The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

23 July 2006

Michael Savage, San Francisco Weekly

SAVAGED

Lefty Paper Digs Deep, Skewers Popular Host





*** Site Update Below ***

After a lengthy expose on his background was released this week, we doubt the "Savage Nation" is a very happy place to live right now.

Published in the San Francisco Weekly, a left- wing "alternative" newspaper, it details syndicated talker Michael Savage's past, going back to his quasi- beatnik days.

While some of the story's details aren't new, it does fill in a number of gaps in our understanding of the infamously hot- headed host's colorful previous life. Especially interesting is that his onetime involvement with the San Francisco- based counterculture movement appears to have been far more extensive than previously reported.


While one would expect a lefty "City" paper to skewer Savage (there doesn't seem to have been much of an attempt to find supporters or defenders of the popular host, for example), the piece is worth reading for the insight it sheds on what brought the man to where he is today.

Just remember to keep your media bias stink- detector set to "high" for this one: it has a nasty habit of attempting to tie his ideological conversion to mental illness.


From Ron Russell's piece:


Three years ago, after he was canned by MSNBC for telling a caller to his fledgling cable TV show to "get AIDS and die, you pig," some people were saying that the combative, arch-conservative talk-show host and author of red-meat political diatribes was washed up. But that was four New York Times best-sellers ago. His latest book, The Political Zoo, a kind of walk through the jungle of mostly liberal political animals that this unlikeliest of San Francisco provocateurs loves to hate, hit bookstore shelves in the spring....


....It's a neat trick for a once mild-mannered botanist and North Beach hipster who counted none other than Lawrence Ferlinghetti and the late Allen Ginsberg among his pals when he was still using his real name: Michael Weiner.

Few things about Savage's pre-radio past could have presaged his rise as perhaps the far right's most vocal on-air ambassador. Not his adulation of Ginsberg. Not the fact that he once trolled the streets of Greenwich Village and, later, North Beach, in a beret. Or that the staunch anti-abortionist's first wife had two abortions during their marriage. And certainly not the fact that he was once Timothy Leary's gatekeeper at the LSD experimenter's farm.

His daily three-hour program has added dozens of new stations in the last 18 months. His screeds continue to fly off bookstore shelves. Sources say that his unique syndication deal through Talk Radio Network — the Oregon outfit that also produces talker Laura Ingraham and a bevy of lesser-known conservatives — enables Savage to rake in several millions of dollars annually from the radio show alone.

With all of that going for him, one might conclude that the reclusive and media-suspicious former beatnik lover and author of herbal medicine books would be a happy camper. But Savage, 64, appears to feel too underappreciated to be happy for long....


.....That the archconservative radio icon should be based in America's most famously liberal big city is largely an accident of circumstance. Back in 1994, irked over his inability to find a publisher for a controversial book he had written called Immigrants and Epidemics, which sought to link the spread of infectious diseases to U.S. immigration policy, Savage recorded a mock radio talk show on tape. He sent it to 400 stations nationwide. Of the three that responded, KGO, in San Francisco, offered him a job.


To see the rest of the story, click here.

*** Note *** After an annoying outage for most of this afternoon, we seem to have returned to normal functioning. It apparently affected a number of Blogger sites today.

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, help to support this site's efforts. Thanks!

Drawing: SF Weekly

40 Comments:

  • Get aids and die, Baloney. :-)

    By Blogger Mr. Kite, at 23 July, 2006 22:55  

  • GOOD GRIEF!!!! What kind of person changes their views with age and experiance, doesn't Savage know you are not suppose to ever grow, rejoice, regret, and contemplate your life? Clearly no one should be allowed to change their opinion on anyting at anytime.

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 23 July, 2006 23:32  

  • um... brilliant point about the propensity of those lefties to tie idealogical conversion to mental illness... particularly inappropriate when talking about a GUY WHO WROTE A BOOK CALLED "LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER"!! what is WRONG with you?

    By Blogger 4236740, at 24 July, 2006 08:36  

  • Not quite into Savage myself. I do remember a controversy last year when a grocer pulled Rockstar energy drink off the shelves because they found out that the manufacturer is Savage's son,
    and the whole MSNBC controversy (as described in Oct '05 Radio Eq. among other places) was mentioned. Russell "Goldencloud" Weiner.

    Groovy.

    Out of curiousity one day I leafed through the Savage Nation book in a book store and I saw one quote where he said he grew up listening to radio legends like "Gene (sic)
    Shepherd". I chuckled. That would be "Jean", Michael (the inspiration for Johnny Cash's "A Boy Named Sue"--
    songwriter Shel Silverstein was a friend of "Shep" and wrote the song about a boy with a girl's first name...

    Anyway...

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 24 July, 2006 09:24  

  • Savage's background is very relevant, it exposes his deep personality flaws, by going from one extreme to antoher, showing that the man has deep soul searching to do, and should be ignored by all. Any attempt to defend a man who pollutes the airweaves like him, proves one thing, the defender (Baloney) is also polluted and part of the problem , not the soluution. Word has it that Mr."I hate Gays" Savage is himself homosexual, word from people who formally worked with him. Go figure. HE IS A FRAUD. Yes, him being gay is indeed an important faxctor to expose.

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 24 July, 2006 09:52  

  • Maloney wrote:Just remember to keep your media bias stink- detector set to "high" for this one: it has a nasty habit of attempting to tie his ideological conversion to mental illness.


    i write
    He deserves it, he likens "liberalism" to a mental disoreder, so it is fair enough. Far right wack jobs like Savage are indeed suffering from a mental disorder, O.L.D Obsessed with Liberals disorder.

