More Loud Noise from the Left
A few people (Lefty, William) are screeching as the moonbats often do when they think that Bush has done something wrong. The past day or two has been no exception.
They are quoting various news reports that Bush leaked classified information. All we can figure is that they must hear the first line of the radio news or only read the first two paragraphs and then run off to their computers to yell at us, because we've been listening to the same mainstream outlets and reading the same mainstream articles, EXCEPT that we read and listen to the very end and then we go check out the ACTUAL reporting.
They are quoting various news reports that Bush leaked classified information. All we can figure is that they must hear the first line of the radio news or only read the first two paragraphs and then run off to their computers to yell at us, because we've been listening to the same mainstream outlets and reading the same mainstream articles, EXCEPT that we read and listen to the very end and then we go check out the ACTUAL reporting.
- First of all, every single report or article ends with the line "It doesn't appear at this point that Bush broke any laws." Wow! Wouldn't that kind of VOID every single thing that the left is screeching about?
- Second, the president is allowed to decide who and what are classified information. The president decides who gets access and is allowed to see the info. If the president decides that the American people need to know something, he can reveal it and it's no longer classified. Imagine that!
- Third, if you read the actual AP report, they say the president revealed "certain" information that isn't specified - nothing at all that says it was "classified" and nothing at all as to the content. It's horseshit reporting from the media.
- Fourth, this is alleged grand jury testimony. None of it has been made public, so the leakers are committing felonies left and right. Remember when Lefty and his buddies were predicting "Fitzmas" would produce Cheney's head in a platter? And they got ... Libby.
- Fifth, the information that AP and others appear to be alluding to was classic counter intelligence. Joe Wilson was lying - blatantly and obviously - to cover for Saddam's WMD programs and the Administration countered, deciding that the NIE (which was to be released to the public anyway) would be released earlier than scheduled to counter Wilson's lies.
This is all crap that media monkeys are flinging at the walls to see what sticks, especially in light of the positive numbers and news that's coming out of Iraq and to distract from what is becoming a large crisis in Iran.
Links at NROnline, PowerLine and Captain's Quarters
Go read the links - you'll immediately be smarter than Lefty, Golding and about 60 million people who voted for John Kerry.
Links at NROnline, PowerLine and Captain's Quarters
Go read the links - you'll immediately be smarter than Lefty, Golding and about 60 million people who voted for John Kerry.
posted by SCC at 7:50 AM
49 Comments:
The fact that the President is on record stating that leaks are undercutting his ability to lead is a little ironic, don’t you think?
From the Washington Post:
The White House refused to comment directly on the issue.
A senior administration official said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.
Also, the official said, the president has not been accused of authorizing the release of the name of Valerie Plame, the undercover CIA operative whose unmasking in a July 2003 newspaper column prompted the federal investigation.
Still, Bush's alledged action stands in stark contrast to his condemnations of the kind of disclosure that the court filing said he authorized. "Let me just say something about leaks in Washington," Bush told reporters in September 2003. "There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. I want to know who is leaking information. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
That statement was one of many Bush has made over the past three years condemning leaks of sensitive information
"It causes a political problem for the White House," said a former administration official. The former official said Bush erred at the beginning of the scandal by saying he wanted to get to the bottom of the case and fire any leakers because he implicitly accepted that an illegal leak had occurred. That set the impression that anyone involved must have done something wrong.
Congressional Democrats certainly seized upon that vulnerability.
There’s illegal and then there is immoral and unethical.
The president is on record stating UNAUTHORIZED leaks (such as the NSA intercept program) are undercutting his ability to lead. Thanks for proving our point in your quote:
A senior administration official said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.
Bush authorized - that makes it automatically a non story. And the fact that this story actually broke on 10 February and didn't gain any traction just lends credence to the fact that this media would rather manufacture news than report news.
That's right. I forgot all, and I mean all, of the current President's current difficulties fall at the feet of the media.
If the media would just be a little more compliant and report what is actually going on we would be in a better place.
