Red Warrrior Wrong

Red Warrior is asserting some clearly false things. He didn't like me voicing my disagreement in his journal, so he foe'd me, so I cannot respond there to his reply to me, so I do it here.

Basically, the story is this: the NY Times reports that Dick Armitage admitted to being Novak's source about Valerie Plame. However, not a single source is cited in the article. All it says is "a lawyer involved in the case" and "colleagues of Armitage" said he said it.

So on its face, it is unreasonable to assert the story as true, since it cannot be verified. It is not confirmed fact.

He also says that the Times story says it was Armitage's lawyer who spoke to the Times; not even the Times claims this. Red Warrrior writes:

it is clearly implied in the NYT piece that it is Armitages lawyer

Actually, no. Not even close. For all we know it could be Fitzgerald, or a lawyer who works for Fitzgerald. There is no implication whatsoever that it was Armitage's lawyer.

you totally blew by the bit about multiple independent sources

No, I didn't. In fact, I specifically stated the fact that there were no multiple independent sources cited in the article. There was not a single source -- let alone multiple independent sources -- cited in the article.

you are ignoring the reference to him having informed Powell, the Justice Department, and the FBI

No, I am not. I am merely stating the fact that this information has not been confirmed.

you are ignoring the claim that he admitted his role to Fitzgerald

Ibid. That is an unsubstantiated claim, not a fact in evidence.

you are ignoring the claim that Woodward ( of & Bernstein fame) also testified to his role

Ibid. That is an unsubstantiated claim, not a fact in evidence.

you are ignoring (since I doubt you were ignorant) the fact that the NYT piece is barely beating a book, entitled "Hubris", focusing on exactly that claim

Ibid. Does that book actually back up its claims? If so, how?

you are ignoring (since I doubt you were ignorant) the fact that a WaPo article further cites a former Armitage coworker at the State Department

Ibid. It doesn't name anyone; so that too is an unsubstantiated claim, not a fact in evidence.

you are ignoring (since I doubt you were ignorant) the coverage by this weeks Newsweek

Ibid. It does the same as the NY Times piece, not actually presenting any verifiable evidence.

you are ignoring that, as the WaPo states, "The case's origin in a conversation between Novak and Armitage is one of Washington's worst-kept secrets."

Says who? Based on what? Where's the evidence?

you ignore the fact that if there were any wiggle-room as to the facts, Armitage and his legal & PR teams would be spinning like crazy

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's only been a few days.

I could go on, but you get the point. Or maybe you don't. Whatever.

No, I get the point. It's you who do not, as your litany of the evidence-that-isn't proves. Not one thing you cited has been verified for the public. Everything -- every last bit of it -- is based on anonymous sources that we cannot check out for ourselves. There is not one bit of confirmed information in any of it.

Your argument here is like the infamous SNL Change Bank. Sure, taken separately, none of the information is verifiable. So how do you make people believe it? "Volume."

It does seem likely that Armitage is the guy, as I said up front. But none of it has been confirmed. None of it has been verified. At this point, we cannot know it, we can only say whether is likely or not. If Fitzgerald or Novak or Armitage himself or anyone with an actual name who has firsthand knowledge comes forward and says it, then that would be something. Until then, it's not much of anything, because no direct evidence has been presented. This is a fact you choose to reject, but it's still a fact.

As I noted previously, it's like saying evolution of humans from another species is a confirmed fact. But it's not, because we have only implication, not direct evidence. We have some earlier species that appear manlike, and we have other unrelated species that we've been able to show evolved from one another, and we extrapolate that therefore, sure, man probably evolved. But we cannot confirm that as a fact, and it is simply false to say it is a fact.

This is not legalism. This is about the fact that you do not know that it was Armitage. You cannot point to one primary source to prove it. You cannot name one person with firsthand knowledge who claims it. You cannot point to any document, any quote, anything at all. It is, in fact, a lie to say that you know it was Armitage, and I don't care how long you give me a "time out," I won't back down from calling a spade a spade. If you don't like it, that's your problem. You're the one who chose to make this into a "thing." I simply stated the fact that Armitage's admission is not a confirmed fact, because you falsely stated it was, and I was trying to help you out. You threw a hissy fit about it. Whatever.

Oh, and another thing: Scalia was right-on in his opinion on Raich.