    Savage is the lowest form of opportunistic pond scum alive. IF you believe or trust a single thing this hatefull man of pollution has to say, you have some problems.

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 24 July, 2006 09:56  

  • Pulling a product because it's made by the son of someone you don't like is idiocy. What does that mean for Cheney's daughter, can she never be a gay activist now?

    As for going to one extreme to the other, only other people ever see that, we never see it in ourselves, and yet everyone does it for something.

    Then there is of course the always intellectually dishonest idea that people that don't like gays, really are gay themselves. Clearly this is little more than trying to avoid debate and to discredit the opponite via namecalling. If we took this concept to it's logical conclusion then all Nazis were Jews and all Klansmen were Black. IDIOCY!

    By Blogger Lonewatchman, at 24 July, 2006 10:23  

  • "Savage's background is very relevant, it exposes his deep personality flaws, by going from one extreme to antoher,"


    Ahem, things change...

    What do you call a liberal mugged by reality? A conservative.

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 24 July, 2006 11:09  

  • Lone
    From sources who have worked with the man himself, HE IS GAY. I'm not assuming he is GAY, I'm reporting what I have been told. Fact remains, MANY of those who hate gays are gay themselves. Google it, you will find many stories of anti-gay preachers and leaders caught with another man. This is not dishonesty this is a PATTERN. I know this breaks your tough guy illusion of Savage Weiner, but this is not something I made up, I have a source of two, just like Maloney. This is a knowm pattern, many of the most anti-gay men are later found out to be gay. Nothing new under the sun.

    Benson:
    going from hanging out with a NAMBLA proponent to being a far right war hawk in the span of 20 years is EXTREME. It is not as if he went from being a "liberal" to being a "conservative", he went from the furthest extreme to the other furthest extreme. It is a sgn the man, has deep mental problems, and he projects his own mental issues on others with his negative pollution, he calls radio and literature. He went from one extreme to another in a quest for attention.

    IF YOU DEFEND a man like this, you both have deep deep soul searching to do. You do not have to be a "liberal" to understand that this man is pollution. Savage is more hateful than any other radio host I have ever listened to. I do not call hannity hatefull, because he is NOT, I don't even call Limbaugh hatefull, he is NOT, he is just wrong. Savage is HATE RADIO, Savage is HUMAN pollution. He is bad for society, and you can quote me on that. I do not believe in censorship, I believe any company that promotes and pays a man like Savage Weiner, is a company that has no care for society in general. Shame on Savage and his network. It is up to americans to raise the level and tune out pollution such as Savage.

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 24 July, 2006 11:59  

  • I had the, er, privilege of being one of the first listeners to Michael Savage back in the KGO days. What was especially fun was listening to Savage do a fill-in slot in the 7-10p segment, to be followed by ultraliberal nutjob Bernie Ward for the 10-1 shift.

    Then KGO bought KSFO-560, and set it up as the "right wing" alternative to KGO's center- to center-left talk programming. They needed someone for the 1p-4p daypart, and The Savage Nation was born. Syndication and the move to CheapChannel's KNEW was a few years down the road. Didn't know about the billboard at Columbus and Vallejo. Classic tweaking, IMHO.

    The Story of Savage is a simple one - He grew up to be his father, with some detours along the way. The language he uses on the air is similar to the (limited amount of) dialogue shared regarding his father in the story. Some people Savage thought were heroes (Ginsberg in particular) turned out to have feet of clay, not to mention predilections that would make the normal adult squeamish.

    And he longs on-air for the San Francisco That Was, when the 49ers played at Kezar Stadium in Golden Gate Park, when the cops could actually arrest someone for urinating in public, and when the homeless were kept in one basic area (GG Park Panhandle, near Haight/Ashbury) instead of surrounding every cable car turnaround or BART/Muni Metro station. There's nothing much wrong with that, IMHO.

    He's a lonely, angry man. Just like his father. And he transmits that anger over the airwaves to a whole bunch of people who are equally as pissed off about what the Guvmint is doing, and more importantly what it is not doing.

    In San Francisco, secular humanist liberalism is preached from On High 24/7. The former DA would not criminally prosecute drug possession or prostitution charges, and the current DA is evidently allergic to prosecuting for murder Source: Another SF Weely article. Gavin Newsome needs no further illustration, except as to say that he was the more "conservative" of the mayoral candidates (and was so criticized in the press) the last time out.

    Savage's detractors, both right and left, had better wise up to the fact that he is growing in popularity on the airwaves not necessarily because of 100% content of his show, but the passion with which it is expressed.

    There is a reason that he is gaining affiliates and selling books. There is a reason why Hannity and O'Reilly, among others, have leveled out in that regard. (Limbaugh already pretty much has 100% market penetration, BTW).

    It would be easy to just sit back and say, "ah, just a bunch of right wing nutjobs listening to their reich-wing echo chamber talking points."

    There is a reason Savage kicks Hannity's and O'Reilly's butt in SFO - he knows something they have forgotten: All politics is local.

    The polity ignores that at their peril.

    ______

    More bilge from RWW: "Savage's background is very relevant, it exposes his deep personality flaws, by going from one extreme to antoher, showing that the man has deep soul searching to do, and should be ignored by all."

