After referring to the Washington Post's "curious conclusion" during his Countdown show's teaser, Olbermann, who has in the past referred to Wilson and other administration critics as "whistleblowers," later plugged the segment by referring back to the "good times" when the Post supported government employees who "dared to reveal important information."
Olbermann: "Remember when the Washington Post used to support government employees who dared to reveal important information? Ah, good times."
As he introduced the segment, the Countdown host labeled as "startling" the Post editorial's conclusions that the charge of an "orchestrated leak" of Valerie Plame's identity was untrue, and that Wilson was himself responsible for his wife's identity being leaked by drawing attention to himself and attracting scrutiny.
Olbermann quoted the Post's conclusions and mocked the reasoning behind them: "Today, the Washington Post editorial page draws two startling conclusions from this. One, 'It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.' If you took Logic 101, you'd know it not only does not follow, it doesn't even hang out with. Armitage's supposed inadvertance might send the orchestra home, but it has no impact on the obvious opportunity the White House seized to discredit Wilson via his wife. But even more shocking, perhaps, the Post's second conclusion the real person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson, not even Dennis the Menace's neighbor, that would have made more sense, Joe Wilson."
Olbermann soon brought aboard the attorney of Wilson and Plame, Melanie Sloan, for a one-sided interview to argue that the editorial was "completely inaccurate" as she defended Wilson and Plame.
By contrast, Scarborough admonished the media and "left-leaning TV hosts" for their "character assassination of messieurs Bush, Rove and Cheney," and pointed out that the New York Times had run "39 front-page stories [on the Plame leak] that are false and zero front-page stories that clarify the situation."
Scarborough's segment gave the bulk of its time to Wilson critic Christopher Hitchens of Vanity Fair to make the case against Wilson, although Scarborough did leave some time for the Huffington Post's Rachel Sklar, who was held over from an earlier segment on a controversial movie depicting Bush's assassination, to make an anti-Bush, pro-Wilson argument.
Scarborough and Hitchens also delved into the inaccuracy of some of Wilson's claims about his trip to Niger and whether it really contradicted Bush's State of the Union claims about Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium.
Scarborough: "Christopher, we have a question up right now. You're going to say this is obvious, too, because it's in the record, but we need an answer. Is Joe Wilson a liar?"
Hitchens: "Well, Joe Wilson's been caught lying a lot already. I mean, he, for example, said that his wife had never had anything to do with sending him to Niger. Now, we have her letter of recommendation. It's in the Senate investigation into the matter. It's very warm, and it actually recommends him on the bizarre grounds that he's close friends with the people he's supposed to be investigating. That's how he missed the fact that both Saddam's chief nuclear envoy and A.Q. Khan were in Niger at the same time, as he was, or had been not long before. Quite remarkable."
Hitchens: "He lied when he said he'd exposed a later forgery based on those facts. We don't know where that forgery came from. It doesn't alter the authenticity of the original documents. The forgery came out a long time after his visit had taken place, so he had no role at all in exposing it. I don't know if he's a liar or not, but he has no concept of what the truth is."
Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the September 1 Countdown show, followed by the complete segment from the September 1 Scarborough Country:
From the September 1 Countdown:
Keith Olbermann, during opening teaser: "The Washington Post throws Joe Wilson under the bus, blaming him for the end of his wife's CIA career. The curious conclusion from an even more curious source."
...Keith Olbermann, during commercial break at 8:14 p.m.: "Remember when the Washington Post used to support government employees who dared to reveal important information? Ah, good times. The new Post versus Ambassador Joe Wilson. That's next. This is Countdown."
...Olbermann, at 8:16 p.m.: "Our fourth story in the Countdown, another clash in the ongoing battle over the battle over the war in Iraq. You will recall that earlier this week we learned the identity, apparently officially, of the first source to tell columnist Robert Novak that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative. Specifically, it was Richard Armitage, top deputy to Colin Powell, who told Novak that Plame had suggested her husband for a fact-finding trip to Niger, which ultimately led him to publicly challenge President Bush's claim that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Niger. Today, the Washington Post editorial page draws two startling conclusions from this. One, 'It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.'"
Olbermann: "If you took Logic 101, you'd know it not only does not follow, it doesn't even hang out with. Armitage's supposed inadvertence might send the orchestra home, but it has no impact on the obvious opportunity the White House seized to discredit Wilson via his wife. But even more shocking, perhaps, the Post's second conclusion the real person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson, not even Dennis the Menace's neighbor, that would have made more sense, Joe Wilson. Why? Quoting the editorial again, 'Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming ... falsely, as it turned out ... that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.'"
Melanie Sloan, Attorney for Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame: "My pleasure."
Olbermann: "Have you spoken with your clients about this? And if so, can you characterize their reaction to this extraordinary editorial?"
Sloan: "Yes, I have spoken with them, and, of course, they're outraged by the editorial, and it's completely inaccurate, and not only that, it is in great conflict with what the Washington Post itself has written about this story over the past several years."
Olbermann: "In fact, let me quote some of those things. From October 5th of last year, 'Wilson's central assertion -- disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger -- has been validated by postwar weapons inspections.'"
