asked about the response to Obama Tuesday night by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN.), Maher responded "I don't understand the decision by CNN to air it."

Pretty gutsy of Maher, criticizing CNN on CNN. But it was news, even if its sponsor, the Tea Party Express, is an astroturf operation. Better to have aired Bachmann's statement and explained that the Tea Party Express is headed by a GOP consulting firm of questionable ethics. But then, of course, CNN would have had to explain why it has agreed to co-sponsor with this Republican front group a GOP presidential primary debate.

And if the network had done so, the audience would have recognized that Maher was merely stating the obvious when he added

I mean, the Tea Party is the Republican Party. It's just a rebranding.

The Republican Party realized a couple of years ago they were very unpopular with the American public, possibly because all of their ideas had been miserable failures over the last 10, 20, 30 years. So they rebranded as the Tea Party.

Why don't you give equal time to the Democratic response, and then have Representative Anthony Weiner, who's from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, why doesn't he get some -- some air time?

As far as is known, CNN did not give air time to someone "from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party" because no one from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party stepped out and requested the opportunity. And a great opportunity that would have been, presumably to suggest to the American people that there is an alternative to the corporate world view embraced by the Repub Party and encouraged by President Obama.

That response might question the impact of trade deals on employment of Americans during an economic downturn, lowering of the corporate tax rate, or the President's boast that he has "ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them." It might include the ideas of longtime consumer advocate Joan Claybrook, who on Tuesday on "Democracy Now!" explained that President Obama

has issued an edict that says that every government agency ought cut some regulations. Now, we’re not talking about some obscure thing. We’re talking about the environment, global warming, health, safety, pharmaceutical issues, auto safety, truck safety—all these issues that matter every day to Americans. And what that sends is a message. It sends a message to the civil servants who sweat to try and get these issues dealt with and to protect the American public that their president isn’t going to support them if they get into a controversial issue. And every regulation, almost, is controversial, because somebody doesn’t want it, particularly Big Business. And it sends a message to the business interests that they can go with impunity and oppose these regulatory programs, and they know that the President is probably going to clamp down on the people who are issuing the rules.

It need not have been a Democratic officeholder, who might fear retribution from the Obamites. Perhaps a widely-read and extraordinary blogger, David Sirota or one of many others, could have given a response to the neo-liberal vision of the President and the more gruesome one set out by Ryan/Bachmann. It would have been especially valuable, given that challenging Obama for the nomination in 2012 will not happen and could not succeed. Ours is, though, a President who responds happily to pressure and notifying the nation's voters that there is a Democratic opinion which contrasts with the center-right and far right viewpoints would have had a salutary effect on their outlook.

Share|

Remember Those Nuclear Weapons?

As a Democrat, my heart leaped a few weeks ago at very hopeful news. Condoleezza Rice's name was floated as a possible veep selection for John McCain.

Oh, I knew there was almost no chance. Rice is not associated with any state and therefore would be unlikely to bring any particular electoral votes into the Repub column. Further, there is no indication that she has any particular knowledge of, or interest in, anything except foreign policy- not unlike the fellow at the head of the ticket. Presumably, her name was thrown out as a Repub bid for the "political correctnesss" so many of zthem excoriate, figuring that any black at the tail end of the GOP ticket would take some of the wind out of Obama's sails. That's fairly absurd, but the idea of taking black Americans for granted by the party that claims the Democratic Party does so is not surprising.

Recently, though, as the San Diego Union-Tribune's website reported on 3/21/08:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she called Obama to apologize for the unauthorized access to his computerized passport file by three department contract workers, two of whom were fired over the incidents.
“I told him that I was sorry and I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file and therefore, I will stay on top of it and get to the bottom of it,” Rice told reporters.

Give her credit for effort here, though given Rice's record (think Middle East peace process and U.S.-Russian relations), I wouldn't assume any effort will be met by success. Far better would be a mere acknowledgement of a mistake that she made a few years ago. I bring you back an interview she had with Wolf Blitzer on September 8, 2003, which the CNN anchorman reported on January 10, 2003: "Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world. 'The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.'"

