Current Article

Valerie & Joe Wilson Campaign in Las Vegas

By SusanUnPC on January 13, 2008 at 4:28 PM in Uncategorized

Valerie Plame Wilson, via Taylor Marsh’s interview in Las Vegas (podcast):

“… I was struck by a piece in the New York Times the other day, an op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem, who noted that if a woman presumed to enter the presidential race with two years of high level experience she would be laughed out of the room. … It’s a very interesting dynamic and I think we, at least on the Democratic side, how fortunate we are to have at least two extremely viable candidates, I think she’s the better one, but I think we have an embarrassment of riches, versus the Republican side which is just an embarrassment. …”

“Valerie weighed in on the politicization of our intelligence as well. Her comments on this are tremendously important,” writes Taylor. “Please take the time to listen to them. I can’t possibly transcribe the import of all she said, which was quite complex.”

Taylor also asked Joe Wilson about the war in Iraq as well as “Wilson’s reaction to Obama’s actionable intelligence answer on Pakistan”:

It was reinforced today by Musharraf’s comment that any U.S. bombing of Pakistan would be considered a hostile act. That is precisely how reckless it is to be sitting there saying, yeah, if we have actionable intelligence we’ll just go ahead and bomb a sovereign country. The last thing we need to do is to further exacerbate anti-American opinion in a country that has a significant fundamentalist population and has nuclear weapons. So I think that is really born out by what Musharraf said yesterday or today. How delicate international diplomacy is today and how important it is to measure your statements and not to act in a way that can be construed as reckless.

Joe, briefly, on Iraq and “what does he make of the political volleying, with Obama trying to make an issue out of his speech versus Clinton’s vote on the Iraq war resolution” since “Joseph Wilson was in the eye of the storm”:

Well, I think the fact that’s dominated the narrative is an indication of how little people really understand the dynamics of the debate as it was going on at the time. And the people making a lot of hay over this weren’t there. I was there. I was fighting the fight. I looked to the left of me. I looked to the right of me. I didn’t see Barack Obama anywhere. …

Read more excerpts from Taylor Marsh’s interview in Las Vegas, and listen to the full podcast of the interview.

Kathleen

There is no doubt that Hillary has taken a pounding by the MSM, and that they have basically been on Obama’s bandwagon and ignored Edwards. I watch and listen to the MSM rather closely and I also watched all the debates both Republican and Democratic.

I am surprised by Steinam’s stance. I would have thought that being a truly anti-war candidate would have met more to her.

I read everything you posted and while I have a great deal of respect for both Valerie and Joe Wilson it is too bad that when they referred to the “politicization of intelligence” they said nothing about the more recent “politicization of intelligence” in the Kyl Lieberman amendment. Not even a mention. Odd!

I also find it interesting when Joe Wilson said “People who don’t remember that are trying to spin this for their own particular “short term” partisan interest and they should not be allowed to get away with this”

Not bringing up the most recent vote on Iran seems like “very short partisan interest” Mr. Wilson.

I remember clearly when that 2002 war resolution vote came up. I was in shock! As a 50 year old soccer mom at the time and one who tries to stay up on current issues. I could not understand after so many “experts” had all ready questioned the validity of the intelligence, the wisdom of the invasion that the neo-cons were pushing hard for, and then the timing of that resolution. Why congress accepted the timing of such dangerous legislation and did not push for a delay in that vote until after those mid-term elections, more debate, more hearings yada yada.

There were ongoing inspections at the time, Scott Ritter, Hans Blix and many others were saying let the inspection process continue.

I think the Wilson’s are making excuses for Hillary and our congress and blaming the Bush administration instead of Hillary taking responsibility for such a very bloody bad decision and then applying what she should have learned from that very bad and bloody decision. And if they want to refer to short term memories just look to Hillary’s vote in October for an amendment having to do with Iran that was both unnecessary and very dangerous.

I am not buying it
Kathleen

Hillary all ready knew far more about the dark players in the Bush administration to fall into that very dangerous and bloody trap that they set for congress.

Kucinich voted against our district’s Congressman Srickland voted against the 2002 war resolution.

Hello Hillary, Joe and Valerie,

Byrd, Feingold, Graham, Leahy, Leving Akaka, Boxer, Bingaman, LINCOLN CHAFFEE, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Inoye, Jeffords, Mikulski, Reed ,Sarbanes, Stabnow, Wellstone, Wyden ALL VOTED AGAINST IT.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

I wish, Feingold, Leahy, Durbin or Boxer were running for Pres instead of Clinton, Edwards (who voted for it, but has fucking learned) and Obama who is a fence sitter were running but they are not. Out of the three Edwards gets it.
TeakWoodKite

This was the caption for the Photogragh…

“Covert C.I.A. operative Valerie Plame Wilson”

Question: Why is the word “operative” still being used?