    Not all children grow up being exactly like their parents from beginning to end; they sometimes take a different path to get to the same place, as Savage has done. It will be entertaining to watch you react if you have a son who turns out to be like Alex P. Keaton.


    "Any attempt to defend a man who pollutes the airweaves like him, proves one thing, the defender (Baloney) is also polluted and part of the problem , not the soluution. Word has it that Mr."I hate Gays" Savage is himself homosexual, word from people who formally worked with him. Go figure. HE IS A FRAUD. Yes, him being gay is indeed an important faxctor to expose."

    Word has it? Whose word? Names, RWW, names. If you're going to make such a charge, you've got hard evidence to back it up, right?

    (insert sound of crickets here)

    Thought so.

    "He deserves it, he likens "liberalism" to a mental disoreder, so it is fair enough. Far right wack jobs like Savage are indeed suffering from a mental disorder, O.L.D Obsessed with Liberals disorder.

    Savage is the lowest form of opportunistic pond scum alive. IF you believe or trust a single thing this hatefull man of pollution has to say, you have some problems.
    "

    Pot. Kettle. Black.


    "From sources who have worked with the man himself, HE IS GAY. I'm not assuming he is GAY, I'm reporting what I have been told. Fact remains, MANY of those who hate gays are gay themselves. Google it, you will find many stories of anti-gay preachers and leaders caught with another man. This is not dishonesty this is a PATTERN. I know this breaks your tough guy illusion of Savage Weiner, but this is not something I made up, I have a source of two, just like Maloney. This is a knowm pattern, many of the most anti-gay men are later found out to be gay. Nothing new under the sun. "

    WHO?!? Where is their testimony? Where is their interview?

    Do you expect us to believe that such a bombshell would just be whispered to good ole RWW, Not For Publication Elsewhere?

    Or are you just, er, talking out your ass, as usual?

    Defend your statement, you miserable coward. Name names, or retract the statement. None of this wishy-washy "it fits a pattern" mumbo jumbo. None of this "google it" yourself junk.

    You specifically stated "I have a source of two." I'm calling bullshit. Name them. When and where. In what context. Why. What is the source of this, or is it just hearsay? And if that is the case, considering your track record for honesty on this board, why should we believe a word you write?

    By Blogger JD, at 24 July, 2006 12:23  

  • I will never give up my sources , NEVER. understand? I'm not talking out of my "Ass". See, Im making not a penny doing this, you should trust someone like me, over a sleeze ball, hate mongering polluter like Savage, who does it for the MONEY. You can stand on your head, my sources would not want to lose their jobs. Why do you not attack Maloney on his A.A.R sources??? Deal with it , he is known to be homosexual, not a big deal, just very ironic. You even asttemping to defend a hate monerging pollution spewing person like Savage Weiner, says a lot about you. You are yourself, probably a hate filled man, with a rage, waiting to explode. No mumbo jumbo, just facts. You would not dare look into the connection between homosexuals(closet) and anti-gay sentiment, because you might learn something. Like all right wingers, you fear growth of one self. you are scared of changing, scared of progress and scared of dialogue. Savage is bad for America, Savage is bad for humanity. He is a hate filled opportunist, willing to say anything for money. Not me, I do not make a dime posting this stuff, and speaking my mind. If I had a professional broadfcasty, you can bank on it, I would not be polluting the airwaves, like your mis-understood hero Michael Weiner. He is a low life (judging by his on air statements). If he was on my side, I would want him off the airwaves too, just like Garaffalo. I'm objective, not a party blind hack, such as yourself. Savage is probably less redeeming than hard core pornography, he is pollution.

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 24 July, 2006 14:29  

  • Here's something for you all to think about.

    This savage guy did a bit in which he implied that Elizabeth Smart (the young girl from Utah who was kidnapped) was a slut.

    That is immoral for him to do that. If there is a hell, surely he will spend some time there when he dies.

    By Blogger Ben, at 24 July, 2006 14:30  

  • RWW, you are a pathetic, cowardly clown. It's easy to come on here and hide behind a nick and make all sorts of scurrilous charges, but each and every time you are asked to back them up, you go back to namecalling and dissembling. The reason we should not trust you is because you neither put your name nor any facts behind your statements. The "I will never give up my sources, EVER" bit was a beaut. Were you not an anonymous kook, I would put your name in for a Peabody award.

    RWW, try to bend what passes for your brain around something called inductive reasoning. Savage lives in Marin County. Six miles north of SFO. If the man was gay, as you allege, then that little fact would be quite the little bombshell for the SFO LGBT community - not a silent or taciturn group by any means - to let fly any time Savage goes off on his "San Fran Sicko" tilt. And yet, they don't. Why? Either he has the entire leadership (and rank and file) of the entire LGBT community of SFO completely cowed by his commentary; or in the alternative he's got so much personal "dirt" on the LGBT community that outing Savage as gay would be counterproductive. Or maybe, just maybe, your accusation is 100% grade-A bullcrap, and has absolutely no factual basis, and therefore cannot stand on its own.

    Apply Occam's Razor to that and tell us what you come up with. And make sure you don't cut yourself in doing so.

    By Blogger JD, at 24 July, 2006 15:07  

  • Apply Occam's Razor to that and tell us what you come up with. And make sure you don't cut yourself in doing so.

    Occam's Razor says that Savage is a Performance Artist and the whole thing is an act. Odds are that someone somewhere, be it Coulter or Savage or ?, is trying this tactic for money.

