Video: Podesta- Plame Game is "About the war in Iraq"

John Podesta and Ken Mehlman appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert this morning and John Podesta told us what "Leakgate" is really about: "The War in Iraq".

You can watch the video HERE

Russert: When you were at the Clinton WH, you will remember Pres. Clinton's testimony under oath, where his lawyer, Mr. Bennett saying there is no sex of any kind, and Mr. Clinton saying it depends on what is "is". Are those the kind of legal evasions you are accusing the Bush WH of?

Podesta: Well, I think the President paid a tremendous price. At the end of the day this isn't about Pres. Clinton, this is about the Bush WH, this is about the war in Iraq. This is about the fact that whether it's Dick Clarke or Joe Wilson or Gnl. Shinsheki or Max Cleland or Joe Wilson, the motus operandi is if you criticize this WH, if you suggest there is another point of view, you're attacked. You're smeared.

Two critical points to make:

(1) As the left continues to see the fault in their argument against Karl Rove, they continue to change the argument. Now it is "about the war in Iraq".

(2) When did discrediting a persons statements become a personal attack? Herein lies the true problem with the left. If you successfully show that their statements/arguments/etc. lack credibility or are factually inaccurate, they take it personal and accuse you of "attacking" and "smearing" them personally. Not one of these individuals have been personally attacked [ i.e. republicans are Evil < that's a personal attack], but their statements have been debated and proven false. That is what a discussion is meant to do, ferret out the truth.

So, what we learn today from the left's backpedaling on Karl Rove is that when you prove they are making inaccurate statements, they'll accuse you of "attacking" them and then change the subject. It is now "about the war in Iraq".

Update: If you want a great run-down on this story...check out Ace's post: Rovemania -- Not Genuine News Of Any Importance, But An Amazing Simulation - Must read!!

Comments

[Pat]

The psychology of the left is really interesting. I have a theory that the hatred for Bush, both by liberal (I hate using that word since it's been so twisted) Dems, and the MSM, is because he is proven right so often. Starting with the result in Florida, and continuing through the war in Iraq. It literally drives them crazy. He says he won in FL, starts preparing to take office, courts back him up, and recounts conducted by various organizations later prove he was right. The left NEVER acknowledges this. THEY said he lost. They HATE him. He says that the best weapon against terrorism is freedom and Democracy, so, for a huge variety of reasons (all of which the Dems agreed with in 1998 when they were calling for regime change to be the official US policy toward Iraq) we go in and overthrow a tyrant with many ties to terrorists (now indisputable--though, again, the left was wrong so they can't admit it, and they just hate Bush more for it). Aside from a democracy in Iraq and a democracy in Afghanistan (which is the bigger miracle I'll leave to you to decide), we start seeing the Arab world hungering for freedom and democracy and the opportunities that accompany them. Bush is right again. The left and MSM are wrong again. They HATE Bush for it. You have to feel bad for them (or maybe not) because they're missing opportunities for joy and celebration and to make the kind of positive changes in the world that Democratic leaders of the past would've warmly embraced. Ah well...

On top of that there is an incredible abundance of projection. They really do personal attacks, so when they hear any argument, they assume the other side is also attacking them personally. "If you disagree with me, you're attacking me personally." Remember the hue and cry over the whole claim that people were being declared unpatriotic and stifled by the Republicans... at the same time that Al Gore was screaming that George Bush "betrayed" his country (oddly enough, by doing exactly what Al Gore wanted to do in 1998). I get a huge kick out of people who can stand on any street corner and yell at the top of their lungs "My first amendment rights are being suppressed" with no reprisals. They miss the point that their very ability to make the statement renders it false.

It's all very interesting to me. And kind of sad. I can't believe that either Jack or Bobby Kennedy would be proud, or that Rev. King would be proud, or that FDR or Truman would be proud. As another republican who is a recovering democrat, due in large part to the inability of the Democratic party (and liberal mentality) to deal with reality, it truly amazes me that they can make such insane statements and believe them.

[JDS]

"If you successfully show that their statements/arguments/etc. lack credibility or are factually inaccurate, they take it personal and accuse you of "attacking" and "smearing" them personally."