The war in Iraq would be under control.
Osama Bin Laden would be in custody.
There would be better relations with pretty much every government in the rest of the world.
Genocide would not be happening in Danfur.
Everyone would have appropriate levels of health care and the cost of your health care would not be rising.
The oil companies would not be making enormous profits as your salary is eroded by the cost of energy.
Special interest and lobbyist would not control our government.
All public servants, republicans and democrats alike would be working for us and not corporations or PACs.
If only the media knew how to act. If only the media knew what a disservice they were providing to the American Public by reporting all the lies and misrepresentations they report.
We would be so much better off. I have an idea, let’s shut them all down. That would be better. Then you all you have is the information the government allows.
“Tear the wall down Mr. Gorbachev.”
Wow, are you a twisted Kool-aid drinking leftist or what? Never once did we blame the media for any of Bush's troubles. Bush's troubles are his missteps and the missteps of his administration. HOWEVER, if the media reported FACTS and wasn't playing grabass with the dems and "gotcha" games with the White House, we'd all be better off. Missteps aren't crimes.
And it's amazing that now you want us in Darfur. We'd have to go in unilaterally you know. No one else would.
Bush didn't have the balls to just outright tell the American people what he wanted them to know. He passed it through the dark prince Cheney to some underling to take the fall.
The fact that he hid that it came from him all this time and left Scooter hanging out to dry proves that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
He chickened out during Viet Nam and hid behind his daddy's phone calls. He chickened out now by hiding behind a grown man with the nickname "Scooter".
He's a pussy and should be impeached. Period. End of story.
Oh, and rot in hell also.
You have not said directly, but you have implied in numerous postings that the media is misrepresenting the story. Any story that tends to shed a negative light on this President.
What if the President is responsible for cast a dark or at least grey shadow on his own actions?
If you think the President has done something in error say it!
That is discourse.
Defending him or anyone else by using other entities (media, democrats, polls, etc.) is obfuscation, pure and simple.
Stating that the media is somehow involved in the outcome of his difficulties suggests that they are remotely or directly responsible.
And the "Kool-aid" (Sean Haninty reference) is played out.
It does a disservice and is disrespectful to those in the Jim Jones cult who died at the hands of a maniac.
Last point.
Can you tell me the difference between an authorized leak and an unauthorized leak? Both seek to sway public impression. Both "leakers" have motive.
Are you saying that in this free society that only those who are imbued with the power to authorize a leak are the only ones who can speak their minds or provide information that allows the voting public a better understanding of the issues.
So the irony is (and are your positions fraught with so much irony) that the Daley administration is within their rights to try to suppress information that would indicate wrong doing.
The whistle-blowers within the Daley administration are traitors and should be treated as such.
Hang 'em. . .Hang 'em all.
From the highest yardarm!
People are missing the point that the president has the sole authority to declassify information. No other person can.
This wont stick either, just get comfortable that the Dems will be a minority party for the next generation.
If you think the President has done something in error say it!
Though you yourself have quoted no law broke, nor state any case law. You come up with an arguement, we'll respond. Until then, you're nothing more than an echo in a big chamber.
I was speaking in broad terms - not just about the latest in the surmounting issues that cloud the presidency.
So by your assertion you have identified situations where this President has made errors?
Can you indicate where?
Condi seems to be able to identify "thousands of tactical errors" regarding Iraq, although she later stated that the "thousands" reference was a figure of speech.
I am just looking for one that you have identified.
We don't have to be an echo chamber. Break the mold. Stop referring to the right's talking points and I will stop using the mainstream media as a reference since you believe they are useless.
Tell me how we are better off now than we were seven years age?
And if you bring up 9-11 and the affects of that tragedy you go right back to the talking points. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Just to remind you.
We could have contained the people responsible. Instead this administration dove into Iraq, wanting to cower the region.