    By Blogger WHT, at 24 July, 2006 21:59  

  • Too funny , watching JD squirm and flip out over the fact that I know individuals who have worked on the man's program and told me he is GAY. You are actually flipping out over this. evilliberals.blogspot.com, is my blog. My internet radio show launches last week, you will soon learn all about us, I will never tell you who told me about your hero Savage.
    and the last poster is right, Savage is a sick joke, he is an act, and vacous morons like you fall for it.
    I'm reporting what I was told, JD, you are totally flipping out, smashing your fist onto your desk, because I shattered another right wing mirage. I know you can not handle it.
    J.D does not care about who revealed Plames name to the media,. but more concerned with who told me Savage is GAY. Sick, warped, mixed up priorities. RNC pundits take their own hacks over the safety and security of our CIA. siiiiiiickkk

    When I say they take party over country
    It is with good reason. I exposed a member of their "team", and he is flipping out as if I gave up the nuclear code. Damm hysterical

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 25 July, 2006 09:54  

  • RWW
    As usual, you are missing the point. You say that you are reporting what you were told. The central issue comes down to trustworthiness. A reputable reporter gives his own name, has a history of reliable reporting and does not make unsubstantiated claims. Rant all you want, but just realize these criteria do not apply to you.
    .

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 25 July, 2006 10:43  

  • RWW, you're a piece of work. FYI, I really don't care who revealed Plame's name to the press, because the person who first placed her name in the public domain was herself and her beloved hubby through his entry (paid for by him) in "Who's Who In America." The Robert Novak article did this nation a favor, IMHO, because it started the ball rolling toward exposing Joseph Wilson as a lying sack of crap - someone that RWW can truly get his arms around, I suppose. Valerie Plame was as much a NOC agent of CIA as you are able to discuss a point without bringing up extraneous garbage.

    Hmmmph. I do go on. Now, RWW, exercise your reading skills: My point was not about whether or not Savage is gay. If anything, if Savage is indeed gay, that would make his show even funnier to listen to, as it would turn the satire level up to '11'. My point was that you cannot, do not, and evidently will not, back up what you say on any subject with credible evidence. "I know it because (fill in the blank) told me so" doesn't cut it with an accusation that big. Hell, it doesn't cut it anywhere where you are concerned. I again repeat the question: If Savage being gay was so well-known, and would be so damaging to his credibility, then why hasn't he been outed? Isn't that a logical question to ask?

    Alas, sweet reason and logic evade the likes of you, RWW, a small man with a small mind who gets so pissed off that someone has the gall to "challange" you on any point that you conveniently forget the subject matter at hand. You wanna talk about typical? Look in the mirror, RWW.

    And just keep digging. The Truth is down there somewhere.

    By Blogger JD, at 25 July, 2006 11:28  

  • JD
    lost cause defending treason, sad, pathetic, proves you take party over country. She was a NOC agent running a cladestine company. FACTS, deal with it, spin to hell, you furthur prove you take party over country. I'm tired of people like you urinating on America, in the name of the letter "R"

    Savage comments: note, you never attacked Maloney on his "Air America" scoops, who are his sources????? Attack Maloney's "sources" before you attack mine.

    This is the "con" chain of thought, a conservative can use "secret sources" to base his "news" on Air America: No questions asked; A "liberal" uses an inside source to attack the slime of the radio Savage and you demand attribution. What a joke you are.

    Keep spinning......
    Plame is not deep cover
    Plame is not deep cover
    Plame is not deep cover

    Enjoy your fantasy world. you do not have to be "liberal" to grasp what happened in this issue.

    Patriot or loyalist?

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 25 July, 2006 12:29  

  • JD mindlessly dribbled: FYI, I really don't care who revealed Plame's name to the press, because the person who first placed her name in the public domain was herself and her beloved hubby through his entry (paid for by him) in "Who's Who In America."

    Tell us Einstein, where in the "Who's who..." that it stated that Valerie Plame was an CIA NOC agent. Her name wasn't a secret, you moron. Her CIA status was. When are you stupid wingnuts going to get that through your inpenetrable skulls.

    And the fact that you don't care simply proves that you wingnuts hate America enough to put a partisan political vendetta before national security.

    Valerie Plame was as much a NOC agent of CIA as you are able to discuss a point without bringing up extraneous garbage.

    The fact that you indulge in mindlessly repeating the same thoroughly debunked talking point only proves how much of a lying wingnut hack you are.

    Once again, from the transcript of Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference back in October 2005.

    Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

    Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

    The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.


    And just keep digging. The Truth is down there somewhere.

    Hilarious in light of the abovementioned BS you are pathetically trying to perpetuate. But if you close your eyes and wish really really hard, it all just might come true. Not.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 July, 2006 13:09  

  • J.D
    Defeated by facts regarding Plame, he searches frantically on Limbaugh's website for a talking point!!!

    The right wing may control the media, feeding lies on a consistant basis, feeding a steady diet of hate to their audience which are victims of propaganda, but they WILL NOT control the dialogue anymore. This whole blog is based on the desire to SQUASH dialogue , and attack any form of media that does not feed the RNC talking points into American's heads. Try as hard as you want, you will lose in the END. We have the TRUTH on our side, you have Rove.

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 25 July, 2006 14:13  

  • Wow. Sockpuppet One, backed up by Sockpuppet Two, agreeing in turn with Sockpuppet One, neither making a lick of sense, neither addressing the subject matter of the thread, both perpetuating their own echo chamber talking points.

    Truly an inspiring sight. With two shovels, y'all will dig up The Truth that much faster.

