Your Hate Magnet Du Jour

Congratulations to Mary McCarthy, this week’s rightwing hate magnet. Whether or not she committed a crime remains to be seen, but you can practically smell the flopsweat as the rightwing blogosphere dances chanting around her burning effigy in an effort to drive away unpleasant visions of a fading party and a presidency sunk beyond repair.

Don’t get me wrong, McCarthy appears to have committed a breach of some sort (although she now denies it, see link at bottom) and will likely face more retribution for her actions than simply losing her job. That is fine with me, as far as I am concerned anybody who breaks the law should be ready to go to jail. If you broke the law for what you see as a good reason, fine, go to jail and feel good about it. Movement-wise jail did no harm to Martin Luther King or Ghandi. It is also fine with me if rightwingers want to spin elaborate theories in which every one of their hated enemies will get sucked into a web of conspiracy and go down en masse. Good luck with that guys, I’m sure that those Wilson indictments are just around the corner.

Apparently among other crimes McCarthy gave money to the Democratic party. Score one for the Partisan Activist smear. By the same logic convicted spy Larry Franklin must damn the entire neoconservative circle in which he ran, correct? The Wolfowitzes and Perles who feted Franklin and treated him like a cherished pal must answer for their questionable connections. Hearings, I say, we need hearings! Or not. You see, Larry Franklin was a Republican so what he did was ok, and even if it somehow hurt America it certainly does not say anything bad about Republicans even though he was tightly knit into their leading circle. Just one low-ranking bad apple. It makes no sense to exonerate Franklin’s friends and indict McCarthy’s, but good luck telling that to someone when they have a good simmering hate on.

Another logical pretzel holds that America does not really disappear foreign suspects into gulag-style prisons that operate outside any sort of legal oversight, but McCarthy damaged American security by making people think that we do. Huh? If you want to hang her for treason, as some commenters and a particularly frothy emailer clearly do, then you have to figure that she damaged actual operations. You can’t have it both ways.

Anyhow the NYT story casting doubt on the prisons story comes to no conclusion for or against – the official claiming to have found no incontrovertible proof has hardly claimed that they do not exist, and his opinion appears far from unanimous among commissioners. Eventually the truth will out and somebody will be proven wrong, but the facts remain too unclear to justify the joyous dancing that the article engendered.

***

Other points on the same subject:

Note the sadly unsurprising way that the president has set about to clean up the intelligence service:

The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.

That’s right folks, the real problem with intelligence is that it is not partisan enough. I suppose that with Iran we won’t have those pesky dissenters getting in the way of a unanimous threat assessment they way they did with Iraq.

Finally, this will undoubtedly provide more meat for the partisan frothing. Rand Beers indeed.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






164 replies
  1. 1
    Pooh says:

    I have strong doubts as to whether this will ever come to trial for one simple reason – McCarthy would almost certainly present a ‘public interest’ defense which would have the curious side effect of putting the secret prisons (which of course only the inDecent Left would call Gulags, despite reports that they were in fact literally old gulags) back on the front pages. Which would brand the DoJ as terrorsymps for bringing out news which Hurts The War Effort By Causing Embarassment, etc, etc, etc…

  2. 2
    Richard Bottoms says:

    Pretty messy. Good thing I didn’t vote for these people. Otherwise I’d be oretty embarrased right now.

    Har.

  3. 3

    Mary McCarthy makes four

    Mary McCarthy is the fourth Clinton NSC member to assault the Bush White House. … The media never cites those Clinton connections. Joe Wilson is always “Ambassador,” but never “Clinton appointee.” … Then we have the Clinton generals, who we…

  4. 4
    Par R says:

    A principled dissenter would have gone through available channels, such as to Congress as provided by the so-called whistleblower statute, to express her discontent on an issue. Failing that, she would have resigned and spoken openly about what she knew that didn’t violate the confidentiality agreements that she had signed as an employee of the CIA. McCarthy took none of those actions. Instead, she violated her confidentiality agreements, broke the law, and attempted to leak what she knew — and only what suited her — to the media. She wanted to keep her job rather than her honor.

  5. 5
    slickdpdx says:

    Anyone who is or has been in government service knows those drama tools who get off on talking to the press.

  6. 6
    Darrell says:

    Mary McCarthy, like the leakers of Bush’s classified NSA program, are noble truth tellers.. kinda like Abraham Lincoln, or even more honorable than him. I think they should be able to tell the NY Times whatever classified data they want to reveal, as long as they feel they are doing the right thing

  7. 7
    Al says:

    Apparently among other crimes McCarthy gave money to the Democratic party. Score one for the Partisan Activist smear. By the same logic convicted spy Larry Franklin must damn the entire neoconservative circle in which he ran, correct?

    Score one for the tu quoque smear!

    No matter how hard Cole tries to spin this thing away, the truth is becoming clearer and clearer: there is a CIA jihad against the Bush White House.

  8. 8
    Eural says:

    ok – so I guess we are all in agreement that anyone who leaks classified information without following correct procedures should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? This would now apparantly include many members of the current administration including Cheney and possibly Bush as well…

    …or is this yet another case of the rules only apply when we want them to apply? You can’t have it both ways. Well, you can but then you’d be a hypocritical douchebag with no credibility….hmmmmmm….

  9. 9
    Par R says:

    Eural, apparently you are unaware of the facts involved in the issue that you raise, but in brief, there is no dispute but what the President and the Vice President possess the absolute legal authority to declassify documents/information. Accordingly, your post is the usual blather of an ill-informed nitwit from the Left.

  10. 10
    chopper says:

    Joe Wilson is always “Ambassador,” but never “Clinton appointee.” …

    uh, wilson was an ambassador originally by bush I. he was later appointed to the NSC etc by clinton. so you can call him a ‘clinton appointee’ as long as you also call him a ‘bush I appointee.’ or you can ignore that and just keep trying to tie him to clinton, cause you know how that riles up the base. and that’s what this is all about, innit?

  11. 11
    Eural says:

    Hey Par R – you seem ill informed as well: I grant that the Pres (not the VP) has the authority to declassify information but there are also procedures and guidelines for doing so. As usual, Bush did not follow said guidelines and, as usual, claims the rules don’t apply to him.

    Now, go back and read the part about being a hypocritical douchebag and explain why this applies to Clinton (who was one too) but not Bush…Guys, either we follow the rule of law as established by our Constitution or we do not. It really is that simple.