Neo-con idiocy. Close to 2300 lives and billions (billions with a b)dollars spent. No one is shaking in their boots. Iran continues to develop a nuclear program and support the undermining of the fledgling Iraqi government. Iraq on the brink of civil war. Syria does the same.
No country is trembling because of our might apparently.
Should I go through the litany?
Whatever happened to "sarcasm and silliness?" Nevermind. I'll go back and re-read the "What are we - psychic thread." I'm starting to laugh already.
Go back and read our archives. You'll see we've taken Republican's to task over immigration, failing to making the tax cuts permanent, not getting out in front of the ports controversy, Frist's stock questions, not being aggressive enough on judges, not releasing Saddam's archives sooner, the list is extensive. Trouble is, the left keeps trying to undercut Bush with no regard for the full story or even factual elements. Their war is with the American people instead of the people wanting to kill us.
And no shit on the Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Let us repeat something for you - Bush never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. Rove didn't say it. Condi didn't say it. In fact, NO ONE in the Bush Adminstration said it. So we're already back to leftist talking points that have been proven to be bullshit and YOU dragged us there.
Boy, oh boy, dear M,
Talk about spin! You put more spin on this story than the MixMaster at the local McDonald's. The spokespeople for YOUR president, since the beginning, have denied he was involved in any manner in the CIA leak.
YOUR president has been caught in another lie. This shall be the tip of the iceberg. When everything comes to an end it'll make oral sex in the Oval Office look like playtime.
And while we are calling out other folks' predictions... What about yours' dear, M? Remember Tom DeFelony, er I mean DeLay? How long before he gets indicted? Don't worry your little Dittohead though. The fix is in and he'll get probation and a fine only. Things usually work out that way for the ultra-rich. Just like your boy, Cheney, the WORST vice-president in the history of Amerika.
He's already been indicted ... by the SIXTH Grand Jury Ronnie Earle had to convene before he could railroad this one into an indictment. By the time this is over, DeLay will be cleared and Earle will be disbarred.
And once the President authorizes it, it's no longer a leak - it's National Policy.
You guys just can't seem to get over the meaning of the word "is." Clinton got indicted for purjury - lying under oath. And as we recall, he pled out and took the disbarment from Arkansas as a penalty.
And McDonalds doesn't have MixMasters. Everything comes prepackaged - like the democratic party.
You come back with Clinton's legalese question during deposition "it depends on what your definition of is, is?"
And then disregard the blatant intent of implication by Cheney. If you want more references let me know.
Weak argument. Please do better next time.
Boston Globe 16 Sept. 2003
Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Nonetheless, Cheney, in the "Meet the Press" interview Sunday, insisted that the United States is learning more about the links between Al Qaeda and Hussein.
"We learn more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said, "that it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems."
The claims are based on a prewar allegation by a "senior terrorist operative," who said he overheard an Al Qaeda agent speak of a mission to seek biological or chemical weapons training in Iraq, according to Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations in February.
Meet the Press 14 Sept. 03
No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.... You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn't have any evidence of that. We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW [biological weapons and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."
Clearly, Cheney was describing exactly the sort of "collaborative relationship" that the September 11 commission now says that Iraq did not have with Al Qaeda, and stating that this relationship makes it "not surprising" that people would connect Iraq with the September 11 attacks.
SSC is kicking your lame asses!
Go get your own blogs you losers..then you can worship John Kerry, Al Gore, and Hillary's Dicks!
Better yet just BLOW SSC!
Another reference:
Before the US invaded Iraq, President Bush said he had intelligence evidence that "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." Vice President Cheney said Iraq was the heart of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." They repeatedly advanced the idea that Saddam could one day furnish nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to al Qaeda or other terrorists.
From Bush's SOTU 28 Jan. 2003
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Again guilt by implication.
Like it or not, SCC, Libby is turning over on your lying, cheating, stealing president.
And more references:
"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." -- George W. Bush (9/25/2002)
"So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented." -- Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor (9/26/2002)
"We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind." --George W. Bush (10/14/2002)
"Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities." --Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (9/27/2002)
Please explain this away.