    By Blogger JD, at 25 July, 2006 15:18  

  • So what does that the cowardly wingnut do when he's been proven wrong yet again by the facts? He sticks his fingers in ears and spews the same old jibberish.

    Come on you spineless lying sack of crap. You've made some brainless claims concerning the Plame affair which you won't back up... which have been completely refuted by the transcripted words from Fitzgerald... which I have now called you on... so now you're cutting and running. And yet you have the hypocrisy to preach about Truth and spout BS like:
    My point was that you cannot, do not, and evidently will not, back up what you say on any subject with credible evidence

    Come on, you hypocritical coward. Let's see what you've got to back up what you say.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 July, 2006 16:01  

  • Challenge accepted. Do try to follow. I know, it'll be hard, but try. You might learn something.

    I said that her husband placed her name in the public domain via "Who's Who in America." That fact stands uncontroverted. In fact, her name has been associated with Joseph Charles Wilson IV since the 1999 edition; here is a thumb from the 2002 edition. I didn't say that she was listed as NOC in that listing, I stated that her name has been in the public domain. You do see the difference, do you not?

    I then said that the Novak Article started the ball rolling toward the exposure of Joseph Wilson as a lying sack of crap, as easily demonstrated here, here, and most emphatically here.

    I then said that "Valerie Plame was as much a NOC agent of CIA as you (meaning RWW) are able to discuss a point without bringing up extraneous garbage." Why's that? Well one little thing, and that is called "The Law." Under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act,
    (4) The term “covert agent” means—
    (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency— (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and— (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

    Since Sooper Seekrit Agent Valerie Plame Wilson had three-year-old twin sons at the time of the Novak Article in July of 2003, and since Wilson's last overseas posting ended in 1998, and since Plame and Wilson were married in 1998 right around the time that Wilson was forming his startup, and since CIA can be assumed to not be in the habit of sending pregnant women overseas to do dirty work, and since Valerie was busily pulling strings at Langley getting Dear Hubby his overseas trips, it is a reasonable conclusion that Valerie Wilson was not a covert agent, by the law. And that is why no one has been charged under IIPA with outing her.

    But that does lead me to your rather selective quotation of Fitzgerald. You left some little nuggets out, from later in his speech, which are relevant to the discussion at hand: It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.

    Later: There's another thing about a grand jury investigation. One of the obligations of the prosecutors and the grand juries is to keep the information obtained in the investigation secret, not to share it with the public. And as frustrating as that may be for the public, that is important because, the way our system of justice works, if information is gathered about people and they're not charged with a crime, we don't hold up that information for the public to look at. We either charge them with a crime or we don't.
    So. Who's been charged, and with what? Oh, that's right. Fitzmas never really came, did it? Ya got a NYT reporter in the jug for three months, and Scooter for fibbing to the Fibbies. That's quite the scalp count for Brother Fitzgerald.

    And sorry for the delay, but like some others on this board, I have more important things to worry about then arguing with one or two dolts on an anonymous webpage about something that is not the original subject of the thread.

    By Blogger JD, at 25 July, 2006 21:15  

  • it is a reasonable conclusion that Valerie Wilson was not a covert agent, by the law. And that is why no one has been charged under IIPA with outing her.

    JD - Awesome response and terrific logic!

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 25 July, 2006 22:10  

  • Do try to follow. I know, it'll be hard, but try. You might learn something.

    You couldn't teach the Bullshit Report how to tie his shoes.

    I said that her husband placed her name in the public domain via "Who's Who in America." That fact stands uncontroverted. In fact, her name has been associated with Joseph Charles Wilson IV since the 1999 edition; here is a thumb from the 2002 edition. I didn't say that she was listed as NOC in that listing, I stated that her name has been in the public domain. You do see the difference, do you not?

    Great. Then we can scratch the stupid assertion perpetuated by you brainless wingnuts that Plame's name appearing in the "Who's who..." has any relevance whatsoever. Why did you bring it up in the first place, moron?

    I then said that the Novak Article started the ball rolling toward the exposure of Joseph Wilson as a lying sack of crap, as easily demonstrated here, here, and most emphatically here.

    You offer a Weekly Standard article to support your opinion that Wilson's a liar. HAHA. That's the best reason to believe Wilson is more truthful than George Washington. Next you'll be referring me to WorldNetDaily.

    Well one little thing, and that is called "The Law."

    The law is no little thing, little brain. The GOP has pissed all over it for 5 years. And now you want to quote from it? If you weren't so stupid you might see the irony.

    Under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act,
    (4) The term “covert agent” means—
    (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency— (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; ...


    Former CIA agent, Larry C. Johnson: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."

    Also...
    ... Judge Tatel stated that because Fitzgerald had allegedly referred to Plame as "a . . . who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years," in footnote 15 of a recent affidavit, Judge Tatel inferred that Mr. Fitzgerald must have at least "some support" for that conclusion.[192]. Because Special Counsel Fitzgerald's affidavit[193] does appear to assume that it is at least possible that Libby could be guilty of intentionally exposing the identity of a "covert" agent (see affidavit, fn. 15), Judge Tatel appears to have inferred that Fitzgerald had concluded that Plame was an agent who had carried out covert work within the last 5 years.

    Plame had served several times outside the US as an active CIA operative carrying out "covert work" within the five years prior to her outing. Her cover was a CIA front company, Brewster Jennings, which specialized in gathering intelligence on WMDs and which had to be disbanded after Plame's covert status was blown by Libby and Rove.

