I want all those excuse makers to spin this for me like they did last year when it was only known that Libby leaked it, but not why...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/cia.leak/index.html
This outta be entertaining. I'm sure Limbaugh bent over backwards to spin this for his audience. He can probably lick his own anus now.
---
Rush can't reach his anus anymore
Nice eh.. Nothing like selling out your spies. Not only is her career ruined, she could have been killed, and US national security could have been put at risk. Whatever operations she was involved in are now exposed. If other nations did not know there were US operatives in their regions, they know now.
Huge mistake.. Gigantic.
PAX
Rush Limbaugh hasn't seen his feet, let alone his anus since Carter was president.
I saw that last night, and wasn't really surprised at all.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM, hahaha...no matter how bad you think the Canadian Government is....be glad it's not the U.S's. That should help you sleep well at night.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Nope. Two things.. One, our government does whatever the US asks (95% of the time).
two, If the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold.
PAX
I'm sorry did I miss something? I'll quote directly from the article.
The information did not name CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose 2003 exposure trigger an investigation that led to the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
And this,
As president , Bush has the authority to release ANY CLASSIFIED document. But Democrats quickly jumped on the info in Fitzgerald's pleading, accusing Bush of using that authority for political purposes.
So where do any of you get that Bush sold out this women? The article clearly says he did not authorize the release of anyones names. Where do you see any of that? I read it and I didn't see where "Scooter" ever said Bush told him to reveal names. All I did see is that Bush authorized the release of documents showing proof as to why we're in Iraq, something well within his rights as president and the Democrats are trying to spin it into Bush is selling out our agents? No where did I see that, or did I miss a page or something?
So let me see if I got this straight now. Bush pressured by the the Democrates and the general public authorizes the release of documents to prove why we're in Iraq and that pisses Democrates off? So Bush gives them what they ask for, makes it public and they get pissed? Huh? Thats convenient enough. And they have the balls to accuse Bush of using this info for political gain! Thats too much! He gives them exactly what they and us are demanding and then its done out of politics! God can these Democrates stoop any lower! If this wasn't real life it would be funny, but this is real life and the Democrates are showing just how sad they really are. Way to go guys!
( gives 2 thumbs up )
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jackalope wrote:I'm sorry did I miss something? I'll quote directly from the article.
The information did not name CIA agent Valerie Plame, whose 2003 exposure trigger an investigation that led to the indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
And this,
As president , Bush has the authority to release ANY CLASSIFIED document. But Democrats quickly jumped on the info in Fitzgerald's pleading, accusing Bush of using that authority for political purposes.
So where do any of you get that Bush sold out this women? The article clearly says he did not authorize the release of anyones names. Where do you see any of that? I read it and I didn't see where "Scooter" ever said Bush told him to reveal names. All I did see is that Bush authorized the release of documents showing proof as to why we're in Iraq, something well within his rights as president and the Democrats are trying to spin it into Bush is selling out our agents? No where did I see that, or did I miss a page or something?
So let me see if I got this straight now. Bush pressured by the the Democrates and the general public authorizes the release of documents to prove why we're in Iraq and that pisses Democrates off? So Bush gives them what they ask for, makes it public and they get pissed? Huh? Thats convenient enough. And they have the balls to accuse Bush of using this info for political gain! Thats too much! He gives them exactly what they and us are demanding and then its done out of politics! God can these Democrates stoop any lower! If this wasn't real life it would be funny, but this is real life and the Democrates are showing just how sad they really are. Way to go guys!
( gives 2 thumbs up )
You're letting the facts get in the way of a good liberal rant!
The actual story of the Pres. authorizing the "leak" isn't a very exciting story so our biased, main-stream media needs to push into a different direction, facts and truth be darned.
THANK YOU ZERO!!!!!! Thats exactly what I was trying to get at!!! Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't all because hes a Republican. Don't get me wrong I'll call him on something if he efs up, which he does enough of without any help. But when he hasn't done anything wrong or illegal and they try to spin it into something its clear that its not then thats BS!
I'm just glad to know I'm not the only one who read it correctly. Reading comprehension folks. Learn it and love it.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Wait a minute! I just realized something. If Bush AUTHORIZED its release and he has the AUTHORUITY to de-classify and release any documents he wants then shouldn't they be says Bush authorized release ? It can not be a leak if the information was authorized to be released.