Olbermann: "And from April 9th of this year, 'Special Council Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- "to discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq,' namely Ambassador Wilson."
Olbermann: "How would you or your client reconcile this, theoretically even, this violent disconnect between what is correct on the Post's front page and what it believes it should be expressing on its editorial page?"
Sloan: "Well, it's entirely schizophrenic, and I don't think you really can reconcile the two. I think the real problem here is that the Washington Post has always supported the war, and now they need new justification to go ahead and continue that support for the war. And I think this effort to discredit Mr. Wilson on the editorial page is outrageous and is completely undercut by all of the facts. And, in fact, none other than Patrick Fitzgerald said that it was hard for him to conceive of any evidence that could come out that would discredit that the White House was, in fact, all along had a plan to discredit Mr. Wilson and punish Mr. Wilson."
Olbermann: "In all fairness, your clients and this legal team is suing the alleged other source, Mr. Rove, as well as Mr. Libby and Vice President Cheney. Should Mr. Armitage be on that list?"
Sloan: "You know, we're looking into whether Mr. Armitage should be on that list. But whether or not we eventually do add Mr. Armitage to the suit, it doesn't in any way undercut the suit against Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, and Mr. Cheney, who were all involved in a concerted effort, a conspiracy to discredit Mr. Wilson and punish him by outing Valerie Wilson. But there are questions now that have been raised about Dick Armitage's role, and we're looking at those closely, and we'll be making decisions in the coming days as to whether or not to add Mr. Armitage to the suit."
Olbermann: "If this, if the Armitage revelation is as it is stated, if it is factual, does it merely change this from a concerted planned opportunity, situation to sort of a crime of opportunity? Is that the major difference here, in your opinion?"
Sloan: "Well, it would be a crime of opportunity. Just because Armitage first said it doesn't mean that, of course, Rove, Libby and Cheney weren't then trying to push the story out. They talked to at least six different Washington journalists trying to get out Valerie Wilson's covert identity. But the fact is what Armitage did is also not okay. He went and took information in a classified memo, and he was just dishing with Bob Novak. And somebody who was number two at the Department of State should have known better."
Olbermann: "Attorney Melanie Sloan, who's representing Joe and Valerie Plame Wilson, great thanks for joining us tonight. Have a good weekend."
Sloan: "You too."
From the September 1 Scarborough Country:
Joe Scarborough: "You know, while some people may be shocked by this movie, you know, Americans, I think, should be more concerned by the media's character assassination of messieurs Bush, Rove, and Cheney regarding the CIA leak story. Now, the three evil neocons that media types say outed America's most superduper CIA spy to undercut an opponent of the Iraq War, the morally upright Joe Wilson, have been blamed for this for years. And for years, we've been told by the New York Times and also by left-leaning TV hosts, that the Bush administration exposed Valerie Plame's identification. But this week we learned that story was untrue. The source of the leak was Colin Powell's number two, Richard Armitage, who, along with Powell, was a war skeptic. The New York Times has run a total of 39 front-page stories on the Plame case since it broke back in 2003. And those stories and supporting editorials all blame war supporters for gunning for Joe Wilson. Now we find out that that story line is simply a lie. The Times has written a total of how many stories to clarify that? Zero. Zero front-page stories versus the 39 front-age stories since September 2003 that attack Bush, Rove, and Cheney, claiming that Plame was outed to get back at Wilson. So 39 front-page stories that are false and zero front-page stories that clarify the situation. At least today's Washington Post tells the truth about Joe Wilson. The Post said, quote, 'He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.'"
Scarborough: "Amen, and again I say amen. Last week, I accused George Bush of being intellectually incurious. Even if that's the case, it beats being intellectually dishonest, and that's exactly what the Times and other news outlets, too numerous to mention, are being. Let's bring in Christopher Hitchens. He's a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. Christopher Hitchens, why hasn't the Times clarified this story? I mean, 39 front-page screamers, and now we find out that Joe Wilson, not only Joe Wilson lied when he went over to Niger and when he came back, but now we find out that these news outlets that got into bed with him haven't been telling the true story either. Why?"
Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair: "Well, we're not just finding this out, by the way. I mean, if I could blow my own trumpet, I've been writing this series of articles for more than a year now saying that the story is based on a complete fantasy, that, obviously no cabal in the administration, even if one existed, would ever have gone to Robert Novak, a leading opponent of the war, leading friend of the CIA, personal admirer of Joseph Wilson, and say, 'Hey, why don't you cut down his wife for us?' I mean, it's absurd on its face, and it always was. It's the product of a ridiculous turf war within the administration where people like Mr. Armitage sat still knowing that they were the source for Rove while the whole inquiry was impaneled because they knew this before Fitzgerald started, while a friend and colleague of mine, distinguished Times reporter, which adds to the burden on the New York Times, went to jail for the best part of 90 days where a huge amount of government time was wasted, in time of war, I might add, where the truth about the real Niger connection was covered up or overlooked. This is absolutely extraordinary. But it is not new."