  12. 12
    kyle says:

    Mary McCarthy, like the leakers of Bush’s classified NSA program, are noble truth tellers.. kinda like Abraham Lincoln, or even more honorable than him. I think they should be able to tell the NY Times whatever classified data they want to reveal, as long as they feel they are doing the right thing

    Darrell wins April’s award for “Best Use Of Sarcasm” in a blog comment :)

    Eural wins the “Ignore The Details If They Don’t Suit My View” award, which is, y’know, a little less prestigious.

  13. 13
    Pooh says:

    A principled dissenter would have gone through available channels, such as to Congress as provided by the so-called whistleblower statute, to express her discontent on an issue. [Further talking points ensue]

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Congress might have to investigate. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good old Pat Roberts really dodged a bullet here.

    Thanks bud, I needed a chuckled just there. Back to your cave, now.

  14. 14
    Ancient Purple says:

    Guys, either we follow the rule of law as established by our Constitution or we do not.

    This statement will make no sense to people like Par R.

    In their world, the Constitution is a quaint list of helpful hints, but never really meant to be taken seriously.

  15. 15
    Dave In Texas says:

    Ah, Clinton did it. Easier than thinking.

  16. 16
    Par R says:

    Eural, again you have not the slightest knowledge about that which you write. Under an Executive Order signed by President Bush some three years ago, the Vice President was granted authority to “declassify.” Additionally, the President’s actions relative disclosures related to the National Intelligence Estimate were fully consistent with applicable statute. Why don’t you actually research some of this “stuff” before you hit the PC keys, dummy.

  17. 17
    Pooh says:

    Under an Executive OrderProclamation signed by President Bush some three years ago,

    Fixed…

  18. 18
    Joey says:

    No matter how hard Cole tries to spin this thing away, the truth is becoming clearer and clearer: there is a CIA jihad against the Bush White House.

    Is it really that hard to look at who actually wrote the post? John didn’t write it, Tim did. You know how I know this? Because directly underneath the title of the post, it says, and I quote, “By: Tim F. “. And what the fuck does Clinton have to do with any of this? What other nefarious plots was he involved in? Did he kill Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll? Did he cover up Roswell? Is he the reasons the Bills lost those Superbowls in the ’90’s? Is he Cancer Man’s son?

  19. 19
    Joey says:

    Ahem, that should be “Is he the reason”, not “reasons.”

  20. 20
    Par R says:

    What else is new? It’s another series of cheap, sleazy, intellectually lazy smears from several of the resident idiots and know-nothings of this site, including Ancient Purple and PoopHead. One can only assume that ppGaz would have been heard from were he not likely passed out in a drug-fueled and/or alcoholic haze. As someone on this site observed some months ago, that’s average for the course in the dishonest, ethically-challenged childish babbling that passes for leftist “debate” in this modern age. “Liberalism is the philosophy of the ill-informed; the intemperate; the marginal.” And God knows, the aforementioned poor fools are definitely “marginal” in all ways possible.

  21. 21
    Pooh says:

    Part of me thinks that many on the right want to put Clinton up on Rushmore just so they can have the satisfaction of blowing him up in large, rocky, effigy.

  22. 22
    Pooh says:

    It’s another series of cheap, sleazy, intellectually lazy smears from several of the resident idiots and know-nothings of this site, including Ancient Purple and PoopHead.

    That’s just…perfect

  23. 23
    Zifnab says:

    From the Newsweek bit at the bottom

    She also had been assured that the CIA would protect her privacy–just one day before her name became publicly known as the agency official who had been dismissed for leaking to the press, the source said.

    So let me get this straight, her name was leaked to the press?

    When the WH wants to delve into hypocrasy, they do not fuck around do they?

  24. 24
    Eural says:

    Why don’t you actually research some of this “stuff” before you hit the PC keys, dummy

    Ok – the fact that you got into name-calling within two replies of starting this discussion reveals a lot about your mentality. And I’m confused on what I don’t understand – Bush claims he declassified the information over a week after “leaking” it to members of his staff who ran with it administration friendly reporters. That’s not officially declassifying anything – that’s leaking information for political gain. Just because the president says it does not mean its legal.

    I do agree with those who claim McCarthy should face a criminal investigation for many of the same reasons that Tim cited in the topic opener. By the same token we should start back in 2001 and do a proper investigation of all leaks. But that won’t happen while Pat Roberts and other such hypocritical douchebags are running things. And if you’re a real conservative and a real patriot you’d be pissed off at the scumbags as well instead of defending their unethical, immoral and fraudelant behavior. Sir. (Notice the nice name!)

  25. 25
    Pantsman says:

    I don’t understand. If she broke the law she broke the law. Whatever the Bush administration did on top of that shouldn’t somehow forgive her for her trespasses.

  26. 26
    DougJ says:

    Par R is the best.

  27. 27
    neil says:

    I always assumed he was misspelling ‘Pat’, but that might not be right.

  28. 28
    Geek, Esq. says:

    I think McCarthy shot Vince Foster. And Mary Mapes was holding the ammo belt.

  29. 29
    Zifnab says:

    :(

  30. 30
    DougJ says:

    Par is a Swedish name. I won’t spoil the fun by explaining why he has chosen a Swedish name.

  31. 31
    Zifnab says:

    She also had been assured that the CIA would protect her privacy–just one day before her name became publicly known as the agency official who had been dismissed for leaking to the press, the source said.

    When the Bush Administration dabbles in hypocrasy, they don’t fool around. Leaking the name of a CIA offical who is being fired for leaking confidential CIA info. Does this fit under the definition of irony?

  32. 32
    Pooh says:

    I’d describe it as more of a “wallow” or a “founder” than a dabble. But that’s me.

  33. 33
    Dave Ruddell says:

    Wow, this is the first time in a while where the righties are outnumbering the lefties in a thread. It’s like Classic Balloon Juice!

    I need to go make some popcorn.

  34. 34
    chopper says:

    Par is a Swedish name. I won’t spoil the fun by explaining why he has chosen a Swedish name.

    he’s the alter ego of arch-conservative Robert BorkBorkBork?

    thank you, i’m here all week.

  35. 35
    ppGaz says:

    What else is new? It’s another series of cheap, sleazy, intellectually lazy smears from several of the resident idiots and know-nothings of this site, including Ancient Purple and PoopHead. One can only assume that ppGaz would have been heard from were he not likely passed out in a drug-fueled and/or alcoholic haze. As someone on this site observed some months ago, that’s average for the course in the dishonest, ethically-challenged childish babbling that passes for leftist “debate” in this modern age. “Liberalism is the philosophy of the ill-informed; the intemperate; the marginal.” And God knows, the aforementioned poor fools are definitely “marginal” in all ways possible.

