Redstate

I commented on another thread that I'm stumped as to why Wilson seems to want this to be a big deal. I saw Special Report last night as well, when Brit passed on this info, but I haven't seen the commentary on the left. Still, I don't know that they really want to go here.

Assume they're totally correct and Vallely is a lying fraud - so what? He's been irrelevant so far, and he will continue to be so, and have nothing to do with anything. OTOH, he's about as disconnected from the case as possible, and continuing to focus on him only serves to justify examining what he's saying. If he proves true, or even marginally accurate, then he's a thread to use to start pulling apart the quilted story Wilson has knit together. Others have already joined in such dequilting, and the crowd would swell.

I don't think the VRWC can do this by itself, but if the left demands an argument, they may get just that - something they usually don't embrace.

I believe the key word is "lie."  Is it a lie to say something you thought was true that turns out to be false?  Is it a lie to say something that turns out to be partly false?  Is it a lie to say something with intent to deceive, even if it can be argued that what you said is technically true?  Is it a lie to say something with the intent to enlighten, even if what you said is technically false?

and is it a lie to tell the truth when it reveals a lefty icon as a liar? This is the issue.

Maybe the defense lawyers for Scooter Libby might want to subpoena both Vallely and Wilson and let them debate this under oath!

In that case, if Wilson lies (again), he too could be indicted for perjury!

Is it a lie to say something with intent to deceive, even if it can be argued that what you said is technically true?

Isn't this how Bill Clinton avoided perjury charges?

Maybe? I'm sure Wilson's deposition questions are already prepared, as well as the brief arguing against Fitzgerald's motion to quash. It's Vallely who's new to the scene (the case, not national familiarity), and every day this remains news, Libby's team is adding names and questions.

The left, get Rove crowd, seems to have settled on the irrelevance of these points, thinking Fitz simply has to show Libby lied to one or more reporters and/or the GJ - it's that conflict which he cannot testify away.

BUT - if his defense is a combination of confusion and irrelevance, then throwing every witness possible into the mix may do the trick.

Seems they're headed that way, and Wilson cannot do too much to stop him.

1. statement is partially or totally false, and
   
   
2. declarant knows his statement is false when he says it.

Precisely for the same reason he has conflated his extremely minor role in the war: To defend his ego and coverup his lies.

I see the term "lie" being used increasingly to refer to statements that are made in good faith that later are found to be partially false, often in trivial ways.  I think we need to push back on such abuse of language as well as on substantive issues of fact.

who are saying untrue things in deliberate bad faith, like Dr. Dean, Wilson, Reid, Kennedy, Mary Mapes, etc. are being allowed to have it basically never challanged hard.

Regret it took me so long to update my gatherings with regard the peculiar public conducts of the Wilsons and their clique these last years.  Before we can get to the fundamentals of who, what, when the Wilsons, we need many more facts and dates than are now available to public record, what is called open source intelligence.  

Note that there is call to be curious as to the origin and scope of the pro-Wilson, anti-Vallely contributions on the alphabet soup of blogs and periodicals this last week.  Babbin and Toensing have credibly speculated that the CIA in some fashion is involved - or has allowed itself to become involved - in the defense of the Wilsons and the offense directed at Libby and other notables in the Bush administration.

Based upon the intemperate remarks of the self-described Wilson intimate Larry Johnson, there is also call now to watch the trial of Libby for the contributions and interference of active duty CIA officers.

For now:  How much of this is Wilson's frantic vanity?  How much of this is Johnson's bilious personality?   How much of this is the pleasurable fever of well-meaning partisans?