I couldn't agree more. Sometimes getting reporters to understand the truth means disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative. What these liberals don't understand is that we must do whatever is necessary to win the war on terror! In addition, I believe that this Plame woman will, in the long run, be very happy that her career in the CIA has been destroyed. Hopefully she will take this opportunity to stay home and support her family as a good Christian wife and mother.

[Shelby]

In any event, Podesta's right about one thing. This (the Plame/Wilson scandal) is, and always was, about the war in Iraq. It's also about attacking Bush's administration, of course, but the two are inseperable in the minds of the scandalmongers. Podesta's "smear" comment, on the other hand, is pure nonsense.

[Alan]

I would instead go one more. The issue isn't about the War in Iraq or even George Bush. Those are just symptoms of their larger hatred (self-loathing) of America and their rage at their own growing impotence. Bush and the War are just the manifestations that they must focus their hate on when their ire is really directed at this country and its way of life. Their grand social experiment in liberalism has been an abject failure. Not to overdraw the comparison, but liberals are about as supportive of Democracy (where people may choose things you don't want them to) as the Islamists.

[Pat]

JDS (dripping with sarcasm):"I couldn't agree more. Sometimes getting reporters to understand the truth means disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative. What these liberals don't understand is that we must do whatever is necessary to win the war on terror! In addition, I believe that this Plame woman will, in the long run, be very happy that her career in the CIA has been destroyed. Hopefully she will take this opportunity to stay home and support her family as a good Christian wife and mother."

You make the point. The woman was NOT a covert operative, nor had she been for over five years. She worked at Langley, like a lot of other working women and men, doing analysis or whatever she does. What might screw things up for her is that she helped get her husband a gig that he may or may not have been qualified for, but in either case, he came back and, instead of simply filing a report, he wrote an op-ed, which, apparently, contradicted what he had reported to the CIA. He also misrepresented why he went and who sent him on the mission. He and his wife seem to be the ones with the petty partisan agenda in this mess.

The point is, you had to misrepresent the facts in order to say how awful the Republicans, and the adminsitration is in this deal. And you had no problem doing it. I long for the day when a Dem says, "Oh... you mean Plame wasn't a covert operative, and Rove wasn't running around spewing her name like venom to anyone who would listen? Sounds like a lot of smoke over nothing. Now... How do we TRULY fix Social Security and Medicaid? I have some ideas..."

[jt007]

Pat is right about the psychology of the Left. I am surprised that more isn't made out of that issue. I live in Los Angeles and work in Hollywood so I am immersed in liberalism. Trust me, ideological liberals (as opposed to working class Democrats who affiliated with the party years ago because they thought it looked out for the little guy) are narcissists. They lack the ablility to emphathize with others which means they cannot countenance any opinion but their own. They are consumed with themselves so they think everything is about them and they have to have their way. If they don't get it, they are furious because they have a massive sense of entitlement. That is why they think you are personally attacking them when you disagree with their policy positions and they get so angry when you do. Frankly, most of the liberals I know are bigots. I can't tell you how many times I have heard liberals say that they would never be friends with a Republican. That also reveals another fact about many liberals, they literally don't know anyone on a personal basis who is conservative. Liberalism really is narcissism on a group level. It's a manifestation of a collective personality disorder.

[mczoo]

jt007,
Might be a little harsh to call it a personality disorder, no? Maybe the fact that liberals are emotion driven prohibits them from be friends with someone who kicks them in their emotional groin.

JDS,
Just sit down, pull your knees up, and take deep breaths.

[MagicalPat]

jt007

I couldn't agree more. I have lived in the L.A. area for almost 20 years now, and the hatred on the left is part of the reason I moved to the right. I work in the entertainment business and I think calling their leftism a personality disorder is right on the money. The majority of these people need therapy! They are poster children for bigotry. What bothers me most is their inabilty to have a discussion without foaming at the mouth spewing cliche phrases. If you start to make a point that is backed up with facts, they call you names, throw a tantrum and toss in a "Bush lied kids died" for good measure. They usually leave in a Huff (Which as I recall is an automobile that was imported from Sweden so many years ago) I value my conservative L.A. friends like the rarity they are.