    According to the IIPA you so ignorantly quote, Plame entirely met the criteria of a covert agent at the time of her outing in 2003. Fitzgerald believed so too and he made arguments to that effect in affidavits to the Federal Court... as well as making it crystal clear to everyone but the terminally stupid at that press conference last October.

    Here's your head once again, wingnut. You really should stop your pathetic attempts at arguing that the sky is pink - you're only embarrassing yourself.

    Bullshit Report, your brainless ass-kissing was an hilariously entertaining wingnut parody.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 25 July, 2006 23:39  

  • HH - Lame response and implausible logic!

    Glad I could brighten your day, even with your inane assumptions about Plame.
    .

    By Blogger The Benson Report, at 26 July, 2006 00:04  

  • God, HH, you just don't get it, and never will. Newspaper articles are given you, you reject them. Op-eds are given you, you reject them. Reproductions of senate investigations are given you, you reject them. Instead, you go to wikipedia, to back yourself up, which can be changed by any tool who has the time, the temper, and the ability to mask bullcrap as fact. I could turn around right now and change that wikipedia entry to indicate that Valerie Plame was working for Gary Condit when Chandra Levy disappeared. That wouldn't make it any more or less true, but using wikipedia as your source on a subject so contentious is just weak. Frankly, I had expected better of you.

    However, since this is the intellectual level to which you need to sink, here's something for you to consider about Your Hero, Larry C. Johnson: A few excerpts from an article he wrote that was published in the NYT on July 10, 2001:

    "Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

    None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think."

    -snip-

    "The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia — or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia — you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear."

    -snip-

    "Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training."

    -snip-

    "I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way."

    Again, that article was published on July 10, 2001. If he's your standard bearer for how things should go in the intelligence community, well...

    By Blogger JD, at 26 July, 2006 01:38  

  • And before you go ballistic with my not addressing the specifics of your highlights, I checked the wikipedia sourcing for your Larry Johnson quote, and it comes from a blog called "No Quarter" on typepad. The author of that blog? Larry C. Johnson. Circular references do not a logical argument make, sir.

    As to the Judge Tatel quote, you state that Judge Tatel appears to have inferred that Fitzgerald had concluded that Plame was an agent who had carried out covert work within the last 5 years. Wow. Earth shattering. "Appears" to "have inferred" that Fitz "had concluded." Strong stuff, boyo. This opinion is dated 2/15/05, and yet at your precious news conference in October of 2005, no indictment of anyone for outing Plame based on IIPA was made. Any explanation for that? Or has the BushRovian Eeeevil RethugliKKKan conspiracy gotten to Fitzgerald as well?

    If your case for Plame as NOC is so lead-pipe certain, then why no indictments?

    You need to spend less time on truthout.org and more time in the real world, dude. A change in Kool-Aid flavor would do you a world of good.

    Yeesh.

    By Blogger JD, at 26 July, 2006 02:23  

  • God, HH, you just don't get it, and never will. Newspaper articles are given you, you reject them. Op-eds are given you, you reject them. Reproductions of senate investigations are given you, you reject them.

    All to smear Wilson and absolutely nothing to support your claim that Plame was anything but a covert agent.

    Instead, you go to wikipedia, to back yourself up, which can be changed by any tool who has the time, the temper, and the ability to mask bullcrap as fact. I could turn around right now and change that wikipedia entry to indicate that Valerie Plame was working for Gary Condit when Chandra Levy disappeared. That wouldn't make it any more or less true, but using wikipedia as your source on a subject so contentious is just weak.

    Go ahead and do that, dickweed, and see how quickly it gets reverted. Both sides of the argument have contributed and beaten that article into shape over the last 3 years. It's as comprehensive and as NPOV as you're going to get anywhere. It's not my fault you inform yourself with the neocon lunacy from the Weekly Standard.

    Frankly, I had expected better of you.

    I don't expect anything from you but cowardice and lies.

    However, since this is the intellectual level to which you need to sink, here's something for you to consider about Your Hero, Larry C. Johnson: A few excerpts from an article he wrote that was published in the NYT on July 10, 2001: ... snip

    Johnson worked for the CIA. He knows Valerie Wilson. He knows what covert means and knows Wilson was covert. Again, you have done absolutely nothing to counter the fact that Plame was a CIA operative who had worked covertly overseas within the 5 years prior to her outing under cover of a CIA front company, Brewster Jennings. And you still haven't answered the question of why there was a front company in the first place if she wasn't covert. Oh that's right... you're an ideologically blinded moron. Too bad.

    And before you go ballistic with my not addressing the specifics of your highlights,...

    Actually, I laughed.

    But I had an extra big laugh when all you came up with was some muddled speculation that Plame couldn't possibly be covert because she was pregnant or because she got married and had children or something or other. It really was pathetic.

    ... I checked the wikipedia sourcing for your Larry Johnson quote, and it comes from a blog called "No Quarter" on typepad. The author of that blog? Larry C. Johnson. Circular references do not a logical argument make, sir.

    That's not what a circular reference is, you idiot? Geesh! Find a community college and learn some basic logic. I can refer to Johnson directly or quoted. You have still provided nothing to support your claim that Plame was anything but a covert agent.

    As to the Judge Tatel quote, you state that Judge Tatel appears to have inferred that Fitzgerald had concluded that Plame was an agent who had carried out covert work within the last 5 years. Wow. Earth shattering. "Appears" to "have inferred" that Fitz "had concluded." Strong stuff, boyo.