Did anyone say Iraq is responsible for 9/11? Not directly
Did this administration say everything other than that to indicate that the two entities were intertwined to the point of cooperation and mutual support? Absolutely!
For your information -
The definition of implication:
Something that is implied, especially:
An indirect indication; a suggestion.
An implied meaning; implicit significance.
The Cat's Out of The Bag
The White House eventually said neither Libby nor Karl Rove had been involved in the leak. Rove remains under criminal investigation.
Libby was clearly involved in revealing Plame's identity, which means that the President is either clueless or he lied when he released a statement that Libby wasn't involved.
Of COURSE the President lies. Remember the whopper about Saddam's 'nookular' bombs?
Bush: Hands Possibly as Dirty as Scooter Libby's
Flashback: Bush Impeachment Not Out of the Question
SCC said...
The president is on record stating UNAUTHORIZED leaks (such as the NSA intercept program) are undercutting his ability to lead. Thanks for proving our point in your quote:
--------------
So leaking a CIA agent's name was not "undercutting is ablility to lead"??
So, deductively, we can say that Bush II leaking her name HELPED him.
Boy, SCC, I would not want you as my atty! I'd have to plead gulity now........
---------------
Bush authorized - that makes it automatically a non story. And the fact that this story actually broke on 10 February and didn't gain any traction just lends credence to the fact that this media would rather manufacture news than report news.
4/07/2006 08:32:26 AM
-------------------
I just love your logic!!! There is a law on the books that leaking info about NS agents is bad. But like election law, all the b*llsh*t just doesn't apply to King Bush II.
If only the media knew how to act. If only the media knew what a disservice they were providing to the American Public by reporting all the lies and misrepresentations they report.
---------------
No. The only difference would be that we would not even know all these bad things are happening.
HOWEVER, if the media reported FACTS and wasn't playing grabass with the dems and "gotcha" games with the White House, we'd all be better off. Missteps aren't crimes.
4/07/2006 08:56:08 AM
-----------
Was the "media" being "liberal" when they were reporting Clinton's missteps??
Missteps aren't crimes.
4/07/2006 08:56:08 AM
Sorry, I almost missed this one.
**** SURE AS SHIT THEY ARE!!!! ****
Anonymous said...
People are missing the point that the president has the sole authority to declassify information. No other person can.
-----------
He can't "declassify" the identity of a NS agent, tho. That is still agains the law.
Pls, SCC and his Dittohead butt buddies are sick in the head. Next he'll be saying that Bush never said that Saddam had WMD's.
I'll give this administration credit for at least trying to get it straight but it get so hard when you've told so many lies. . .
White House spokesman Scott McClellan today attempted to justify, rather than deny, allegations that President Bush authorized a leak of classified information to reporters in summer 2003.
"There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it's in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security," McClellan told reporters at a White House press briefing.
The White House, it seems, is attempting to argue that if Libby's allegations are true, the information was not leaked by definition. Rather, it was declassified by the President because it was in the public's interest.
On July 18, 2003, McClellan told the White House Press Corps that the "information was just, as of today, officially declassified." However, Libby spoke to reporters ten days earlier, according to the indictment, on July 8 of that year.
Again, your own quotes damn you. Cheney didn't say anything about Iraq had a hand in 9/11 or don't you read what you type? The 9/11 Commission said there were no "provable links" but never out and out denied they might exist.
Then, haven't you read the news these past three weeks as the Administration dumps tens of thousands of documents FROM Saddam's regime outlining the fact that his Intelligence services TRAINED 2,000 terrorists a year for 3 years leading up to the invasion??? And that some of these terrorists WERE al-Qaeda? Or the most recent papers LAST WEEK that detail Osama meeting with Iraqi Intelligence to foster "a working relationship" with Saddam's regime? Man you guys are lame - just because the lame stream media is ignoring the evidence doesn't mean we are.
Libby isn't turning over on diddly squat - these are grand jury leaks AND Cheney has gone on the record stating that an Executive Order 3 years ago GAVE Cheney permission to declassify certain documents and Libby was carrying out National Policy. Or didn't you notice that the indictment has NOTHING TO DO with outing a covert agent (because she wasn't) and everything to do with LYING to a Grand Jury? If they can prove the lying, jail Libby - but stop saying it's about leaks, because you OBVIOUSLY haven't read the indictment!
As to the anonymous commentator attempting to take apart our arguments, Valerie Plame was NEVER undercover - or maybe you missed the Tribune investigation last month that proved she NEVER had a NOC. You cannot reveal what never existed. Plame and Wilson lied from the get go as proven by her memos and Wilson's own writing.
And Golding's final point is hilarious and priceless:
Please explain this away.
Did anyone say Iraq is responsible for 9/11? Not directly (NICE ADMISSION WG!!)
Did this administration say everything other than that to indicate that the two entities were intertwined to the point of cooperation and mutual support? Absolutely!
So you are (#1)admitting that your entire line of argument is BULLSHIT as you just admitted Bush and Co. nevere said Iraq was involved in 9/11 and (#2) the papers most recently released PROVE saddam had a WORKING RELATIONSHIP with al-Qaeda and Osama was looking to establish a closer relationship.
Here's a clue for you guys - base your arguments on the facts in question. You obviously never read any of the documentation involved in either the Libby indictment, the Wilson/Plame non story, OR the 9/11 Commission. Stop defending the argument that you WISH was in evidence and argue what is on the table in front of you.
Kind of like how you always argue Bill got indicted over a blow job. It was never about the sex - it was about LYING UNDER OATH - exactly what Libby is indicted for.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alright, you want to believe. Go ahead. The administration is finding harder and harder to locate die-hards like you. The polls show it. The republican Senators and Congressmen express it and the republican party is concerned. I wish you well. Only time will tell.
Here is a statement that might give you pause.
Bush at 36%:
President Bush hits an all-time low in the AP-Ipsos poll:
"These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one."
According to this latest poll, a Democratic Congress is favored by 16 points.
If you're putting money on the "captured" documents don't bet the house. The administration will take opportunities to exploit any, and I mean any opportunity to tell what would support their position. They have yet to even mention this political epiphany
This to will pass without any prima fascia evidence gleaned. And hearing you rely on questionable documents when you have chided everyone who disagrees with you because they are not basing arguments on "facts" is interesting.
From Scripps Howard YESTERDAY:
STANFORD, Calif. -- With conservative congressional majorities at risk in next November's elections, President Bush repeatedly should remind everyone that a key reason coalition troops invaded Iraq was to padlock Saddam Hussein's Wal-Mart for terrorists. The administration finally is releasing intelligence documents captured in Baghdad. Bush should use them to detail how Hussein indeed was entwined with terrorists in general and al Qaeda in particular.
Go read the whole thing - all of your arguments are falling apart before everyone's eyes
click here
Give me a break. The author for this "commentary" is an employee of Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Va... The attribution information is in the italicized information at the bottom of the article.
That's all the "evidence"; all the "facts" you got.
Sounds a little desperate.
Background on Atlas:
Atlas promotes international development of free market think tanks and provides support and networking opportunities for existing organizations. Atlas brings "freedom to the world" through workshops, publications, awards, and a global directory of conservative/free market think tanks. Atlas is a member of both the Cooler Heads Coalition and the State Policy Network. Atlas is funded by conservative foundations, including the Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation and the Carthage Foundation
Information about Cooler Heads:
The Cooler Heads Coalition formed May 6, 1997 to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis. Coalition members will also follow the progress of the international Global Climate Change Treaty negotiations.
Information about State Policy Network:
State Policy Network (SPN) is the professional service organization for America’s state-based, free market think tank community. Founded in 1992, SPN is the only group in the country dedicated solely to improving the practical effectiveness of independent, non-profit, market-oriented, state-based think tanks.
Our work advances a free society by providing leadership development, management training, and networking opportunities for think tank professionals and promoting strategic partnerships among market-oriented organizations.
Your reference was a comment by a conservative pundit.
Not even the conservative media are propping this item.
They sprinkle it in their rhetoric but they don’t promote. Maybe it will get traction.
Maybe it won’t.
SCC, you are right on target with your responses. And, William Golding, I have to admit - you do drink way too much of the Kool-Aid along with smoking the hookah.
1st, Valerie was not an active undercover agent and had not been one for several years. She was an analyst and is not protected. Analysts are not protected. Besides, everyone in Washington, D.C. knew where she worked and who she was married to. This should be a non-story.
2nd, there are ties from Saddam and his regime to Al-Qaeda. Just because Saddam didn't purchase tickets for the terrorists to board the planes, doesn't mean that there aren't ties.
3rd, there are hundreds of thousands of pages, if not, over a million, of documentation that is being translated and released, after having been discovered in Iraq. Obviously, it would be nice to have them all released and properly translated overnight, but this is a project. If you had a half of a brain (the right half), you would realize that you would best keep your options open, as there may be more than a few documents in that batch that have not been translated and released as of this time, that will show that the actions taken were proper.
4th, I'd bet that you never finished reading the 911 Commission Report. Maybe you'd like to borrow mine, it is marked and highlighted, from beginning to end.
5th, Darfur! I can see it now. Even if we did do this unilaterally, which maybe we should, people on the left would say the same things that they are saying about our actions in the Middle East now. The only difference is that they would replace the words "Muslim" or "Arab world" with the words "black" or "African". No matter how good are intentions were, the "Left" who can't just can't seem to understand that sometimes you need to project strength through military action would scream and demand a pull-out, especially if an American were killed - a good example would be Somalia.
6th, Bush and his missteps. If you look and read through most of the media crap about his "missteps", most of it is bullshit. Bush will be blamed for everything that goes wrong by most of the media. Katrina is the best example of this. No one, not one person, could have predicted the amount of the devastation. And, sadly, had they put huge stockpiles of supplies anywhere or, for that matter, people and the supplies and the people would have been lost, guess who would be blamed for the pre-positioning.
Mr. Golding, go back and put another ice cube into the Kool-Aid and maybe add in a bit of liquor to soothe your nerves. One day you will learn how to use a bit of logic in your arguments. When you do, you'll be amazed at how different things will be.
SCC, great job!
And the ignorant shall inherent the earth.
No, I apologize, that was the meek.
SCC - Willem G. HAS YOU- DEAD to RIGHTS on your rightwingnut source for these "captured" Baghdad docs... Murdock's no "journalist- he's obviously a conservative COLUMNIST, a muscular WATER-BOY for your Neo-Cons... and we all know you can't make copious amounts of KOOL-AId for you Moonbat Starboard Wingnuts to guzzle without that high quality H2O ! Better luck next excuse-making thread for King Georgie Junior; his credibility with the American public is shot- it's just a matter of time now until it's "Turn Out the Lights, the Party's Over Time"... (sing it Dandy Don!) What incredible HUBRIS your cabal in Casablanca possess... it's going to be their undoing. Bottom line, much like you stated- the DEMS only have to function decently to take back the House- a little better than average, maybe the Senate- then it's all over! Jimmy Carter will LAUGH his peanut head off !
-------------
Deroy Murdock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deroy Murdock is a conservative syndicated columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service and a contributing editor with National Review Online (nationalreview.com). His columns appear in the Boston Herald, Washington Times, Orange County Register and many other newspapers and magazines in the U.S and overseas. His political commentary has aired on ABC's Nightline, NBC's Nightly News, CNN, FOX News Channel, PBS, and other television news channels, as well as numerous radio outlets.
Murdock's conservatism is of a libertarian bent. He differs with many of his fellow conservatives and National Review contributors by supporting gay marriage. Deroy Murdock is openly homosexual.
Murdock is also a Media Fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and a Senior Fellow at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Virginia. He is a veteran of the 1980 and 1984 Reagan for President campaigns and was a media consultant to Forbes 2000.
Murdock received his AB in Government from Georgetown University in 1986 and an MBA in Marketing and International Business from New York University in 1989. A native of Los Angeles, Murdock resides in New York City.
Murdock wrote a single opinion piece. There are millions of these pages being translated and they all say the same thing - that Saddam was developing WMD, that Iraqi Intelligence was creating a working relationship with al-Qaeda and that the French, Russians and Germans were undercutting the sanctions left and right to keep oil money flowing. Look around - we quoted a single opinion piece.
TO: Anti-Bush commies
GO FUCK YOURSELFS
Thank you
Good Night and Good Luck to you getting lucky tonight- hiding from "COMMIES" in bed with MOMMY. Trend Tip: Red Scares are OUT- Red CRESCENT Scares are de rigueur, le cochon du merde! (oh, and -SELFS is spelled -ELVES; has your intellect not left the building in which you attended grammar school, foo'?) You Sir, are a moron!
GO BACK TO MOTHER RUSSIA AND BLOW ME YOU COMMIE PINKOES
No fair splitting hairs now "dearest Moderator"... I admit that I thought Patty J. Fitz was gunning for ROVE i-n-i-t-i-a-l-l-y- but he threw me a knuckle-curve ball by presenting LIBBY's head instead.
But Kousin KARL ROVErer (Official "A") is still under suspicion/investigation and really now, obviously the whole mess has landed at "YOUR, oops I mean "OUR" Master's Feet... (BUSH & CHENEY)
JUST HOW MUCH was $PENT by Kenneth Starr to crucify Bubba about his lies about a BLOW-JOB? (I bet Patty Fitz ain't even spent a fraction of that $50 Million Witchhunt yet- and this is about WAR and it's resultant MASS DEATH and DEBT!)
These CHICKENHAWK WARMONGERS have wanted to WRECK IRAQ since the mid-90's; and by GEORGE they've done it, and we'll be paying for it to the tune of a trillion-plus for the rest of our natural lives (and that of our kids.) NOW THAT'S "Leadership"! (Colin Powell at least had the LIMITED INTEGRITY to warn them "You break it, it's YOURS!" before he chucked it and pimped before the U.N. for the invasion...)
Why ANYONE would be surprised that these dissembling crooks machinations would EVENTUALLY become public knowledge... (ESPECIALLY a sharpie like you S.C.C.) is beyond me!
====
"YOU'RE Under Susp-i-cion... YOU'RE a L-I-A-R...!" (Sex Pistols-"LIAR")
With One Filing, Prosecutor Puts Bush in Spotlight
By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID JOHNSTON
New York Times - April 11, 2006
WASHINGTON, April 10 — From the early days of the C.I.A. leak investigation in 2003, the Bush White House has insisted there was no effort to discredit Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man who emerged as the most damaging critic of the administration's case that Saddam Hussein was seeking to build nuclear weapons.
But now White House officials, and specifically President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have been pitched back into the center of the nearly three-year controversy, this time because of a prosecutor's court filing in the case that asserts there was "a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House," to undermine Mr. Wilson.
The new assertions by the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, have put administration officials on the spot in a way they have not been for months, as attention in the leak case seems to be shifting away from the White House to the pretrial procedural skirmishing in the perjury and obstruction charges against Mr. Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr.
Mr. Fitzgerald's filing talks not of an effort to level with Americans but of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." It concludes, "It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish Wilson.' "
With more filings expected from Mr. Fitzgerald, the prosecutor's work has the potential to keep the focus on Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney at a time when the president is struggling with his lowest approval ratings since he took office.
