Say Anything Blog

Let’s get the story straight here:  He clearly stated that she should pay the consequences.  Also, as you have all said about others, she is alleged to have leaked.  Remember the old "innocent until proven guilty. At least let’s have a bit of honesty here since you make inaccurate claims.  Kerry stated clearly "A CIA agent has the obligation to uphold the law and clearly leaking is against the law, and nobody should leak. I don’t like leaking." This from Drudge. 

He also said that

"that you have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth, and you have no one fired from the white house for revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie. That underscores what’s really wrong in Washington, DC Here."

So it’s sad but true that she’s being fired. My point is that he and nearly everyone else on the left would be demanding action if someone had released his records. If that’s not clear try reading the post again.Double standards are dishonest, I know you leftists don’t get that, but lack on understanding doesn’t negate that fact.

How does on extrapolate Kerry into the left?

Should I extrapolate the case of Randy Cunningham into a general statement about Republicans?

I’m not sure how one can equate releasing Kerry’s personal file with leaking evidence of a program that most freedom loving people would find abhorrent.

Ep…

Duke Cunningham was never a prominent Republican.  On the other hand it seems that all of the Democrats got together and decided he was the one to represent them in the race to the Presidentcy.

If the claims of McCarthy are true, and that’s a damn big if, then it amounts to nothing more than rendering prisoners. Any idea who invented that? Any idea why the left keeps ignoring that Clinton did that, had warrantless wire taps, and even sneak and peek breakins without warrants?

Clinton Rendition:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

Clinton Warrantles Wiretaps:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm

bullwinkle…many, including myself, don’t believe that rendition-type tactics have a place in free societies no matter who authorises them. As for wiretaps…nothing wrong with a little snooping so long as someone is keeping an eye on the snoopers. The difference between Clinton and Bush  is that apparently Clinton played by the rules when they came into effect.

"... apparently Clinton played by the rules when they came into effect."

I haven’t heard anyone trying to float that balloon since AlGore and Madeline Albright lined up the entire cabinet on the White House South Lawn to sing "Hail To The Chief."

The difference, Mike, is that unlike the Clinton era there’s a war going on just now.

Looking at the Drudge article it seems perfectly clear the John Kerry is the same smarmy waffler that he was 2 years ago… he voted against McCarthy before he voted for her. 

Selective abhorrence is kinda like being half-pregnant, it’s a farce. Clinton practically invented rendition and warrantless searches are something nobody has accused the Bush administration of doing, the hypocrites of the left didn’t care one bit if Clinton did it, but if the Bush administration listens in on calls between the foreigners and people in the U.S. they throw a fit. That seems to say that they don’t want a Republican to use every legal means to prevent the next attack. Make whatever you will of that, to mean it means they’d trade another 3,000 victims to see Bush fail.

The Inherent Dishonesty Of The Left

You forgot lazy and shiftless, good for nothing , uneducable, immoral.

Selective abhorrence is kinda like being half-pregnant, it’s a farce.

I agree which is why I don’t think one should try to justify an abhorrent act by appealing to partisan preference. Wrong is wrong.

You forgot lazy and shiftless, good for nothing , uneducable, immoral.

And Godless and baby-eating.

"You forgot lazy and shiftless, good for nothing , uneducable, immoral."

As always, WOOF, you speak for yourself. 

I was speaking about the left in general WOOF, not you in particular. You just don’t rank the attention you think you deserve.

"... apparently Clinton played by the rules when they came into effect."

I haven’t heard anyone trying to float that balloon since AlGore and Madeline Albright lined up the entire cabinet on the White House South Lawn to sing "Hail To The Chief."

Hmm…you must have missed my posting of this:

 It has been alleged that in 2002 the Bush Administration extended the ECHELON program to domestic surveillance. This controversy was the subject of the New York Times eavesdropping exposé of December, 2005. [4] [5] [6] [7]. During the Clinton administration, testimony by then-CIA director George Tenet indicates that the use of ECHELON during the Clinton administration was authorized by the FISA Court, as required by law [8].

************** 

The difference, Mike, is that unlike the Clinton era there’s a war going on just now.

I don’t remember a war being declared, even though GWB constantly refers to one in order to slime over making mincemeat of the Constitution and rule of law.

Well Diane we all know the acronym AUMF means nothing to you, but yes, war was declared.

And no, it need not say DECLARATION OF WAR at the top to be just that.

Diane, for the very last time, although your posts have become increasingly easy to overlook, I don’t miss them at all.  Not a one.

Ken challenges me with:

“Well Diane we all know the acronym AUMF means nothing to you, but yes, war was declared.

And no, it need not say DECLARATION OF WAR at the top to be just that.”