Scarborough: "Christopher, Richard Armitage sits back all of this time while hell is breaking loose in Washington, D.C., while the administration's going up in flames, while you've got Fitzgerald going out there conducting this investigation, while Rove, Cheney, Bush, everybody basically has a guilty finger pointed at them, and he knew all along it was all a lie, and he did absolutely nothing about it."
Hitchens: "Yes, and while an innocent person went to jail as well, and other people had their lives and careers wrecked. This pointless prosecution, for example, of Lewis Libby for the question of what he may or may not have said to Tim Russert. There's no conceivable way in which that can be a criminalized business."
Scarborough: "Look at this New York Times editorial, Christopher. It's from July of last year. The Times said, quote, 'Far be it from us to denounce leaks, but it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary. Karl Rove seems to be playing that unsavory game with the CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph Wilson.'"
Scarborough: "Gail Collins basically smeared Karl Rove. Do you expect the New York Times editorial page to come forward and apologize to Karl Rove or at least clarify that they were dead wrong last year?"
Hitchens: "Well, I'm wondering actually about this question. I was wondering about it all day, especially after seeing this morning's Washington Post, because Bill Keller is not a dishonest or venal person. He's already had to explain his own whatever the word would be, his own decision to publish classified material relating to the NSA and the CIA, which he has done, in my opinion, fairly reasonably. I think, I'm hoping that this apparent embarrassed pause and embarrassed silence is the prelude to some kind of statement because it isn't just Gail Collins, it isn't just Maureen Dowd, it isn't just the editorial pages themselves. It is, as you say, the news pages. Everyone got the impression there was something to a story which I would have said, as somebody who's lived for many years in Washington, was self-evidently not true. And the only reason therefore for the extraordinary amount of wasted ink and paper on it must be political bias. If it hadn't been for the fact that it reflected badly or apparently redounded badly to the discredit of the Bush administration, there's no way it could have gotten, on such a thin basis, so much attention."
Scarborough: "Christopher, we have a question up right now. You're going to say this is obvious, too, because it's in the record, but we need an answer. Is Joe Wilson a liar?"
Hitchens: "Well, Joe Wilson's been caught lying a lot already. I mean, he, for example, said that his wife had never had anything to do with sending him to Niger. Now, we have her letter of recommendation. It's in the Senate investigation into the matter. It's very warm, and it actually recommends him on the bizarre grounds that he's close friends with the people he's supposed to be investigating. That's how he missed the fact that both Saddam's chief nuclear envoy and A.Q. Khan were in Niger at the same time, as he was, or had been not long before. Quite remarkable."
Hitchens: "He lied when he said he'd exposed a later forgery based on those facts. We don't know where that forgery came from. It doesn't alter the authenticity of the original documents. The forgery came out a long time after his visit had taken place, so he had no role at all in exposing it. I don't know if he's a liar or not, but he has no concept of what the truth is. And he's also a vain, narcissistic fraud and toad who has refused several times to debate me. And when asked to reply to the many columns in which I've pointed this out about him, says that he wouldn't debate with someone who he doesn't believe to be an American citizen. That's the best he can do so far."
Scarborough: "He's obviously a publicity-seeking person who's got all the headlines he wants."
Hitchens: "Only if the megaphone is being held to his own big mouth is he a publicity seeker. He won't do any debates, and he will try innuendo when he's embarrassed. He's, at least it's the last we have to hear from him."
Scarborough: "Let me bring in Rachel, here. Rachel, obviously, you have a different take on this, but will you at least say that the New York Times, at least Bill Keller on the front page and at least Gail Collins on the editorial page need to come forward and clarify that they have been wrong for the past two years, that this wasn't some neocon, that it was actually Armitage, who had deep skepticism about this war?"
Rachel Sklar, HuffingtonPost.com: "No, I won't come out and say that. First of all, you said 39 articles by the New York Times are false. I mean, come on, that's a pretty sweeping claim. The fact is this revelation really doesn't change very much. Everybody suspected it was Armitage anyhow."
Hitchens: "Oh, no they did not."
Sklar: "The fact remains Judith Miller went to jail to protect her source. Who was that source? It was Scooter Libby, who told her the identity of Joseph Wilson's wife prior to Novak's column even being published. And Karl Rove told Matt Cooper from Time before Novak's column was published."
Hitchens: "So what?"
Sklar: "So, and this is after-"
Hitchens: "So what? It's not, there's nothing wrong with discussing personnel in the U.S. government bureaucracy."
Sklar: "Sure."
Hitchens: "There's no, it breaks no law because there's no offense."
Sklar: "However, this was after Cheney directed Libby. Sir, this was after Cheney directed Libby to release a CIA report that was meant to discredit Wilson. It was after Bush directed Cheney to fix this problem. I mean, there is no smoke in that fire. There is a lot of fire here."
Scarborough: "We've got a hard break coming up. I want to thank you, Christopher, for being with us. Thank you, Rachel. The bottom line is the guy that let this information out was Richard Armitage. The Times owes an apology to Karl Rove, George Bush, and Dick Cheney. We'll be right back."
