-
- clinton fruitcake cooks Niger yellowcakebump
Why hasn't Bush purged the executive and judicial of the clintonoid-holdover infestation anyway? - clinton fruitcake cooks Niger yellowcakebump
|
Posted on 07/10/2005 12:12:27 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
They have thier head in the sand! Heck what scandel will they make up next?
I think they just throw ideas into a hat and pick one.
They can't get Bush.
They can't get Rove.
They can't get Runsfield.
They can't get Rice.
They can't get Frist (the guy is germ free!).
They can't get Tom DeLay (they exposed their own corruption!).
Who's next? A Republican janitor?
The Left, pushing the boundaries of deceit to unprecedented levels, as per usual. Soon even hard-core useful idiot Leftists won't believe them -- incurable liars all.
Since there's clearly no story here, perhaps Isikooof best get after the Koran flushing story again, along with other horrors such as depriving Gitmo detainees of seconds on ice cream after dinner. I suppose he could devote a few minutes to the terrorist attacks in London last week, the successes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the WOT in general -- but that would require actual work. And his ubermasters would frown upon him. What a limp-dick cowardly asshole. I could continue, but I'd only get more surly.
Since then, he is called the Kid (as in man-child). History will reveal him as mentally unbalanced and a traitor to the USA.
Absolutely.
There is a great deal of evidence that the truth is much worse than that.
OK, so would anyone here who's railing that Rove should resign explain to me what's wrong with what he did according to this article?
I heard an interview on the radio last week (Hugh Hewitt, IIRC) with a soldier from the Minnesota Guard who said he had a detainee who liked Club Gitmo so much that he literally refused to get off the bus when they took him to the airport to leave Gitmo. The detainee stayed on the bus and wanted to go back to Gitmo (presumably for more culturally correct meals, and regular games of ping pong and soccer). I don't recall how they resolved that situation, but it tells you that Gitmo is a much better place than the "homelands" of some of these detainees.
Quite right; and evidently the fact that she was with the CIA was anything but a closely guarded secret. So what is the point of the investigation?
or "Animal House"
That's just one step below triple dog dare secret background level!
I do not know the final outcome of this event.I suspect it will be a tempest in a teapot.However all people in the political arena must use more caution ,especially Republicans.They need to watch every word they say or write when in dialogue with reporters.They need to know that every syllable will be confused or twisted.The Rather memo was handled much better.Do not confirm or deny just say"hmmmm".It is better for the press to write falsehoods and then be found in error ,( I know that doesnt always happen),than to give them the field day they will have know.
|
Someone put Isikoff on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION.
This is the worst, most intentionally confusingly written article I've seen for ages.
It reads like it was written to mislead people... now Isikoff would never do a thing like that... would he?
Exactly! First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford and Victoria Toensing (who helped draft the original 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act) already wrote in the Washington Post that there is no evidence that the law was even broken. Heck, on a previous thread that had the actual statute, the leaker had to knowingly be outing a covert operative with the intent on harming them.
According to Victoria, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct." For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."
Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a
serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'" The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.
Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame
was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances. Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication. On the contrary, Novak claims he cleared the story through the CIA before going to print.
In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role
a full nine years before. "The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994.
So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons." Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was
moving away from 'noc' - which means non-official cover...to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."
Noted the Timesman: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."
"Andrea Mitchell was asked, on MSNBC, whether it was generally known to news people, before the hullabaloo, that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA. She answered, somewhat reluctantly, that it was."
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010989.php
I wonder why Novak is just asked under oath who his source is... wouldn't that just end the whole thing or is that too simple?
I didn't know that Isikoff wrote for "The Onion" in addition to his many other duties. And this super duper double secret hidden covert code agent stuff is soooooooo convincing, don'tya think? (I sincerely hope I do not need an "end sarcasm" tag to display my true meaning.)
As usual, with Isikoff, there's no "there" there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