[JDS]

I totally agree with what is being said here. Liberals are afflicted with personality disorders and other associated sicknesses of the mind. These mental defects lead them to unfairly characterize their opponents, thus making polite political discourse all but impossible. It must be very sad to go through life so deluded, always thinking that they are always right and everyone else is always wrong.

[lone star]

Wow, two Hollywood closet conservatives in one comments section? Make me three. Amazingly, as my career faded for a bit, I had less to lose and have been able to come out of the closet a bit. Bigotry precisely the word which describes the 'don't-give-me-all-the-facts-I've-already-decided-about-you'
attitude I encounter now. Pretty amazing. the assumption that everyone i the business feels the same way is nearly absolute, and they're VERY uncomfortable with anyone who speaks differently.....except for country musicians. I'm speaking in broad generalizations, of course, but let me tell you, when I turned down the chance to play a NOW rally in DC (2001), and made the foolish decision to admit my discomfort with abortion on demand and alligning myself with its proponents...well, let's just say the tours dried up that summer. One day I hope to meet some of you other conservatives out here, but for now, there's just no way I'll give my true information out on the web.

[Thomas]

"I totally agree with what is being said here. Liberals are afflicted with personality disorders"

I think everyone has been quite clear that they mean liberals who can't hold a discussion without getting angry. So, how you holding up? You’re obviously mischaracterizing the other side. You pissed too?

Anyway, I agree. Seeing disagreement as a personal attack is a classic narcissistic trait.

[JDS]

I am angry, at all those crazy liberals who are always getting so mad. They're not like us conservatives who always speak the truth.

[vyn]

Trey,

I have two comments about your post on which I would be interested in getting your feedback. First, I don't believe I'm convinced that Podesta's comments represent a Dem change of tack. To my knowledge, Wilson has always referred to the identification of his wife as an act of retaliation against his comments on what he perceived to be the administration's misuse of documentation to further the cause for war. It seemed to me that Podesta's comments were in the spirit of looking to the motivations behind what transpired, and given who he believes to be responsible (Rove) and the timing of the act, he believes it ultimately has to do with the war in Iraq.

Second, I agree that it makes no sense for someone to refer to a sound, logical defeat of his/her argument as a 'personal attack.' However, I want to bring up the similarity between the out-of-line Dean comment, "Republicans are evil," and the title of a recent book by Sean Hannity, "Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism," or Santorum's comments on Boston. I don't mean to draw a direct comparison between these examples, but rather to simply point out that both sides are quite capable of personal, inflammatory -- and, quite possibly inappropriate -- statements. Thanks for the thought-provoking article.

[Trey]

Vyn-

You heard it here first. I plan to start a podcast this weekend where I answer questions that people leave for me in the comments section as well as those that are emailed. What I would like to have happen, is for those who have the ability, to email me their question in audio so I can play the question and respond to it.

So- if you would like to record your question and email it to me, I'll defintely include you in the mix.

As for anyone wondering about what types of questions I will accept... ANY. So long as the question does not contain profanity, hate speech etc. As long as the question is asked in a civil manner, I will do my best to address it.

Hopefully, we'll be able to kick this off this weekend and maybe even get Pamela to respond to a few questions. We'll see.

Best,

Trey

[gambling craps]

http://thetrainingclinic.com/_disc1/000008d8.htm [url=http://thetrainingclinic.com/_disc1/000008d8.htm]instant payday loan[/url] http://thetrainingclinic.com/_disc1/000008d8.htm>instant payday loan [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/blackjack-3.html]free blackjack[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/blackjack-3.html http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/blackjack-3.html>free blackjack http://www.freewebs.com/casino-24/slots-7.html>free slots [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-24/slots-7.html]slots online[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-24/slots-7.html [url=http://www.springgreen.com/_bboard/00002892.htm]bad debt loan payday[/url] http://www.springgreen.com/_bboard/00002892.htm>bad debt loan payday http://www.springgreen.com/_bboard/00002892.htm http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/craps-6.html [url=http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/craps-6.html]craps game[/url] http://www.freewebs.com/casino-45/craps-6.html>free online craps

[Poorret]

http://ball-python.twinpharm.cn>ball python