    John, Tim?

    Jesus. Are ya so hard up for page views and so lazy that you can’t even get rid of these spoofing idiots?

    Seriously, this thing is going to turn into Scrutator.

    Maybe you don’t care any more.

  36. 36
    neil says:

    _Maybe you don’t care any more._

    I hear a lot of that has been going around lately.

  37. 37
    Zifnab says:

    So far we having had any twenty-point bolded BIRDZILLA screaming. Just count your blessings.

    If someone wants to go off on how they just can’t stand those gosh darn drug-using, satan worshipping, baby-eating, terrorist-hugging, hippie, liberal douches just let the poor dude vent. He’s probably got more on his chest than politics.

  38. 38
    ppGaz says:

    just let the poor dude vent

    Spoof. He’s a spoof, you see.

    He’s DougJ, without the talent.

  39. 39
    Zifnab says:

    Well, regardless.

    I’d rather put up with random Par R blather than start seeing Tim and John board-nazi the forums like the RedState goons.

  40. 40
    DougJ says:

    Okay, I’m pretty sure the name “Par” was chosen to honor the University of Malmo, where some dubious study that right-wingers love took place. Why would do I think this? It’s too complicated to expalin.

  41. 41
    ppGaz says:

    Why would do I think this? It’s too complicated to expalin.

    You got some expalinin’ to do, Par-dner.

  42. 42
    Zifnab says:

    DougJ, you taunt us with your rhetorical blue-ball. Either put out or shut up. I’m too damn lazy to look this up and I’ve got a mile of math homework to wade through tonight.

  43. 43
    ppGaz says:

    We await Doug’s expalination.

  44. 44
    Par R says:

    ppGaz says:

    John, Tim?

    Jesus. Are ya so hard up for page views and so lazy that you can’t even get rid of these spoofing idiots?

    Here’s a brief sampling compiled by Brian of some of the brain farts made by ppGaz just during a portion of one recent week.

    The Best of ppGaz……

    “SHUT THE FUCK UP”

    “FIRE THEIR SORRY ASSES”

    “Fire these incompetant sonsabitches and get new government. That’s what America is for, it’s why we have elections and stuff. To get rid of the imcompetants and the crooks and the liars and the self-serving fucks.”

    “Don’t EVER give somebody else a hard time about citing facts, you asshole. You sling proof-by-assertion crap in here every fucking day.”

    “Answer the goddammed question”

    “Now go away and shut the fuck up.”

    “Suppose you’re a shepherd, and you crave sex with sheep”

    “Ben Stein, the fat slob”

    “Jesus. Do you ever stop to think before you post?”

    “this is the piece of shit that you posted”

    “You fear-mongering, bigoted asshole”

    “you are really making an ass of yourself now”

    “why do we have to settle for this kind of dumbshit Stormy-scs-stickler commentary in here?”

    “I find you a suck-ass embarassing piece of crap, myself.”

    “shut the fuck up”

    “Limp-wristed bastard.”

    “resident piece of shit homophobe”

    “Fuck them…..It’s about me”

    “What possible rationale can there be for a Darrell or scs or Stormy … or stickler … to post here?….Close the door to those four psychotics, and I’ll not post here again until they do…..I’m dead serious.”

    “Which version of the UN do you want to jerk us off about?”

    “Shut up, and answer the questions that have been put to you.”

    “Like I said, stick-up-your-ass, you are just making this stuff up.”

    “Fuck off, man. You’re a joke.”

    “Go away, seriously. You think you can just make shit up and peddle it here? STFU. Beat it. You aren’t even being funny any more.”

    “Seriously, go away. You’re embarrassing yourself now.”

    “What a frigging idiot.”

    “Bill Bennett is a big fat lying stupid piece of shit.”

    “make some stupid arcane point on a stupid fat pig’s radio show,”

    “Aw, shove it your dirtpipe…..This is just boilerplate righty noise machine crap.”

    “That’s your entire stock in trade, asshole.”

    “John Cole is Darrell’s bitch.”

    ““Remember the lessons of 9-11” said the great George Fucking W. Bush”

    “You’re about due for a cockslap.”

    “if you don’t understand something I say, that’s your problem, pal! Fuck you!”

    “he is a big fat pompous asshole who doesn’t care about anything or anybody but himself”

    “I have always held iron workers in the highest regard.”

    “I’m too lazy”

    “religion and prayer is a crutch of the weak”

  45. 45
    ppGaz says:

    Thank you, thank you.

    But, you see, I’m not a spoof.

    You are. So go away.

  46. 46
    Par R says:

    ppGaz – I tend to agree that you’re not a poof…you’re merely a fucking, semi-literate moron.

  47. 47
    ppGaz says:

    Be that as it may, you’re the spoof, and I’m not.

    What’s more, I’ve never used a word here that wasn’t used by someone else first … in most cases, by John or Tim.

    So if you have a problem with the language, you should take it up with them.

    But all seriousness aside, if this is just to become a playground for spoofers, then what’s the point?

    No amnesty for spoofers.

  48. 48
    Zifnab says:

    Wow. Masterfully taken out of context Par. If I had more time on my hands I’d totally build a list of “stupid shit right-wingers on this site have said”, but that would be a waste of my time.

    Better to quote people who actually have a global audience:

    Micheal Savage: alleged Duke rape victim “a dirty, vermonous black stripper”

    claimed NPR was “on the side of harvesting organs in China”

    advocated we “kill 100 million Muslims”

    and suggested we “Burn the Mexican flag”

    Rush Limbaugh: suggested the Democratic Party wanted to invite Al Queda to “come over the southern border” so they could “take their votes”.

    accused kidnapped peace activists of being “self-absorbed, self-inflated, self-important people”

    attacked poll of U.S. troops funded by peace studies center: “a bunch of long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking, FM peace-types that have an agenda”

    Ann Coulter: suggested we poison a Supreme Court Justice

    on Hollywood’s response to AIDS “[they] got caught with their pants down” and “got it right in the end”

    stated “[T]he government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo”

    These are the voices of the Republican Right. I’m sorry ppGaz, you’re just not going to be able to hold a fair competition unless you crank it up a notch.

  49. 49
    ppGaz says:

    I’m sorry ppGaz, you’re just not going to be able to hold a fair competition unless you crank it up a notch.