The famous "mushroom cloud." Condi Rice in the vanguard of the fear merchants of the Bush Administration. On March 7, 2003, twelve days before the President launched Gulf War II, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei reported in "The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update"

There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.
Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.
As I stated above, the IAEA will continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues.

And the relevant conclusion: after three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.

What have we heard from the foreign policy "expert" of the Bush regime, Condoleezza Rice? No apology and no acknowledgement that she misled the American people. The idea that this individual could even be considered for national, elective office demonstrates the contempt for the truth- and lack of talent- of the Republican Party.

High Praise, Indeed

The biggest controversy at the debate, hosted by Wolf Blitzer of CNN, on January 21, 2008 in South Carolina, pertained to Senator Barack Obama's statements allegedly praising Ronald Reagan and Republican ideas. Here is Obama denying that he had praised the former GOP president:

What I said -- and I will provide you with a quote -- what I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to.

However, thanks to openleft.com, we have the relevant excerpt from the Illinois Senator's interview with the Reno Gazette editorial board on January 14, 2008:

I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

Somehow, "put(ting) us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it" sounds a lot different- and better- than "getting "Democrats to vote against their economic interests." Doing so because of "all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" and the lack "of accountability in terms of how it (government) was operating" sure sounds like a positive thing to me. And someone who has "tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing" can only be admired, especially when he has "changed the trajectory of America."

So Barack Obama admires what Ronald Reagan did for the United States of America. As wrong as he is, he's entitled to his opinion. But he's not entitled to deceive the Democratic Party and its voters into believing that he was offended by someone, and whose Presidency, he clearly supported.

Which raises another issue- which "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s" so infuriated Barack Obama? Was it the labor movement, the consumer movement, the womens' movement, or the civil rights movement? Perhaps Senator Obama can enlighten us as only he can.

Somewhere We've Gone Wrong

On the January 20, 2008 edition of CNN's Late Edition, Wolf Blitzer interviewed House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina and Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia delegate to the House of Representatives. After Holmes Norton gushed "and look at me. Look at me, Wolf. I'm a black woman. It's pretty hard to make some early decision when everything that you have fought for all of your life comes true, all in one election," this exchange followed:


BLITZER: So am I correct to say that, like so many other black women around the United States right now, you seem to be torn between wanting the first African-American to become president as opposed to the first woman to become president?

NORTON: Absolutely, wolf. I mean, we have wanted this for two centuries. Now we have it in one election. And here we've got to sort it out.

Yep, Martin Luther King's dream comes to fruition. Now we can judge candidates not by the content of their character, or of their policy positions, but by their pigment or the nature of their sexual organs.

Giuliani: Kill the Federal Workforce

Wolf Blitzer really gave it a shot with Rudolph Giuliani on CNN's 1/20/08 Late Edition. Rudolph is promoting himself these days as a (income/corporate/estate) tax cutter and the Wolfman tried to pin him down on the disproportionate impact of Giuliani's proposed regressive cuts upon the upper class as compared to that on the middle class. He asked the former mayor "for a family earning $500,000 a year, how much would that family save as opposed to a family earning $50,000 a year, how much would that family save?" Of course, Giuliani wouldn't address that, instead estimating how much a family earning "about $80,000" would save. Blitzer tried again, asking "how much would a family making $500,000 a year wind up saving potentially?" Rudolph again claimed he hadn't "calculated it," so Blitzer took a different tack, asking him about budget deficits.

Giuliani then emphasized spending cuts, stating "we wouldn't rehire half the federal civilian employees who come up for retirement. We could save money that way. Forty-two percent are coming up for retirement. We would impose 10 percent spending cuts on all of the civilian agencies." Sure, cut waste, fraud, and abuse- except at the Pentagon.

More ominously, however, it is the perfect Repub plan. With the catastrophic effect these cuts would have on government services, citizens would become far more dissatisfied with, and far angrier at, government- which of course is the beauty of a scheme which would destroy whatever faith Americans still have in the federal government, leading the way to support for destroying Social Security and other essential programs.