A question for the Wilson’s: Will Valerie make more “forays” in to politics? If you do…some humble advice might I offer. Do it with the same intensity I saw in your eyes when Bill Maher interviewed you. We know there is much you are not at liberty to say, but your knowledge can be of great service would you consider as Larry put “flagging horse shit”?

And to Mr Wilson: What is your favorite golf club? ;same question to Mrs. Wilson if you play.
Kathleen

That interview with Maher was one of the best. Thanks for reminding me. Am listening again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7vlE0s83_s

Her eyes really did light up when she talked about the punishment for people being traitor’s

“the penalty for treason is…..”
TeakWoodKite

I am watching Meet the Press and it appears that ol’ Timmy is going for the file tape to quote 6 month’s from now. Hillary is not taking the bait. I have to say this for her, she’s faster on her feet than Bill is. Tim’s earpiece must be buzzing from the voice analysis feed his producer is giving him.
norris morris

Kathleen,

I really respect your point of view, but feel there is a lot of oversimplification going on here.

This is not Iraq. This is now, and with an entirely different dynamic and much we don’t know. Republicans are sure to make the wrong moves regarding Iran inspite of any agreements.

It’s absurd you believe Clinton would want a war with Iran when she has stated what the issues are relating to Iran.

Her call/vote was the offering of a diplomatic stick to the diplomatic carrot, and if you think for one second that Ian will not continue with Nuclear
proliferation without Carrot and Stick diplomacy, I believe you haven’t thought this through.

Clinton wants to bring us out of this war safely. Kathleen, do you really think you can wave a magic wand and this mess is over ??

Other then our armed forces there are over 100,000 civilian personnel along with the protection necessary to all the Iraquis who have and continue to help us. Translaters, etc. And this does not allow for unforseen events.

Obama’s senior foreign policy advisor is Z.Brezinsky. A hawk who served under Carter as advisor and failed miserably. This is a very yesterday hawkish foreign wonk slated to become Sec’y of State. Hillary’s is Holbrooke who was UN
Rep for US under Clinton. Google for background.

Let’s try to think this out.
norris morris

Russert was no way as smart,swift, or effective as one would expect a first rate interviewer/host to be. Because he isn’t first rate.

Hillary held her own, made sense, and frustrated Russert who couldn’t “get” her.

Maybe they’ll find something on the feed that can be out-contexted or manipilate the sound. Anything to bash Hillary. But today she held her own.
Simon

Essentially, your intransigence is your argument againt Clinton.

You are not open to compromise, or examination of the truth, despite the diplomatic carrot offered to you.

Do you support Obama?
Mr.Murder

Anthrax poisoning of Daschle changed people’s minds…
SirScud

INCOMING>>>>>

I associate myself with everything Lady “Kathleen” has said herein, and would add that sophomoric whining about the treatment the Clinton and Obama campaigns have received from the MSM is typical conservative ploy. The real question is why is a viable candidate like John Edwards, who is a proven and tested Progressive alternative, being marginalized by that same MSM?
Could it be that the reason the corporate pundits are obsessed with the soap opera of the petty Clinton-Obama infighting is to keep the debate dumbed down, and prevent their viewers from becoming informed?
There can be no doubt that both of the Wilsons have been criminally wronged by the Bush cabal. That having been said, it is no big surprise to see them pandering to the Conservative wing of the Democrat party, and playing “selective memory” games in so doing; that is the Conservative way of doing business. It seems to me they would serve us all much better if they actively supported people like Sybel Edmonds, and the many other bonafide ‘whistle blowers’ that are trying to take our country back from the fascists, neoliberals, and neoconservatives.
Regarding Gloria Steinam’s “stance”, one would be well advised to see her interview on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, and let her speak for herself.
The mentioning of Brezinsky advising Obama is an important point, but he is simply one of many advocates of global hegemony to be aware of; we have many of these war mongering chicken hawks masquerading as intellectuals in our midst. We need the thinking of the Scott Ritters, the Chalmers Johnsons, the Noam Chomskys, and the Richard Clarks to guide our foreign policy; not the Brezinskys, the Kissingers, and Colin Powells.
Maybe some of those that frequent this board should actually read Robert Parry, Seymour Hersch, and Robert Fisk, instead of simply bandying their names about to make impressions.