The only thing that constitutes a "LEAK" would be the name of the agent and the article clearly says he did not authorize the leaking of her name. So the article's title is mis-leading and a bold faced lie that contradicts itself ! Good lord !
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
It was a "leak" until we recently discovered it was "authorized".
---
Further, please explain to me why Bush was threatening to fire whoever leaked her name this whole time when he knew full well where it came from?
---
No the article doesn't say that at all. It says quite clearly that Bush authorized the release of the documents not the release of any agents names. So if the guy he authorized to release the info went too far thats clearly not Bush's fault and if the guy lied to Bush how would he know? You give Bush FAR more credit for being smart then he deserves. He swore to fire whomever it was because they gave out her name! Of which BTW doesn't amount to a hill of beans because she was no longer in over seas duty. In fact she hadn't been used as a field agent for several years! And the disclosing of a none top secret individuals name is not illegal at all.
And as for it being a "leak" it never was! It was authorized from the start. So just because we're now finding it was in fact authorized there for it was never a leak.
Good lord this only goes to prove that the Democrates are trying anything they can think and they're not beyond lieing to do it !! And here all this time I thought it was the Republican party that were the underhanded sneeks up on the hill. Boy the Democrates are sure proveing me wrong.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jackalope wrote:No the article doesn't say that at all. It says quite clearly that Bush authorized the release of the documents not the release of any agents names. So if the guy he authorized to release the info went too far thats clearly not Bush's fault and if the guy lied to Bush how would he know? You give Bush FAR more credit for being smart then he deserves. He swore to fire whomever it was because they gave out her name! Of which BTW doesn't amount to a hill of beans because she was no longer in over seas duty. In fact she hadn't been used as a field agent for several years! And the disclosing of a none top secret individuals name is not illegal at all.
So you're saying Bush was too dumb to realize the documents contained her name and really had no idea what was going on? He released classified docs that he didn't know the contents of? So stupidly threatened to fire people?
Jackalope wrote:
And as for it being a "leak" it never was! It was authorized from the start. So just because we're now finding it was in fact authorized there for it was never a leak.
I know. That's what I said.
Jackalope wrote:
Good lord this only goes to prove that the Democrates are trying anything they can think and they're not beyond lieing to do it !! And here all this time I thought it was the Republican party that were the underhanded sneeks up on the hill. Boy the Democrates are sure proveing me wrong.
Well, I don't know who these "Democrates" are, but Democrats are hardly lying any more or less than Republicans.
You should of seen Bill Mahr last week when a senator from California stupidly tried to defend Bush's 7-minute pause when he was first told the "Country was under attack".
---
Um the article clearly states her name was not in any of the documents released. So no Bush didn't know a thing about it till the story broke. If "Scooter" released her name it was not under the presidents authority that it was done. Says so in the article. So if Bush couldn't put 2 and 2 together and figure out maybe the guy he authorized to give out info went too far then thats his fault. Anyone else would have ben able to.
And you don't know who the democrates are? Really? I'll give you a hint, its the ones that are breathing. The Democrates are so bitter and hostile that they lost the last 2 elections they'll say whatever they can to get the gulable masses of this country to buy into their spin. Just look at whats happened to even you when you read this drivel pumped out by the leftist media. You overlook the fact that it clearly state Bush didn't do anything wrong but yet the way they word / spin it you guys swear hes selling our agents names on E-bey. They're evil watch it.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Jackalope wrote:
And you don't know who the democrates are?
I was making fun of your spelling of "democrats", Mr. Republicane.
---
Dude you know I can't speel worth a damn! Hey I started out spelling it correctly.
Besides I'm registered as an independant because I feel the best person should be put in office regardless of what side of the isle they may be from. Thats also why I'll knock Buch and defend Clinton if they deserve it. I agree I may learn toward the right but that does not make me a Republicane.
If someone efs up by all means call them on it but don't bash just for the fact that they may be from a different party then you cause it makes you look shallow. ( No AGuSTiN
not you I was speeking in general to anyone )
BTW I voted for Clinton both times and for Bush both times so I can knock and / or defend either as to what I believe.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
I'm not so sure this Bush-is-to-dumb defense is a good one.