Reflections on the Debate (Las Vegas)- No. 6

At the Democratic Presidential debate on 11/15/07, Senator Clinton claimed "well, Wolf, I've just been personally attacked again." This was in response to this lengthy statement of former Senator Edwards:


Well, can I say first, nobody on this stage is perfect, and that certainly includes me. (Cross talk.) And I don't claim perfection, far from it.

What I would say is that the issue is whether we can have a president that can restore trust for the American people in the president of the United States. (Applause.) Because I think this president has destroyed that trust, and I think there are fair questions to be asked of all of us, including Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton says she will end the war. She also says she will continue to keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq. She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans. But when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney. (Applause)

On the issue of Social Security, she said, standing beside me on the stage, that she would not do anything about the cap on Social Security taxes. And she has said privately to people, because it's been reported in the press, that, in fact, she would consider raising that cap. And the most important issue is, she says she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt, corrupted against the interest of most Americans and corrupted -- (cheers, applause)

Let's see. These points were made: 1)None of us is perfect; 2)Each of us can be questioned as to whether we will restore the trust of the American people; 3)Clinton has voted with the Administration on Iran; 4)Clinton has advocated two contradictory things about Social Security taxes; 5)Clinton defends a system that is rigged, "corrupted against the interest of most Americans." These charges are substantive, not personal.

As a Democrat who would like to see the Presidency taken back from the Repubs next year, I hope Mrs. Clinton cried "foul" only for political advantage. If she really believed this was a "personal attack," she is hardly ready to face the attacks that will in fact be personal, next autumn, assuming she is nominated.

No Edward R. Murrow, Cronkite, or even Russert, Wolf Blitzer nevertheless deserves some credit. On Sunday's (11/11/07) edition of CNN's Late Edition, Blitzer interviewed John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations in this Administration.




BLITZER: Because a lot of experts, including the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, say there's no military solution to this, there's only a diplomatic solution. He was here on "Late Edition" two weeks ago and he told me this. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOHAMED ELBARADEI, IAEA DIRECTOR GENERAL: I'm very much concerned about confrontation -- building confrontation, Wolf, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiation and an inspection.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: Now, he says there can be a solution through negotiation and inspection. But what you're saying is the Iranians, under this current regime, have no intention of giving up their nuclear program under any circumstances.

BOLTON: Mohamed ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran. He has taken positions in flat violation of three Security Council resolutions, and he needs to learn that he works for the member governments of his agency, not the other way around.
BLITZER: But he got a second term. They voted. Despite the Bush administration's opposition, he was reelected to a second term.

BOLTON: He got a third term, actually, which is even worse.

BLITZER: Third, and so there -- he does have the confidence of some people.

BOLTON: I don't think we were effective in our campaign to oppose him. I don't think that he did nearly what we should have done, and I think we are paying the price now and will pay it into the future.

BLITZER: But, you know, in fairness to Mohamed ElBaradei, before the war in Iraq, when Condoleezza Rice and the president were speaking about mushroom clouds of Saddam Hussein and a revived nuclear weapons program that he may be undertaking, he was saying there was absolutely no such evidence. He was poo-pooing it, saying the Bush administration was overly alarming and there was no nuclear weapons program that Hussein had revived. He was right on that one.

BOLTON: Even a stopclock is right twice a day. Look, Saddam Hussein kept together over 1,000 nuclear scientists and technicians that he called his nuclear mujahadeen. There may not have been centrifuge cascades spinning, but Saddam had the intellectual capability to put that program right back together.

BLITZER: But that was an important issue, trying to justify the war, the mushroom clouds, the fear, the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud, and that's not just a little issue that he was right on. He was right on a major, major justification for going to war.

BOLTON: I'm not aware there was any disagreement with the Bush administration that Saddam did not have the physical capacity in his nuclear program, but he did have the intention and he had the record of having pursued them in the past.

BLITZER: He also said this about the early September Israeli airstrike on some sort of suspicious facility in Syria that reports have suggested was some sort of North Korean nuclear reactor facility that they were building to develop centrifuges in Syria. Listen to what ElBaradei said to me on this program two weeks ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELBARADEI: To bomb first and then ask questions later, I think undermines the system it and doesn't lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community. It's only the agencies and the inspectors who can go and verify the information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He said if the Israelis were concerned, they should have gone to the IAEA and made their case and then the inspectors, presumably, could have gone in since Syria is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

BOLTON: In you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The notion that Israel or the United States would put their national security in the IAEA's hands is just delusional. And let me make one important point.