    Heh. There’s no competition.

    Ask John if he has a real name and email address for Par.

    Then ask him if he has one for me.

    Ask him how much money Par has contributed to the blog.

    Ditto, me.

    Look at Par’s body of work. Ditto, mine. Draw your own conclusions.

    You are right of course, they allow the spoofers in order to avoid the appearance of a closed space. But at some point, you have to wonder when it isn’t a great idea. A fair percentage of “posters” here are fakes just spoofing a point of view. It’s fun when it’s done well, and with wit and talent. But when it’s just crap, then ….

    We report, you deride.

  50. 50
    Par R says:

    ppGaz, on your best day you are little more than a very poorly educated and likely impoverished fool…one who can barely string two original thoughts together in a coherent fashion, aside from your rather remarkable skill with profanity. Your comments and silly attempts at informed discussion clearly show that you have no future beyond your pathetic attempts at bullying others with whom you disagree. In short, you are a loser.

  51. 51
    ppGaz says:

    Still, you are a spoof, and I’m not.

  52. 52
    neil says:

    Stalemate, I should think.

  53. 53
    DougJ says:

    Okay, that whack job George Conway cited some study from the University of Malmo that claimed there was a link between oral cancer and oral you-know-what — this was during the Lewinsky madness.

    If Clinton can persuade kids to eat right, that’s great. But let’s face it: his sexual appetite has been as serious a problem as what he eats. And it’s in the sexual arena that he could really perform a public service. He should step forward and campaign against sexual diseases. That wouldn’t be a laughing matter.

    In fact, Clinton might be valuable in warning young people not to engage in oral sex. Clinton, who exploited Monica Lewinski for sexual gratification, could cite a Swedish study finding that some mouth cancers are caused by a virus contracted during oral sex. The study, conducted at the University of Malmo, found that individuals orally infected with human papilloma virus, HPV, are at a higher risk of developing oral cancer.

    Kerstin Rosenquist, who headed the study, said that mouth cancer has been on the rise among young people and that the prevalence of HPV could be one of the factors.

    It is a distinct possibility, of course, that more young people are engaging in oral sex and getting mouth cancer because of the example set by former junk food junkie Bill Clinton. But don’t expect Mika Brzezinski to do a report on that. That might remind people of how much of a rogue he was.

    Greenwald has an article about it (I can’t link on this site anymore for some reason, but google “Glenn Greenwald Malmo” and you’ll get it).

    After that, I began to talk about the University of Malmo obsessively.

  54. 54
    ppGaz says:

    After that, I began to talk about the University of Malmo obsessively.

    Ah.

  55. 55
    tBone says:

    Par R Says:
    In short, you are a loser.
    ppGaz Says:
    Still, you are a spoof, and I’m not.

    Who’s rubber and who’s glue in this situation? I’m having a hard time keeping up.

  56. 56
    stickler says:

    Stalemate, I should think.

    “Stalemate” like Stalingrad was a “stalemate.”

    PpGaz is a salty-mouthed, grizzled gunslinger. He’s drilled Mr. “R” full of holes about a dozen times now. Why he keeps it up, I don’t know. “R” seems eager to keep on bringing shivs to the gunfight, but the result has been less than pleasant to watch.

    There must be more to this than we poor benighted readers can see. What dark Pentagon cubicle is ParR posting from? How much is the DoD paying him for the tripe he shovels out? It can’t be much … on the other hand, with the kind of gargantuan waste this Administration tolerates, I suppose it’s possible that “R” is a $60K/yr intelligence contractor.

  57. 57
    DougJ says:

    I botched the block quote above.

  58. 58
    tBone says:

    It is a distinct possibility, of course, that more young people are engaging in oral sex and getting mouth cancer because of the example set by former junk food junkie Bill Clinton.

    This seems like a natural for a study by some right-wing think tank: the increased prevalence of chubby cancer-ridden teenagers performing oral sex on each other since the late ’90s. I can’t believe they haven’t done it yet.

  59. 59
    ppGaz says:

    “R” seems eager to keep on bringing shivs to the gunfight

    He’s a spoof.

  60. 60
    DougJ says:

    Mary McCarthy’s lawyer is named Ty Cobb. I thought you’d want to know.

  61. 61
    ppGaz says:

    I’m having a hard time keeping up.

    Losing your chops?

  62. 62
    Zifnab says:

    All has become clear. Thank you DougJ for bringing the light of truth into my life as you have done so many times before.

    Hehe. Oral sex. *runs off giggling*

  63. 63
    Brian says:

    Movement-wise jail did no harm to Martin Luther King or Ghandi

    Priceless.

    St. McCarthy!

  64. 64
    ppGaz says:

    I tend to agree that you’re not a poof

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  65. 65
    HH says:

    Interesting how it’s “hate” here, but not when you’re discussing Libby, Rove, etc.

  66. 66
    neil says:

    Hi Hugh! Don’t stay around to make sure your charges of hypocrisy stick, or anything — that’s not what they’re for!

  67. 67

    Feel like you need a little outrage?

    Nary a single world we were told in the build-up to our illegal war in Iraq was true. Worse, the truth was known and willfully repressed. John Cole’s exquisite wrap-up of recent revelations about what the CIA knew and when…

  68. 68
    Andrei says:

    You are right of course, they allow the spoofers in order to avoid the appearance of a closed space.

    Closed space? LOL. I guess we are forgetting that of all the people banned on the site… I’m the one with the dubious honor of having been banned twice. Personally, I find that funnier than anything DougJ has ever said.

  69. 69
    searp says:

    Interesting how McCarthy is the story and not the … secret prisons holding secret prisoners. I cannot think of a less American activity.

    Let McCarthy take her lumps, and by all means please, please find out the truth on 2 issues:

    (1) Are we running secret prisons with secret detainees?
    (2) Is this legal?

  70. 70
    DougJ says:

    Mary Mac didn’t leak the info about the prisons anyway. She may have spoken to reporters, but not about that.

    Maybe Brian isn’t a spoof. He’s so dumb.

  71. 71
    Sherard says:

    Typical. Nice strawman. Please direct me to where any claims it is a “crime” – your words – to donate to the Democrats. Nice try though.

  72. 72
    Sherard says:

    By the way, Tim, please update this post and link to what you consider to be “moderate” Republicans, Libertarians, or RINOs that are poo-pooing this. Because apparently ANYONE that thinks this is a big deal is part of the “right wing hate machine”. Or has that now been re-defined as anyone to the right of Michael Moore ?

