[JohnHuang2]

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Quote of the Day by South40

[Numbers Guy]

The Weekly Standard article based on the leak, which undercuts the Dem rants about the war, has been totally ignored by the mainstream media.

But now the mainstream media will go into a feeding frenzy over who leaked the memo.

It's very clear that there are elements in the CIA who are attempted to embarrass President Bush at every opportunity (the appointment of leftist twit Wilson is just one example). If George Tenet can't get those people under control, he should be fired

[Chad Fairbanks]

What is it with memos lately? Maybe we need to get congress on this ASAP, with a "Memo Abuse Act of 2003", to stop government people from writing memos for a while.... ;0)

[Pikamax]

pincus continues to try and bury this memo in the article as well.

[RippleFire]

bump

[nuffsenuff]

Oh look, the Washington Post is doing its best to debunk the info... How cute.

[Libertina]

BTTT

[Numbers Guy]

W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA, said yesterday that the Standard article "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"

The above has to be the most pathetic attempt to debunk that I've ever seen in my life.

I suppose because things got rough on occasion between the US/UK and the USSR during WW II, that means we weren't allied with the Soviets.

The null hypothesis of the left was that there was NO relationship between bin Laden and Saddam. Now this doofus is reduced to saying that it might not have been a full-fledged lip-lock sucky-face type of relationship. That's far diferent from saying there was no relationship whatsoever.

[Strider]

Hannity said it wasn't a Republican that leaked the memo.

My guess is the democrat Senator from Indiana.

[Coop]

I just sent in this letter to the editor. I won't be holding my breath for the ComPost to print it. :-)

Dear Washington Post,

Just over a week ago I wrote to you concerning your double standard regarding an intelligence memorandum relating to the Democrat attack strategy (11/6, "Politicized Memo Incites Row" article, featured on page A27) being compared to the Wilson/CIA leak scandal. Both involved intelligence and both involved presumed political pressure to embarass an opponent. Yet the memo damaging to the Democrat party is buried on page A27, while the latter scandal was featured - at a minimum - on pages:

A01 1 Oct "Man Behind the Furor" (Wilson...)
A01 28 Sep "Bush Administration is Focus of Inquiry"
A06 25 Oct "Democrats Seek Wider Inquiry"
A08 24 Oct "Bush's Press Aide, Rove Questioned in Leaks Probe"

Curiously, you chose not print my letter. Now here we are twelve days later, and you publish another CIA-related intelligence memorandum detailing Al Qaeda's connection with the Iraqi regime. Do you focus on the myriad of sources detailing this connection, loudly denied by some in Washington, many of whom also accused the President of lying? No. You focus instead on the leak of classified data - which is certainly serious, but not enough to overshadow the major impact of this memo.

And where did you print this article regarding the latest critical CIA intelligence memo and its impact on America's war on terror?

Page A18.

[xzins]

The liberals are crying that the Feith Memo is not analysis but is raw data. For me, being told that Al-Qaeda and Iraq's face-to-face meeting is a piece of "raw data" that I shouldn't see is to tell me that "analysis" is the art of obfuscation and lying.

[jmstein7]

Hmmm... the same crowd didn't complain when the Pentagon Papers were *stolen* from the PENTAGON, now did they?

[GOPJ]

Leaks were the exclusive property of dems and their "objective" media friends for years.

Nice to see the tables turned.

It's about time.

[GOPJ]

Leaks were the exclusive property of dems and their "objective" media friends for years.

Nice to see the tables turned.

It's about time.

[rwfromkansas]

bump to self to write an article about for the campus paper.

[Freee-dame]

Page A18

The Washington Post can say they printed it....but it sure looks like they hope nobody sees it.