    I can't help if it was above your reading level - most things are. Fitzgerald has been crystal clear: Plame was a CIA operative who had worked covertly overseas within the five years prior to her outing.

    This opinion is dated 2/15/05, and yet at your precious news conference in October of 2005, no indictment of anyone for outing Plame based on IIPA was made. Any explanation for that? Or has the BushRovian Eeeevil RethugliKKKan conspiracy gotten to Fitzgerald as well? If your case for Plame as NOC is so lead-pipe certain, then why no indictments?


    If you haven't heard, Libby has been indicted as a result of an investigation requested by the CIA. The ensuing cover-up by Libby, Rove, and others was an organized attempt to thwart the special prosecutor's investigation. But Libby wasn't very good at covering his tracks though and he got caught lying to a grand jury.

    Answer me this, einstein? Why did the CIA demand the investigation in the first place? Because the cover of one of their covert agents was blown, you moron. And... you probably won't understand this because you're too stupid from reading all those Weekly Standards... Libby and Rove and other are still in legal jeopardy wrt IIPA and could still be charged especially when more comes out at trial.

    Spin again, pea-brain... if you must continue to demonstrate that you're a desperate laughing stock.

    And your sockpuppet, the Bullshit Report, has got come up with something more than 3rd grade sycophancy.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 July, 2006 07:34  

  • J.D the buck stops with the original press confrence with Fitz. That settles the argument, he said she was covert. All the op-eds and right wing articles cn not change the fact, if she was not covert there would be no investigation. Concede, you are wrong, concede you are a loyalist and not a patriot.

    By Blogger rightwingwhiner, at 26 July, 2006 10:05  

  • The only thing I will concede to you, RWW, is that you are a dolt, as is your buddy HeadHunter. The "bottom line" as you say it, is that NO ONE has been charged under IIPA. If you had read the entire presser transcript, you would know that. Instead, you have bought into HH's spin. I can't help you there. That's all on you. Fitzgerald's grand jury has been discharged, there are no indictments pending under IIPA. There is no there there.

    I don't need to spin. The facts are the facts. The law is the law. That you two morons choose to carry on this charade says more about you two than it does about anything else.

    In any event, I'm glad I was able to get HH his wiki time. Maybe next time we get in a 'discussion' he'll be able to expand his repertoire to infoplease or answers.com.

    Oh, and make sure you get some choice insults in so that you can feel better about yourselves for getting in the "last word."

    By Blogger JD, at 26 July, 2006 11:06  

  • This is tooo entertaining for words.

    Witnessing a stupid wingnut who persists with delusions even when smashed in the face with the facts...a coward who runs away from questions he obviously can't answer... a twisted moron who has been brainwashed by the hateful lunacy of the Weekly Standard and WorldNetDaily. It is malignant trash like you who have shamed our great country.

    You blather about the law while continuing to ignore it or failing to understand it. No one has been charged under IIPA because Libby tried to derail Fitzgerald's investigation by lying about his role, you moron. THAT is why he's now under indictment for purjery... AND why he's still in legal jeopardy under IIPA.

    I'll repeat that again for your tiny brain...
    Libby is still in legal jeopardy under IIPA

    And come on you cowardly sack of crap. Answer the question: why did the CIA call for an investigation if Plame was not a covert agent?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 26 July, 2006 12:21  

  • HH, you ignorant slut. So full of demands you are. Here we go. Once again. Slowly. So. You. Can. Understand. This. Time.

    There. Was. No. Crime. Committed.

    However, for some reason, the CIA Director at the time, George Tenet, asked then-AG Ashcroft to investigate. The DOJ investigated, the loony lib press complained about Ashcroft being involved, and so the case was turned over to a Special Prosecutor. And, after a multi-month grand jury investigation, including a reporter going to jail, and the COS of the VPOTUS being indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice, not IIPA. In short, Libby is facing almost the precise charges that BillyJeff was facing in the Starr investigation. As to the original mandate of the investigation, there have been no charges brought for that alleged "leak" of "confidential" information.

    Consider the words of two people who actually helped set out the terms of the 1982 IIPA, Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford:

    "As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

    Later: "At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

    Got it?

    I've been patient with you and your threadjacking assholery. I've answered your questions, and given you far more proof from far more sources than you have offered in return. I'm done. I'm sure you'll raise your arms in triumph, claiming another head, and perhaps even claim that I'm retiring from the field, but that just ain't the case.

    The plain fact is that I could not ever give an answer that you will be satisfied with, because your mind is not open to any kind of answer that goes outside of your mindset. And yet you are the one accusing myself and others of spinning. Well, sorry to tell you, HH, but I've got the facts on my side, I've got the law on my side, and I've got the history on my side as well. You've got a long article filled with links from mediamatters and truthout and talkleft, and an excerpt from a press conference transcript taken horribly out of context.

    History will show who has been correct in this little battle we've had here on Brian's site. As for me, I've devoted far more of his bandwidth than should be necessary trying to educate an anonymous dolt who refuses to see reason or fact even when hit square between the eyes with it.

    By Blogger JD, at 26 July, 2006 20:03  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 27 July, 2006 09:52  

  • HH, you ignorant slut.

    Now, now. Don't get upset, JD. It's tough when you've been beaten so badly by the facts. But you only have yourself to blame for believing all that neocon bile you read in the Weekly Standard.