    I’d sure be curious if Cole has completely jumped the shark and agrees with your moonbat take on this.

  73. 73
    Tim F. says:

    Score one for the tu quoque smear!

    I get the impression that logic used to beat you up and take your lunch money. Re-read the post and you might figure out that my point was that people cannot logically assign guilt-by-association to one while exonerating the other. I neither indicted nor exonerated either group of friends and associates.

    Please direct me to where any claims it is a “crime” – your words – to donate to the Democrats.

    Everybody meet Sherard, literary critic and founding member of a school of thought which posits that figures of speech do not exist.

    By the way, Tim, please update this post and link to what you consider to be “moderate” Republicans, Libertarians, or RINOs that are poo-pooing this.

    I know about one significant rightwinger who has come out on McCarthy’s side – Juan Williams. Many others (starting with NRO, to many blogs, commenters and some memorably hateful emails) would like to see McCarthy stand trial for treason. If you think the one is more representative than the other, then by all means educate me. I am always open to being wrong.

  74. 74
    Loopy Doug says:

    If anyone’s interested, heres a snap of my cousin DougJ’s wife, who also happens to be his half sister.

  75. 75

    Typical. Nice strawman. Please direct me to where any claims it is a “crime” – your words – to donate to the Democrats. Nice try though.

    For that, let us turn to National Review, by way of Powerline Blog

    Here’s Powerline…
    We have been talking for several years about the covert war that elements of the federal bureaucracy, especially inside the CIA, have been waging against the Bush administration. Today, at NRO’s The Corner, Andy McCarthy does an excellent job of placing recent revelations about CIA leaker Mary McCarthy’s support for John Kerry and the Democratic Party in the context of that war:

    And the National Review…

    Now we find that an intelligence officer who was leaking information very damaging to Bush was a Kerry backer to a degree that was extraordinary for a single person on a government salary, and, even more extraordinarily, gave $5K of her own money to Democrats in the key swing state (Ohio) that, in the end, did actually decide the election.

    Yes, that’s right people. The real crime here wasn’t secret gulag prisons, or even a CIA leak.

    It was that these people donated to Democrats and were part of a giant conspiracy to overthrow a Presidency by reporting bad news.

  76. 76

    By the way, Tim, please update this post and link to what you consider to be “moderate” Republicans, Libertarians, or RINOs that are poo-pooing this.

    You are free to provide links in the comments.

    Like this

    Yes, that’s right. The Bush administration is under assault from the CIA!

  77. 77

    I would like to hear our wingnut friends please explain how this Mary McCarthy obtained this information, when she worked for the analyst division of the CIA… Not Operations.

  78. 78

    Interesting how it’s “hate” here, but not when you’re discussing Libby, Rove, etc.

    Hey, we can’t help it.

    We’re just a bunch of Bush Haters.

    wink wink

  79. 79

    There is a vaccine against HPV, right? Isn’t that the one that the fundies and BushCo are so opposed to providing because preventing disease will encourage people to have sex?

    I hear there are new guidelines coming down from BushCo to not provide penicillin for syphilis. This will discourage sex among young people.

  80. 80
    ppGaz says:

    We interrupt this thread to bring you the President, who will speak to you on gas prices.

    The man who squandered other peoples’ money to fail miserably in the oil business in Texas will now explain how he’ll respond to rising fuel prices.

  81. 81
    SomeGuy says:

    Hey all – I’m baack! The leftwingers here are sounding less snarky and vitriolic than usual. The “hate du jour” Tim F sees by the “wingnuts” is merely projection from someone who realizes he is about to lose a very long and important argument concerning the politicization of sensitive national secuirty information. Takes one to know one.

    Here are some facts that are not open to interpretation:

    Mary McCarthy admitted leaking classified info the the press – specifically, Dana Preist. She also failed polygraph tests when questioned about it. Then, after being ferreted out, denied it (actually, her lawyer denied it). The agency maintains their assertion that she was indeed the leaker (read the Newsweek article – you libs put a lot of faith in those sources until they disagree with your narrative). So she is a leaker, not necessarily the last.

    Scooter Libby, by contrast, was not charged with leaking classified information. Read the indictment, and show where he is charged with leaking anything. Robert Novak and Pat Fitz both have said this, and Novak notes that Fitz isn’t charging Libby with leaking because there a) was no leak, b) Plame was not covert, and c) the crime alleged by the press and the Democrats had not been committed. The words of the indictment allege what they allege, not what you want them to allege.

    So now there arises a deliciously ironic double standard from the liberals when it comes to leaks: If it hurts Bush, increases “anger” at the administration, or reveals sensitive information to our enemies around the world (who are watching and reading) it is great, heroic, patriotic, whatever. If it actually reveals facts about dishonest partisan hacks playing fast and loose with facts (like that Joe Wilson was lying about his trip to Niger, how he got it, what he found when he got there, what he filled out in the reports upon his return and how that contradicted the lies he wrote in the NYT editorial via the SSIC Hearings), it should be criminally prosecuted with a special investigation and a special prosecutor.

    This is, of course, what the liberals and the newspapers demanded in the Libby case. Now they are stopping on a dime, getting whiplash and are preparing to get slapped with a wave of subpoenas and grand juries about their involvement in publishing and recieving the unauthorized leaks that they are now disingenuously and subjectively supporting (“leaks” which they decried in Libby’s case, if there was a leak, which there wasn’t). This will be an interesting summer. It certainly has been an interesting Monday.

    So to the anti-war/Bush/conservative advocates out there in TV land: put up or shut up. Either call for a special prosecutor to investigate illegal CIA leaks (from other potential treasonous Kerry-supporters) to the press or don’t. You don’t get to choose when you obey Federal laws and flout them (although the mainstream mediots are trying oh-so-hard to have it this way). There is no “right to leak because I say so” unless you’re the Executive, or a cleared Intel official with such authority. McCarthy was neither. She should be prosecuted.

    Lastly,

    The President, whether it is Clintoon or Bush or whoever, has the authority to classify and declassify whatever information they want to regardless of how much their political opponents think that is “unfair.” The fact that the White House pointed out that Joe Wilson was a liar and a partisan hitman by revealing the true circumstances surrounding his Niger trip is not illegal – it is hardball politics. Flip all the “D’s” and “R’s” around and you are on my side.

    My (and many others) two cents. I look forward to the “hate” this post will no doubt incur assuming it is not deleted.

    Have nice days, all – even you, Tim.

  82. 82
    fwiffo says:

    I love how she was snagged with a polygraph. Says everything you need to know about our intelligence gathering.

    I imagine walking into the CIA and seeing row after row of mediums hunched over Ouiji boards, Miss Cleo in the back identifying all the gay translators to be purged, priests annointing all the computers with oil, analysts carefully coloring intercepted CDs with green markers.

    Seems as if there efforts were at least somewhat successful given that they’ve raised a 120 year old zombie to serve as her lawyer. The Tigers should try to re-sign him – even at his age, he’d have to be an improvement on what they’ve got going now.

  83. 83
    Halffasthero says:

    I enjoy intelligent debate but it is starting to get a little out of hand here. More name calling than actual content.

    As for whether she committed a crime leaking this information, I don’t doubt it. I also have small regard for those scumbags who are building gulags in America’s name. Granted, maybe they aren’t, but I don’t trust this President anymore. Given everything that has been done so far in our name, by this President, I am more easily prepared to believe this whistle blower over the trash that are running this country (into the ground). After getting themselves into one back-breaking scandal after another, they have zero credibility.

  84. 84

    It is interesting that the right wingers are more concerned with attacking Mary McCarthy than denying that President Bush was operating gulags in Eastern Europe.

    Kind of tells you where their priorities lie.

    in the gutter

  85. 85

    The President, whether it is Clintoon or Bush or whoever, has the authority to classify and declassify whatever information they want to regardless of how much their political opponents think that is “unfair.” The fact that the White House pointed out that Joe Wilson was a liar and a partisan hitman by revealing the true circumstances surrounding his Niger trip is not illegal – it is hardball politics. Flip all the “D’s” and “R’s” around and you are on my side.

    Well, normally I would be. Except.

    If Clinton had done it you’d be screaming to high heaven.

    IOKIYAR

  86. 86
    tBone says:

    Novak notes that Fitz isn’t charging Libby with leaking because there a) was no leak, b) Plame was not covert, and c) the crime alleged by the press and the Democrats had not been committed.

    Well, it’s settled then. Obviously Novak is a completely objective source in this, and we should trust his analysis implicitly. Thanks for setting us straight with all of your “facts that are not open to interpretation,” SomeGuy.

  87. 87
    DougJ says:

    I think I’ve got it now. Sherard and Brian, maybe you can help me fill in some of the details.

    It’s true that Mary Mac didn’t release info about the secret prisons. That’s beause there are no secret prisons. What Mary Mac was doing was perfectly legal for a CIA agent, but completely unethical. She was rifling through the CIA files on Condi Rice in order to find damaging info that could hurt in the 2008 election. And then she was going to leak this information to the press through Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Tony Zinni, Drumheller, Paul O’Neil, and Dan Rather. Some of it was even set to be released in one of those bin Laden videotapes that are always surfacing, because Mary Mac was communicating with Osama through Laden via Christiane Amanpour and Jill Carroll. Wouldn’t that have been embarrassing — a bin Laden tape where he tells the world Condi is a lesbian? It would have destroyed Condi’s chances in 2008.

    Thank God they caught Mary Mac. The only question now is whether to torture her or behead her.

  88. 88

    Some Guy wrote:

    Mary McCarthy admitted leaking classified info the the press – specifically, Dana Preist.

    Every where I turn, I’m seeing reports that Mary McCarthy categorically denies that she leaked anything. In fact she’s usually quoted as saying she had no knowledge to leak.

    Which goes back to the point others have made that she was part of analysis, not operations.

    So can you please tell me what insider knowledge you have to justify your claim that she admitted to being the leaker. How did you get this insider knowledge? Who leaked it to you? We need answers!

  89. 89
    SomeGuy says:

    Okay – one more post, since some of our friends here apparently don’t take kindly to the fact that their favorite treasonous moles in the CIA are being flushed out like the cockroaches that they are.

    It is interesting that the right wingers are more concerned with attacking Mary McCarthy than denying that President Bush was operating gulags in Eastern Europe.

    Where at, Other Steve? You apparently know more than the unassailable and “objective” Dana Preist and the NYT. By the way, a Gulag is a prison labor camp for political prisoners used by the leftists in the Stalin dictatorship, not a holding center for unauthorized battlefield militants, terrorists or unlawful combatants. Gulags were designed by the communists to create a stop-gap in their dwindling durable good and military supplies that the wonderful economic platform of Marx blessed them with. Definitions -pesky things, they are.

    If Clinton had done it you’d be screaming to high heaven.

    A nice fantasy – Clinton had his own plethora of problems for us to scream about. Lying to Federal judges under oath is a serious offense that you nor I would be let off the hook for. He obviously believed that “if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people like Other Steve wil start to believe it.” Your rhetoric, applied accurately to a proven and compulsive liar.

    Well, it’s settled then. Obviously Novak is a completely objective source in this, and we should trust his analysis implicitly.

    Did Fitz issue another indictment that the public is not aware of for, say, leaking a CIA agent’s covert identity? No? Didn’t think so. Novak’s analysis stands as fact, regardless of whether he is objective or not. Is Mary McCarthy objective, and if not, why take her word? Was Joe Wilson objective? Valerie Plame? Rand Beers? You have no problem taking their overtly partisan words as gospel, but have a large problem dealing with any information whatsoever running interference with the traditional antiBushbot fantasy – especially facts that may vindicate him.

    Just the fact that this mole is being exposed at all is enough to validate what many who have been saying the entrenched antiBushites (and subsequent Kerry campaign staffers and advisors)at the CIA are in a jihad with the White House have been professing all along. That would be us – those eeeeevil Rovian neocons.

    Amusing, and not surprising.

    I pity thee.

  90. 90
    DougJ says:

    Is SomeGuy real? I can’t remember.

  91. 91
    Tim F. says:

    Brian says,

    Priceless.

    St. McCarthy!

    You seemed like a reasonable guy once, Brian, which is why I know that you are not actually as dense as you act. Here for example I know that you know the difference between how I perceive somebody and how he/she perceives him/herself, but you decided to go for the cheap points by pretending that you don’t.

    Whatever happened that set you off, and at least two other rightwingers have pointed this out, you have lately become somebody who begs to be ignored.

  92. 92
    SomeGuy says:

    All Praises to St. McCarthy and the Church of Clintonista Spooks!

  93. 93
    tBone says:

    Did Fitz issue another indictment that the public is not aware of for, say, leaking a CIA agent’s covert identity? No? Didn’t think so. Novak’s analysis stands as fact, regardless of whether he is objective or not.