---
Ok so how about the Bush didn't want to jump to conclusions before the man had a chance to defend himself defence? Better?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
No, that doesn't work. He's had PLENTY of time to come to a conclusion.
---
Does the fact that the leaked/released/declassified document was utterly wrong in virtually every respect elude everyone?
It was an estimate, and that estimate was off on, oh, every account.
Either way, ask yourself this: when was the last time one of these things was de-classified... I'll give you a hint, not since the last gulf war... it was used as a political instrument to justify a flawed invasion premise and plan.
You either have a President that is utterly incompetant, or is trying to wrangle out justification for a what is tantamount to an illegal invasion. Take your pick guys.
Keeper: Canadian Gov't isn't lilly white, but at least we don't commit our troops without knowing what we're getting into most of the time.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Jackalope wrote:And you don't know who the democrates are? Really? I'll give you a hint, its the ones that are breathing. The Democrates are so bitter and hostile that they lost the last 2 elections they'll say whatever they can to get the gulable masses of this country to buy into their spin. Just look at whats happened to even you when you read this drivel pumped out by the leftist media. You overlook the fact that it clearly state Bush didn't do anything wrong but yet the way they word / spin it you guys swear hes selling our agents names on E-bey. They're evil watch it.
Ouch, my head hurts from a 15 year old argument that is outwardly absurd. Leftist media? Dude, it doesn't exist. The media have been playing butt-buddy to Bush since he got into office. I have never read such absurd justifications for our president before. It is only in the last couple months as Bush's poll numbers dip into the lower 30% range that the media finally started actually reporting truth and showing that not everything Bush does is the gift of god. Have you been watching no spin...err only spin zone on O'Reilly or something? The democrats are bitter and hostile about anything. They are a bunch of pansies that think if they ever actually stand up for something that the American people will destroy them, even though more than half of the American people would support them. There is absolutely no way you can make the argument that they are hostile and trying to do whatever to get the gullable masses of this country to buy their spin. The democrats are weak. They have no spine. That's why I despise them almost as much as republicans. I'm sorry, but the liberal media, if it ever existed, DOES NOT EXIST TODAY. And I don't think they were liberal before. They just reported the facts rather than republican talking points.
Tristan: The media (which is pretty nebulous a name, but it's in keeping with Nixon era lingo) is considered left-leaning unless they talk about republican issues.
Giving equal time, and letting editorial stand as it's own commentary isn't enough, aparently.
I've been pointing at the Republican Noise Machine by David Brock since 2004... it's still applicable even today. If you get your political news from Fox TV, you're getting it from one of the largest RNC contributors: Rupert Murdoch. If you want balanced (forget this idea of "fair" journalism, life isn't fair, much less reporting on how you're getting screwed by the upper 1% and how you're letting them get away with it) news and editorial, look elsewhere.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604070010
Quote:
GREGORY: Well, a couple of points here, Chris. The White House -- White House officials making the point today that nowhere in this filing does it indicate that the president or the vice president was in any way -- were in any way behind leaking Valerie Plame's name. And it also makes the point, White House officials do, that when we talk about leaking classified information, it may sound like parsing information to a lot of people, but the reality is that once the president makes a decision to authorize the release of information, it's no longer classified, it's instantly declassified.
MATTHEWS: But David, I think objectively that argument the White House is putting out to you and other reporters doesn't hold up because it says that the president, by the very fact of authorizing a leak, is declassifying. If he felt he was within his rights to do so, why would he tell the vice president to tell his chief of staff to go under cover, use a separating identity like "former Hill staffer" on background to leak the information? If he was within his rights to do what he claims -- what he now is exposed as having done, why didn't he do it openly? Why didn't he put out a White House press release and say, "Here's some elements from the National Intelligence Estimates that shoot down the arguments of Joe Wilson"? Why didn't he do it that way?
People aren't trusting the president anymore, and it's a wonder why.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Haha, Gam you're great. You give Canadians a good name,
. Fox News makes my head hurt. They are as fair and balanced as....crap, I don't have any analogy that justifies how horrible Fox news is. All it is is republican talking points framed as news and then mentally inferior people like O'Reilly and Sean Hannity yelling and making ridiculously false statements that for some reason people just believe because they are on Fox News.
Stooping low? What party is that Delay guy with? You know the one going to prison?
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