Eyes and ears of the international community? Look, the IAEA functionally gets most of its sensitive information from foreign intelligence services including our own, and that's why it's more properly called the U.N.'s nuclear watchpuppy.

BLITZER: So you don't believe, obviously, this guy, anything he's basically saying?

BOLTON: I think he's actually undermining the credibility of the IAEA by his overly politicized role in the Iran crisis.


In response to Bolton, who referred to Nobel Peace Prize winner ElBaradei as an "apologist for Iran," Blitzer noted that while Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush were painting a picture of a "mushroom cloud," ElBaradei was saying that the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which he was, and is, Director General, had found no evidence of an ongoing nuclear program. That's right, folks- no weapons of mass destruction. (To refer to chemical and biological weapons as "weapons of mass destruction" is to trivialize the awesome destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons.) Here is the relevant part of the IAEA report of March 7, 2003:


There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.
There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminium tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question.
Although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

And the conclusion: "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."


So when yet another apologist for the Persian Gulf policy of George W. Bush (Nobel Peace Prizes won: 0) assures us, blithely, that "no one" before the war questioned the assumption that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, remember that he, or she, is lying. (And that is without reference to UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter, who asserted there was no hard evidence of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.) And another thing, Mr. Bolton: There is no need to compare President Bush unfavorably with a stopped clock.

It is common among bloggers to criticize prominent members of the mainstream media, and I periodically have joined in that. so it's only fair for me to acknowledge instances in which two television journalists have done something admirable.

The recent Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College was hosted in part by Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief of NBC News, who performed superbly, asking good questions and often following up on them with the candidates. And today, October 25, Wolf Blitzer, host of the Situation Room on CNN, made a laudable remark to Valerie Plame Wilson.

Mrs. Wilson, as you all know, was a covert CIA agent, whose husband, career diplomat Joseph Wilson, ran afoul of the Bush Administration for reporting that he had found no evidence during his trip in February, 2002 to Niger that Sadaam Hussein's Iraq had tried to purchase uranium "yellowcake" from the African nation. In his February, 2003 State of the Union message, President Bush infamously proclaimed "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Six months later in his New York Times op-ed piece, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," Wilson wrote "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Soon afterward, after speaking to Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, syndicated columnist Robert Novak revealed Joseph Wilson's "wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Hence, Mr. Novak had "outed" Mrs. Wilson by revealing her status as a (covert) CIA agent. Karl Rove, Presidential Press Secretary Ari Fleisher, and the Vice-President's Chief of State, I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby also revealed to reporters Ms. Plame's employment status, though classified information.

And now we know positively what the right wing had been vigorously denying for four years- that Valerie Plame was in fact "covert." Note this from the action brought against the government by Plame and her publisher, Simon & Shuster, in the United States District Court, Southern District Court of New York State:


Further, in connection with Mr. Libby’s sentencing, the CIA confirmed that at the time of the leak, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. As acknowledged by the government in connection with the sentencing phase of the criminal prosecution of I. Lewis Libby, in January 2002, Ms. Wilson was a CIA operations officer, assigned to the Counter Proliferation Division (“CPD”) at CIA Headquarters. In that capacity, she served as the chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq. Over the years, on numerous occasions Ms. Wilson traveled overseas, always under a cover identity, using an official or non-official cover, with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.


Valerie Plame was a covert CIA officer investigating the possible linkage between Saddam Hussein's government and "weapons of mass destruction," a major rationale for the war launched by President Bush. Her cover was blown by an Administration apparently unconcerned about the damage to the critical intelligence operation she was carrying out on behalf of that government and the American people. And so at the close of today's interview with Plame, Wolf Blitzer boldly uttered those words otherwise now so commonly, and appropriately, addressed to members of the Armed Services:

"Let me thank you on behalf of a lot of our viewers for your service to our country."