    So full of demands you are. Here we go. Once again. Slowly. So. You. Can. Understand. This. Time.

    There. Was. No. Crime. Committed.


    You're too funny when you try to act all serious like...

    Now I know most of you wingnuts are closet fascists with little man issues so what I'm about to explain will probably be completely foreign to you. But I'll try to go through - slowly - one of the tenets of our criminal justice system: in this great country... you don't determine... whether a crime has been committed... or not... our courts do...

    Let me repeat that again for you, you ignoramus.

    Our courts determine whether a crime has been committed...or not... NOT you.

    Understand?

    Also... I've mentioned... several times now... yet you still can't grasp... that Libby and his cohorts are still in legal jeopardy under IIPA.

    Your lack of this most basic understanding of the law makes your claim that the law is on your side absolutely laughable.

    And again.... you can't overcome your cowardice to answer a simple question: Why did the CIA order an investigation if Plame was not a covert agent? Instead, you pathetically dissemble around how the investigation was launched while willfully dodging the question of "WHY?". The closest you got was "...for some reason...". Pathetic. You're a dispicable coward.

    Then you try throwing up an opinion piece written by a GOP hack back in Jan 2005. More hilarity. You have provided absolutely nothing to support your claims that Plame was anything other than a covert CIA agent other than worthless wingnut opinions.

    Let me repeat Fitzgerald's words:

    Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

    Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

    The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.


    These are words that are given entirely in context of your unsupported claim that Plame was not a covert agent... Simply jumping up and down screaming to the contrary doesn't make it so. And the pathetic canard that no one has (yet) been charged under IIPA and so no crime has been committed therefore it follows that Plame was not covert, not only betrays an appalling ignorance of the law and how our criminal justice works but also reveals the twisted logic of wingnut thought.

    You're an absolute moron. You should have surrendered your pathetic argument when you read Fitzgerald's words. But you - being the dumbest of the dumb - continued... only to demonstrate over and over again how truly stupid and kooky and cowardly you really are.

    I don't need to raise my arms in triumph. The fact that you have completely failed in this pathetic attempt to perpetuate your wingnut lies is obvious to all... except you and malignant slime like you. I laugh at your ignorance and stupidity.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 27 July, 2006 09:56  

  • "Why did the CIA order an investigation if Plame was not a covert agent? "

    1. Because the Democrats howled for an investigation. They had great hopes of finding an excuse to remove Karl Rove from the White house.

    Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been pushing the FBI to investigate the disclosure since July, said yesterday that it "not only put an agent's life in danger, but many of that agent's sources and contacts." Washington Post 27 Sept 2003

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27

    Oh, and here's a link to Schumer's July 2003 press release.

    http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01889.html


    1a. Because the White House, comfortable that an investigation would find nothing promptly agreed to one.
    The Department of Justice, the career officials of the Department of Justice are working to get to the bottom of this. And the White House is committed -- at the direction of the President, the White House is committed to cooperating fully and doing everything we can to assist the career officials get to the bottom of this. It is a very serious matter .

    White House press briefing October 2003

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031010-6.html#c


    Now can we talk about Michael Savage?
    .

    By Blogger Lokki, at 27 July, 2006 18:02  

  • 1. Because the Democrats howled for an investigation. They had great hopes of finding an excuse to remove Karl Rove from the White house.

    Of course, it had nothing to do the damage assessment that the CIA conducted immediately after Novak's article... or the outrage inside the CIA and from within the broader intelligence community for the deliberate outing of one of their coworkers as part of a political smear campaign.

    And George Tenet always jumped whenever Charles Schumer said so.
    And the DOJ jumped too by giving the WH a day to "tidy" up.
    And the WH wouldn't do anything wrong... after all, Scotty-boy told us that no one in the WH was involved.

    Yep. It's all the Democrats fault.

    Now can we talk about Michael Savage?

    Sure. Michael Savage is a caricature created in order to make Michael Weiner rich off of the backs of you stupid brainless wingnuts. No thinking person would listen and not laugh at Weiner's parody of the hateful slime that shame this country. I hope he takes all you morons to the cleaners.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 28 July, 2006 11:05  

  • Michael Savage's success scares me too.

    He is very intelligent, but too far out there (on several fronts, including his ego) to be such a success in my opinion. Acceptance of such attitudes concerns me.

    I can't listen to him for more than a few minutes before I go elsewhere.

    By Blogger Lokki, at 28 July, 2006 14:32  

  • Your thoughtful and honest response is a surprise. Certainly refreshing after all the lies and spin from Maloney and his brainwashed drones... but a surprise nonetheless. This country needs more thoughtful and honest people.
    Peace.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 28 July, 2006 15:15  

  • I'm not sure "archconservative" is an accurate description of Savage. He's certainly not a Bush fan, but of course he's less enthralled with the Left, so where does that leave him? Somewhere beyond traditional political definitions, if you ask me.

    I honestly can't get into him, and I enjoy a good number of talk show hosts. Probably the main reason I'm not a fan is his unrelenting pessimism. Seriously, if I really felt the way he seems to, I'd buy a gun and just get it over with.

    The few times I've listened lately, I do occasionally find points to agree with, such as his "no mercy" take on Hezbollah and other barbarians, but then he keeps going with his "all politicians are screwing you ... the average guy has no hope ... life sucks and then you die" routine, and I find myself switching stations to get out of the downpour.

    However, if his show means something to some people ... well, different strokes ...

    By Blogger The4thEstate, at 29 July, 2006 11:55  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger