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
30 Comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Like it or not, SCC, Libby is turning over on your lying, cheating, stealing president.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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