Well, Ken, chew on this for awhile:
http://www.slate.com/id/2134845/
“AUMF” is understood by the Justice Department to expressly authorize warrant-less surveillance even though the resolution that Congress passed neither envisioned nor implied anything of the kind. The president’s insistence that he alone can divine the hidden meaning of legislation is of a piece with his recently noticed practice of appending “signing statements” to bills—as in, “by signing this anti-torture bill into law, I pronounce it to signify that it has no power over me.” Similarly, in his white paper, Bush as much as declares: “I determine what my words mean and I alone determine what yours mean, too.”

**************

Ouch, owww, oooch…BatOne harshly flails away:

“Diane, for the very last time, although your posts have become increasingly easy to overlook, I don’t miss them at all.  Not a one.”

Does that mean you are enjoying my comments and wouldn’t want to miss them or something else?  And does ‘for the very last time’ connote that I am about to be banned…again?  I was shocked that the say anything blog banned me earlier; but some kind and wise soul unblocked my posts and I’m thrilled to be back here in the land of freedom of speech for all, which is really close to becoming extinct?

This is just more Kerry mumbo-jumbo, nuance to those on the left.

He wants to set up the appearance of being strong on national security while endorsing behavior that harms the current administration.

Personnel that are privileged to to classified data should not be allowed to released information based on their concept of truth and reality.

Duke Cunningham was never a prominent Republican.  On the other hand it seems that all of the Democrats got together and decided he was the one to represent them in the race to the Presidentcy.

I doesn’t really matter if Cunningham was prominent or not.  He could both a small fish and representative of Republicans at the same time.

In other words, prominence or lack thereof does not preclude a judgment about representativeness, indeed, the two factors seem to be wholly independent of each other.  They are independent variables.

Diane, my basic problem with you lefties is you use a bunch of fuzzy headed journalists and analysists as your sources.

If what they had to say had any real merit and couldn’t be shot down while sneezing, then I would take you more seriously.   When a person makes a absurb statement like this:

"AUMF" is understood by the Justice Department to expressly authorize warrant-less surveillance even though the resolution that Congress passed neither envisioned nor implied anything of the kind.

 

Without addressing that a) warrentless surveilance of foreign nationals is a an act of force, b) anything not specifically forbidden by such an authorization is permitted, c) most importantly it would take Congress maybe two hours to pass an ammendment to this resolution that deauthorized warrantless surveillance.

Why haven’t they passed an ammendment?  Why hasn’t any Democratic congressman even put up such an ammendment for vote? 

All of you bitchers and whiners on this story, and that includes MikeA, have very carefully avoided this fact.  Which is why, on this story, you are behaving utterly in a partisan fashion and have zero credibility in your complaints.

I also find it laughable that your original statement

 

I don’t remember a war being declared, even though GWB constantly refers to one in order to slime over making mincemeat of the Constitution and rule of law.

provokes only another example of your inability to independently reason, and no consession on your part that your original statement was totally hairball. 

Epicurus:

 

I doesn’t really matter if Cunningham was prominent or not.    He could both a small fish and representative of Republicans at the same time.

What year was he the Republican nominee again?  I forget. 

Carrick,

Good comments.

This is pure speculation on my part. Would it not be intriguing to find a deeper connection here between McCarthy, the reporter, and some prominent democrat(S). If I am not mistaken, did not this happen with the phony National Guard papers? 

Carrick,

(A) Folks who are nominated are generally compromise candidates; so arguing that they represent every Democrat or Republican (or even a majority what they think in some cases) ignores the dissonance that occurs within any political party.

(B) It seems to me that there are other ways to judge representativeness beyond who was or was not nominated to be President in an election.  Hell, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were nominated by the Republicans in 1964 and 1980 but I would argue that their brand of politics and ideology have very little to do with what current Republicans do. 

Carrick states:

All of you bitchers and whiners on this story, and that includes MikeA, have very carefully avoided this fact.  Which is why, on this story, you are behaving utterly in a partisan fashion and have zero credibility in your complaints.

Irony that such partisan posters talk about partisanship.

I could say it until I’m hoarse and you wouldn’t believe it but here goes again:  I am neither Republicon or Democrap.  They both stink.

Carrick, a war was declared when and how?

Carrick asks

Why hasn’t any Democratic congressman even put up such an ammendment for vote?

Good question and I’m not really close enough to the ins and outs to provide more than an educated guess but I’ll venture that the Democrats are nervous politically about pushing the envelope too far. Given that they have a reasonable chance to retake at least the House this fall, I doubt you’ll see too much boat rocking other than the standard to and fro. Should the Democrats have some electoral success they would then have the opportunity to issue  subpoenas and conduct a proper investigation next year at which point some changes might seem reasonable. Just guessing though.