Saturday, April 15, 2006
Wilson's Folly: A Costly Bluff
Whatever you might think of notorious liar Joe Wilson, he ain't no poker player. Wilson bet his credibility against that of the President when he lied about all the salient facts surrounding his trip to Niger in a NYT article that blew classified material to the world and then falsely claimed responsibility for having uncovered forged documents. All in an attempt to undermine the Bush administration and therefore the war effort itself.
This was a costly bluff, says Stanley Renshon at the Political Psychology blog. His article, Fitzgerald Needs to Make a Second Correction, adds meat to the story of Wilson's Folly and also makes an important point about the Fitz investigation that I was glad to see come up the other night on Hannity and Colmes. Colmes was asking Newt Gingrich why Bush would have thought it necessary to "smear" Joe Wilson in apparent retaliation for his false Niger claims. Gingrich, clearly exasperated at Colmes' sheer obtuseness, kindly explained to the buffoon in the most respectful manner that answering a man's lies with the facts can hardly be portrayed as a "smear." I wouldn't have been so generous with Colmes, I'm afraid, but that's irrelevant.
This is relevant:
This was a costly bluff, says Stanley Renshon at the Political Psychology blog. His article, Fitzgerald Needs to Make a Second Correction, adds meat to the story of Wilson's Folly and also makes an important point about the Fitz investigation that I was glad to see come up the other night on Hannity and Colmes. Colmes was asking Newt Gingrich why Bush would have thought it necessary to "smear" Joe Wilson in apparent retaliation for his false Niger claims. Gingrich, clearly exasperated at Colmes' sheer obtuseness, kindly explained to the buffoon in the most respectful manner that answering a man's lies with the facts can hardly be portrayed as a "smear." I wouldn't have been so generous with Colmes, I'm afraid, but that's irrelevant.
This is relevant:
Given how much was at stake, including public confidence in an administration fighting a war in Iraq and more generally against terrorism, correcting damaging, but inaccurate misrepresentations by a clearly partisan and anti-Bush zealot (Wilson) was not only politically necessary, but a public responsibility.
As to punishing or seeking revenge, on what basis does Mr.Fitzgerald make this claim? Was it because the administration was angry at lies directed at it and the public about a subject of the most serious consequences? He doesn’t say.
