Posted on 08/28/2002 10:19:39 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
The report by the 19-member Senate Judiciary Committee will be made public next month, but the Times obtained a draft copy on Tuesday.
The fact that the FBI has not requested the information from the House members is telling. I believe that it was Bill Krystol who said the other day that he believes that the FBI knows just which senator leaked the NSA information but are "casting a broad net" as a ploy.
If so, what are the odds? Republican or DemocRAT?
Newsmax got it right - except for the last two sentences. Those two sentences are related to an entirely different leak, apparently from the Joint House/Senate Intelligence committee. That leak had to do with a couple of messages that the NSA had intercepted just before 9/11 but didn't translate until 9/12. Those messages indicated that something big was going to happen soon.
Looks like the Washington Compost even got it a bit wrong. The 17 senators being investigated aren't necessarily "senior senators" - either in age or seniority. They just happen to be ALL of the 17 senators on the senate Committee on Intelligence. Senators Edwards and Thompson are among them and they are both in their first term.
This article wasn't meant to convey any facts. It is a yellow journalistic attempt to smear the opposition with innuendo and past acts of bad faith in order to put them on the defensive (not that there's anything wrong with that).
-PJ
I don't think of Vermont as being loaded with major parasite centers (cities), and yet the people there elect and reelect jack-in-the-box clowns like Bernie Sanders, and sickening scumbags like Leahy. Is the place loaded with parasites? Or just loaded with scumbags?
First, I didn't see much "innuendo", only a recap of scumbag Leahy's leaks of classified information, his resignation in disgrace from the Senate Intelligence Committee, and his continuing threat to national security. I believe that these are important things for people to keep in mind.
So I think I'll bump this thread every few hours or so. Won't you join me?
I agree that this must be kept in front of people or they will forget.
-PJ
Yep, I guess you're right about that, although the headline merely says that he is "suspected". Sure, he is "suspected" along with 16 others, but he is the one with the history and if I was a detective, he would be my prime suspect.
Nice hit peice by NewsMax though. I wish there were a lot more news sources willing to fight the scumbags the way the scumbags have always fought us.
Bravo once again to NewsMax for having some guts. May it spread to the Republican Party.
We keep hearing about how the Republicans, or Bush, try to take the "high road" in politics. Bush tries to "change the tone in Washington." Republicans are held to a higher standard because they run on "high ground" morals and family values. This would imply, by contrast, that the Democrats take the "low road." In fact, Democrats (or Democrat supporters) use this as the reason why scandals hurt Republicans more.
My confusion is this: If Republicans are taking the "high road," then why do Democrats insist on making wild scandal accusations (and why do people simultaneously accept the accusations and the proposition that Republicans take the "high road) and yet when they (Democrats) are caught in real scandals they say "let's not point fingers, let's not play the blame game, we have to look forward not backwards, blah blah blah."
If you lay down with dogs, then you wake up with fleas. Democrats consistently take the low road compared to Republicans and yet they consistently try to smear Republicans with fabricated scandals. Why would the population believe that a group that endeavors to take the high road (if you believe Democrats) would somehow wind up with more, or more severe, scandals than the group that consistently takes the low road? Why would people accept the notion that a group that consistently takes the low road should have their repeated scandals ignored?
Of course, these are all rhetorical questions -- we all know the answers.
-PJ
-PJ
Mrs. Feinstein, California Democrat and Senate committee member, said yesterday she did not know anything specific, but that her remarks stemmed from a "deep sense of foreboding" that an attack was imminent. She said neither she nor the White House could have foreseen September 11, something on which several other intelligence committee members from both chambers and parties agreed.
FBI Raids Hillary's Warehouse in Whitewater Deja Vu -06/24/02
Peter Paul wants roll over on Hillary for immunity.
Yep...and not necessarily only those on the comittee in question : there's Dashless, McStain, Dickie G and Hillary, et al.
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.