Even on Monday, Mr. Bush found himself in an uncomfortable spot during an appearance at a Johns Hopkins University campus in Washington, when a student asked him to address Mr. Fitzgerald's assertion that the White House was seeking to retaliate against Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Bush stumbled as he began his response before settling on an answer that sidestepped the question. He said he had ordered the formal declassification of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in July 2003 because "it was important for people to get a better sense for why I was saying what I was saying in my speeches" about Iraq's efforts to reconstitute its weapons program.
Mr. Bush said nothing about the earlier, informal authorization that Mr. Fitzgerald's court filing revealed. The prosecutor described testimony from Mr. Libby, who said Mr. Bush told Mr. Cheney that it was permissible to reveal some information from the intelligence estimate, which described Mr. Hussein's efforts to acquire uranium.
But on Monday, Mr. Bush was not talking about that. "You're just going to have to let Mr. Fitzgerald complete his case, and I hope you understand that," Mr. Bush said. "It's a serious legal matter that we've got to be careful in making public statements about it."
Every prosecutor strives not just to prove a case, but also to tell a compelling story. It is now clear that Mr. Fitzgerald's account of what was happening in the White House in the summer of 2003 is very different from the Bush administration's narrative, which suggested that Mr. Wilson was seen as a minor figure whose criticisms could be answered by disclosing the underlying intelligence upon which Mr. Bush relied.
It turned out that much of the information about Mr. Hussein's search for uranium was questionable at best, and that it became the subject of dispute almost as soon as it was included in the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
The answer to the question of whose recounting of events is correct — Mr. Bush's or Mr. Fitzgerald's — may not be known for months or years, if ever. But it seems there will be more clues, including some about the conversations between Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.
Mr. Fitzgerald said he was preparing to turn over to Mr. Libby 1,400 pages of handwritten notes — some presumably in Mr. Libby's own hand — that could shed light on two very different efforts at getting out the White House story.
One effort — the July 18 declassification of the major conclusions of the intelligence estimate — was taking place in public, while another, Mr. Fitzgerald argues, was happening in secret, with only Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby involved.
Last week's court filing has already led the White House to acknowledge, over the weekend, that Mr. Bush ordered the selective disclosure of parts of the intelligence estimate sometime in late June or early July. But administration officials insist that Mr. Bush played a somewhat passive role and did so without selecting Mr. Libby, or anyone else, to tell the story piecemeal to a small number of reporters.
But in one of those odd twists in the unpredictable world of news leaks, neither of the reporters Mr. Libby met, Bob Woodward of The Washington Post or Judith Miller, then of The New York Times, reported a word of it under their own bylines. In fact, other reporters working on the story were talking to senior officials who were warning that the uranium information in the intelligence estimate was dubious at best.
Mr. Fitzgerald did not identify who took part in the White House effort to argue otherwise, but the evidence he has cited so far shows that Mr. Cheney's office was the epicenter of concern about Mr. Wilson, the former ambassador sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to determine what deal, if any, Mr. Hussein had struck there.
Throughout the spring and early summer of 2003, Mr. Fitzgerald concluded, the former ambassador had become an irritant to the administration, raising doubts about the truthfulness of assertions — made publicly by Mr. Bush in his State of the Union address in January of that year — that Iraq might have sought uranium in Africa to further its nuclear ambitions.
Mr. Wilson's criticisms culminated in a July 6, 2003, Op-Ed article in The Times in which he voiced the same doubts for the first time on the record. He cited as his evidence his 2002 trip to Niger, instigated, he said, because of questions raised by Mr. Cheney's office.
Mr. Wilson's article, Mr. Fitzgerald said in the filing, "was viewed in the Office of the Vice President as a direct attack on the credibility of the vice president (and the president) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq."
Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that the White House effort was a "plan" to undermine Mr. Wilson.
"Disclosing the belief that Mr. Wilson's wife sent him on the Niger trip was one way for defendant to contradict the assertion that the vice president had done so, while at the same time undercutting Mr. Wilson's credibility if Mr. Wilson were perceived to have received the assignment on account of nepotism," Mr. Fitzgerald's filing said.
<< Home