Joseph Wilson Namechecks TPM on Larry King Live
While many have disparaged Mr. King's show as being largely fluffy, I'd like to give credit where credit is due: Mr. King gave Wilson generous space to provide concise, detailed answers to the questions that most of us have been chewing on for weeks, if not months and years. This is important in the fact that in the span of one hour, Mr. King allowed these talking points to penetrate a large, wide-ranging spectrum of American households.
Last night was King at his best (rare as the Ivory-billed Woodpecker), delivering decent, well-placed questions and actually allowing the guest to respond. King is known for moving things along when a guest goes off the rails or he loses interest in the topic. It was clear from last night's show that King actually cares about this as he gave Wilson chance to present himself to the American people at a near perfect time.
Here's the section that where he pointed to TPM:
KING: New York City, hello.
CALLER FROM NEW YORK CITY: Ambassador Wilson, any idea who forged the yellow cake documents and the motivation? These were not third rate forgeries.
WILSON: Well, actually Dr. ElBaradei said they were obvious forgeries and his deputy said that a two hour search on Google would have told even a novice forensic analyst that they were forgeries. So, they were not great forgeries, should not have fooled the intelligence community or the White House for that matter.
I don't -- there has been a series of articles published in the Italian magazine or the Italian newspaper "La Republica" just this week. Some of those articles have been (INAUDIBLE [I think he said "accounted"]) in some American reporting.
There are a couple of web blogs, particularly Talking Points Memo and the Left Coaster that have also taken a good look and done a study into what they think some of the possible sources of the documents might have been.
-------------
Its a testament to the work that those on TPM and other blogs when not a single major news source is sited as being on top of this by the man who is at the center of this whole nightmare.
Unfortunately, it only takes half an hour to get things back in line with the Lowest Common Denominator Media we're all used to. A "panel discussion" on the day's events that included Matthew Cooper, takes all the fire out the Wilson interview and submerges it in bullshit punditry. Cooper was a nervous wreck, giving terse answers as he fiddled with his earpiece and looked off camera (at his lawyer, no doubt). Sen. Shelby gave feeble spin while Sen. Feinstein was her usual "fiesty liberal" self. Round out this snoozefest with Michael Isikoff who took a more sartorial approach.
A choice excerpt:
KING: Before we talk about what happened in the Senate today, Matthew Cooper, what's your assessment of what Ambassador Wilson had to say?
MATTHEW COOPER, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, I guess I wasn't totally surprised. He's obviously been critical of the administration, and they of him at various times. I can't say I was shocked by that. We'll see where this case goes, Larry. It certainly had a lot of interesting turns.
-------------
Gee, Larry, life sure is funny, ain't it? Why even have this guy on if he's going to turn out hamstrung answers like that. Oh, wait, this is CNN after all, a prime LCD Media Outlet, one that cannot deliver reporting or commentary without "added value" smeared all over the lens. Granted, Cooper is enmeshed in this and that's one thing but the overall effect of this panel discussion is one of "ho-hum, just another day in Washington" kind of crap. Michael Isikoff made sure to underline this point with this exchange:
KING: Michael Isikoff, are we ever going to get to the bottom of this?
ISIKOFF: Good question. One of the problems here is as much as the Democrats want an investigation and obviously are pulling maneuvers like the one today, they don't have subpoena power.
They can't convene hearings. It requires a Republican acquiescence. And unless the results of next year's election changes anything, that's going to be the way it is for the duration of this term. There undoubtedly will be a field day, some day, for historians, but whether we'll see real-time hearings about what happened here is far from clear.
-------------
Actually, Larry, its an awful question as it implies that this is just some tediousness and Isikoff takes this watermelon and punts it toward the history section of Barnes and Noble. As the only one with any potential for insight, this is disgraceful. Luckily, most folks had probably already gone for "My Name is Earl" or the like.
You can check out the transcipt here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/01/lkl.01.html
Last night was King at his best (rare as the Ivory-billed Woodpecker), delivering decent, well-placed questions and actually allowing the guest to respond. King is known for moving things along when a guest goes off the rails or he loses interest in the topic. It was clear from last night's show that King actually cares about this as he gave Wilson chance to present himself to the American people at a near perfect time.
Here's the section that where he pointed to TPM:
KING: New York City, hello.
CALLER FROM NEW YORK CITY: Ambassador Wilson, any idea who forged the yellow cake documents and the motivation? These were not third rate forgeries.
WILSON: Well, actually Dr. ElBaradei said they were obvious forgeries and his deputy said that a two hour search on Google would have told even a novice forensic analyst that they were forgeries. So, they were not great forgeries, should not have fooled the intelligence community or the White House for that matter.
I don't -- there has been a series of articles published in the Italian magazine or the Italian newspaper "La Republica" just this week. Some of those articles have been (INAUDIBLE [I think he said "accounted"]) in some American reporting.
There are a couple of web blogs, particularly Talking Points Memo and the Left Coaster that have also taken a good look and done a study into what they think some of the possible sources of the documents might have been.
-------------
Its a testament to the work that those on TPM and other blogs when not a single major news source is sited as being on top of this by the man who is at the center of this whole nightmare.
Unfortunately, it only takes half an hour to get things back in line with the Lowest Common Denominator Media we're all used to. A "panel discussion" on the day's events that included Matthew Cooper, takes all the fire out the Wilson interview and submerges it in bullshit punditry. Cooper was a nervous wreck, giving terse answers as he fiddled with his earpiece and looked off camera (at his lawyer, no doubt). Sen. Shelby gave feeble spin while Sen. Feinstein was her usual "fiesty liberal" self. Round out this snoozefest with Michael Isikoff who took a more sartorial approach.
A choice excerpt:
KING: Before we talk about what happened in the Senate today, Matthew Cooper, what's your assessment of what Ambassador Wilson had to say?
MATTHEW COOPER, TIME MAGAZINE: Well, I guess I wasn't totally surprised. He's obviously been critical of the administration, and they of him at various times. I can't say I was shocked by that. We'll see where this case goes, Larry. It certainly had a lot of interesting turns.
-------------
Gee, Larry, life sure is funny, ain't it? Why even have this guy on if he's going to turn out hamstrung answers like that. Oh, wait, this is CNN after all, a prime LCD Media Outlet, one that cannot deliver reporting or commentary without "added value" smeared all over the lens. Granted, Cooper is enmeshed in this and that's one thing but the overall effect of this panel discussion is one of "ho-hum, just another day in Washington" kind of crap. Michael Isikoff made sure to underline this point with this exchange:
KING: Michael Isikoff, are we ever going to get to the bottom of this?
ISIKOFF: Good question. One of the problems here is as much as the Democrats want an investigation and obviously are pulling maneuvers like the one today, they don't have subpoena power.
They can't convene hearings. It requires a Republican acquiescence. And unless the results of next year's election changes anything, that's going to be the way it is for the duration of this term. There undoubtedly will be a field day, some day, for historians, but whether we'll see real-time hearings about what happened here is far from clear.
-------------
Actually, Larry, its an awful question as it implies that this is just some tediousness and Isikoff takes this watermelon and punts it toward the history section of Barnes and Noble. As the only one with any potential for insight, this is disgraceful. Luckily, most folks had probably already gone for "My Name is Earl" or the like.
You can check out the transcipt here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/01/lkl.01.html