    Nice dodge. Fitz didn’t issue an indictment for leaking, because Scooter’s perjury made it impossible to determine the truth. Thus, in your mind, that means no leak occurred, and Novak’s analysis stands as “fact.” Whatever gets you through the day, I guess.

    Is Mary McCarthy objective, and if not, why take her word?

    Find me one instance where I’ve defended McCarthy.

  94. 94
    Tim F. says:

    SomeGuy is as dense as he acts, which is why I love him.

    Have we settled whether Jack Abramoff personally gave money to Tom DeLay, versus any single solitary Democrat, or do we need to go over that again?

  95. 95

    Where at, Other Steve?

    That’s a great question.

    Which is it? The gulags existed and Mary McCarthy is a traitor for leaking this. Or the gulags didn’t exist, and there’s nothing to see here.

    By the way, a Gulag is a prison labor camp for political prisoners used by the leftists in the Stalin dictatorship, not a holding center for unauthorized battlefield militants, terrorists or unlawful combatants.

    As to your other babbling. Gulag is an acronym, but it has become synonymous today for any system of prisons where people just disappear.

    Oh yeah, and one more thing…

    ты мне ваньку не валяй

  96. 96
    DougJ says:

    What if we sent Mary Mac to one of those secret prisons? Wouldn’t that be a fitting punishment?

  97. 97
    Kirk Spencer says:

    Someguy said:

    Scooter Libby, by contrast, was not charged with leaking classified information. Read the indictment, and show where he is charged with leaking anything. Robert Novak and Pat Fitz both have said this, and Novak notes that Fitz isn’t charging Libby with leaking because there a) was no leak, b) Plame was not covert, and c) the crime alleged by the press and the Democrats had not been committed. The words of the indictment allege what they allege, not what you want them to allege.

    I realize it’s a digression, but I can’t resist. Someguy, Fitz has never said there was no leak. And he’s never said she wasn’t a covert agent – in fact, he’s carefully stated to the public on more than one occasion to ‘neither confirm nor deny’ that she was covert.

    Libby is, however and as you state, not being charged with the crime of leaking. He’s being charged with attempting to prevent successful investigation of the crimethrough obstruction and perjury. I present an analogy to demonstrate why one does not deny the other.

    If I commit a murder, and then both lie and manipulate evidence so severely that my crime cannot be confirmed then I’m liable to avoid prosecution. If the investigators get cold hard evidence that I lied and/or manipulated the evidence, they can charge me with perjury and obstruction of the investigation, but they STILL can’t charge me with the murder. If I made the body disappear as part of the manipulation, I can probably be successful in arguing whether a murder even occurred, but this does not stop the perjury and obstruction charges. If the actual murderer was my brother, my obstruction still exists. If there wasn’t a murder but instead the “victim” fled the country for reasons immaterial, my obstruction and perjury still exist. I prevented the investigators from determining whether a crime was committed and identifying the guilty party(ies). As an aside to the last, the question as to why I would obscure and obstruct when a crime hasn’t occurred is a curiosity, but people do stupid things.

    I use that analogy to demonstrate that the fact Scooter Libby has been charged only with perjury and obstruction fails to prove that he is ‘innocent’ of the root crime – nor that the root crime doesn’t exist. Nor does it prove him ‘guilty’, either, but again the question of why he’d interfere when no crime was committed comes to mind.

  98. 98
    r4d20 says:

    “there is a CIA jihad against the Bush White House.”

    LOL

  99. 99
    Broken says:

    Then we have the Clinton generals, who we…

    Ahem. Every general receiving a promotion does so with approval of the executive and the Senate. Therefore, EVERY general who received a promotion in 1993-2000 is a “Clinton general”. That includes the “Bush generals” Tommy Franks, Meyers, Pace, etc.

    I think the definition you are looking for is this one:

    Critic of Rumsfeld = “Clinton general” (traitor undermining civilian control of the military).

    Defender of Rumsfeld = “Bush general” (true patriot).

  100. 100
    Broken says:

    If Clinton had done it you’d be screaming to high heaven.

    Can’t we find SOMEBODY who will give George a blowjob?

  101. 101
    ppGaz says:

    Can’t we find SOMEBODY who will give George a blowjob?

    Where’s Darrell when you need him?

  102. 102
    Cyrus says:

    As to your other babbling. Gulag is an acronym, but it has become synonymous today for any system of prisons where people just disappear.

    I’m too lazy to look it up, but does “gulag” refer to any Soviet prison, or just specific ones or types? Because if the prisons are located in Eastern European countries that was once part of the USSR, then there’s a good chance they were, in fact, you know, gulags. Whining about The Left being dishonest or revealing anti-American bias by that choice of words is like complaining that we shouldn’t talk about Abu Ghraib because the torture methods used there were completely different under American command than under Saddam.

  103. 103

    I’m too lazy to look it up, but does “gulag” refer to any Soviet prison, or just specific ones or types? Because if the prisons are located in Eastern European countries that was once part of the USSR, then there’s a good chance they were, in fact, you know, gulags.

    That was kind of the assumption when the news broke, and obviously the term choice had to do with their location.

    If they’d been in germany we might have called them concentration camps.

    Whining about The Left being dishonest or revealing anti-American bias by that choice of words is like complaining that we shouldn’t talk about Abu Ghraib because the torture methods used there were completely different under American command than under Saddam.

    That’s all they have left. They’d prefer to defend gulags, but they realize how terribly unpopular that is, so they change the subject.

  104. 104
    gratefulcub says:

    there is a CIA jihad against the Bush White House

    Maybe there is. Any idea why?

    There have always been partisan generals, but they haven’t spoken out against the Sec of Def.

    The CIA has always had liberals and democrats in their ranks, but they haven’t always conducted a jihad (I love how much that word is thrown around these days) against the president.

    Could it be that they have legitimate concerns about the way intelligence is being used? Legit concerns about former soviet prisons turned into US torture sights with no Congressional oversight. Legit concerns that the channels for dissent are being closed or ignored. Legit concerns that dissent is career ending?

    The Mau Mau’s did kill 32 white occupiers, but do you blame them.

    Someone did break the law by revealing the secret prisons, I am not trying to belittle that fact. But I also believe that there are times when laws are to be broken. Especially, when the laws are being used by a secretive government to hide their illegal activity.

  105. 105
    gratefulcub says:

    I’m too lazy to look it up, but does “gulag” refer to any Soviet prison, or just specific ones or types?

    Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps

    Think 10 years in Siberia for a thought crime, not a burglary. Political enemies, sent to die. To send a message. That message being, “I’m Stalin, and I am very paranoid.”

  106. 106
    RSA says:

    One die-hard liberal’s opinion: Should a special prosecutor look into this? Yes. The harder the better. I think sunshine is the best antidote for what I don’t like about politics currently.

    I think of it this way–the natural Bush response to any sort of questionable act is to stonewall, to deny it happened, and then afterwards to say that if it did happen (though they’re not admitting anything) it was justifiable. This is a complete abdication of responsibility. If I were McCarthy and actually did what she’s accused of having done, I’d have thought to myself, “Okay, I don’t like what I’m seeing, and I think it’s in the best interests of the country if I come out with the information. If I’m put in prison for it, too bad–it’s what I signed up for, and whatever happens to me is for the greater good.” (This may seem romanticized, but you hear the same thing about Bush making his “hard” decisions.)

  107. 107
    Brian says:

    Tim,

    Whether you intended to or not, you placed McCarthy on the level of Gandhi and MLK, and that’s a farcical leap that I couldn’t resist pointing out. I’m amused that you take issue with…..well, with what I don’t really know…..about my style on this blog, but you leave untouched the foul-mouthed ppGaz, and the empty DougJ (not to mention dozens of others), who are a couple IQ short of a cucumber.

    The most delicious aspect of McCarthy-gate is having a clear leak out of the CIA against the administration transposed against the Plame/Wilson “leak”, and how the pol’s, the Left, and the media respond to them so very differently and self-servingly. It comepletely exposes how dishonest Bush’s political opposition has become.

  108. 108

    Think 10 years in Siberia for a thought crime, not a burglary. Political enemies, sent to die. To send a message. That message being, “I’m Stalin, and I am very paranoid.”

    To be fair, there were also real convicts in the gulags.

    My girlfriend and I just watched a Russian movie made in 1988. I forget the name now, but it was basically about these two exiles in a Siberian village when Beria(Head of intelligence under Stalin who eventually poisoned the boss) released all the prisoners from the work camps.(circa 1951 as I recall) Anyway these thugs come into town, start killing people and stealing and such… and one of the exiles ends up saving the day and killing all the criminals. It was kind of like a Russian Clint Eastwood movie.

    It’s a good movie. The two guys who were exiled. One older man is there because before the war he had traveled to England for work. Stalin’s men sent anybody who had been out of the country into exile, not trusting them. The other guy, who saved the town. He’d been a squad leader in Germany when his battallion was encircled. He’d fought his way out and was the lone survivor. Only to be exiled, because he lived when everybody else died, so clearly he was a spy.

    In the end, the older exile dies in the gun battle. The younger guy who saves the town, goes back to Moscow and finds his family to let them know what had happened to him.(they had not seen him for 15 years)

  109. 109

    Oh, that movie made in 1988 was actually quite progressive for it’s time in Russia, and had to be authorized by the KGB. Pretty interesting.

  110. 110
    Zifnab says:

    Whether you intended to or not, you placed McCarthy on the level of Gandhi and MLK, and that’s a farcical leap that I couldn’t resist pointing out.

    Please, resist harder next time.

    The most delicious aspect of McCarthy-gate is having a clear leak out of the CIA against the administration transposed against the Plame/Wilson “leak”, and how the pol’s, the Left, and the media respond to them so very differently and self-servingly. It comepletely exposes how dishonest Bush’s political opposition has become.

    While it probably shouldn’t need repeating, there’s a difference between whistle-blowing on borderline-illegal CIA prisons in foreign countries and maliciously defaming a political opponent by outing his undercover wife.

  111. 111

    Whether you intended to or not, you placed McCarthy on the level of Gandhi and MLK

    As opposed to the level of Judas and Benedict Arnold, as you would like to see her placed.

    That’s a farcical leap that we all enjoyed pointing out.

  112. 112
    DougJ says:

    Whether you intended to or not, you placed McCarthy on the level of Gandhi and MLK

    A good third of Bush supporters believe Bush communicates directly with God.

  113. 113
    gratefulcub says:

    To be fair, there were also real convicts in the gulags.

    Fair enough, I was just emphasizing the political aspect of their purpose.

    Russian movie

    Two great Russian flicks:

    -Burnt by the Sun. Tremendous movie about a Soviet military officer spending the weekend at his dacha. One of the world’s greatest child actors plays his daughter. I won’t give away the plot twists, just see it if you haven’t

    -Prisoners of the Mountains. A couple of Russian grunts get lost in the mountains and captured by kossacks (real kossacks, not the ones you have bookmarked). An interesting look at the ethnic and social divisions that must exist in a country that spans 11 time zones.

  114. 114
    Brian says:

    While it probably shouldn’t need repeating, there’s a difference between whistle-blowing on borderline-illegal CIA prisons in foreign countries and maliciously defaming a political opponent by outing his undercover wife.

    Well, no one better than you can spout the Lefty narrative. One is a whistleblower (i.e. good, Democrat), the other is malicious (i.e. bad, Republican). I can predict this type of response like the tides.

  115. 115
    DougJ says:

    Brian is either the best spoof ever or he, like JeffG, has made spoofing redundant. Bravo, Brian.

  116. 116
    RSA says:

    One is a whistleblower (i.e. good, Democrat), the other is malicious (i.e. bad, Republican).

    Rightwingers take this double standard to a new level. One man directs the pre-emptive invasion of a foreign country in the name of self-protection–wait, I mean in the name of liberation–while another. . .well, you’ve heard it all before. Come to think of it, somehow we’re hearing it again.

  117. 117
    ppGaz says:

    Brian is either the best spoof ever or he, like JeffG, has made spoofing redundant. Bravo, Brian.

    Okay, stop fishing for compliments. You know that we think you are the best spoofer ever, and if you are writing Brian, which I take to be quite possible, then you have outdone yourself.

    But here’s the thing Dougster … when 50% of the BJ traffic is spoofed retorts to spoofs, then ….. what do you actually have here? See, that’s where I have a problem.

    The concept of even the most rudimentary conversation or dialogue is broken, isn’t it, when the exchange is being spoofed on multiple levels? Doesn’t the whole exercise turn into a sort of layered Turing Machine thing?

  118. 118
    Tractarian says:

    Brian, it seems like what gives the two putative leaks separate reactions is the substance of the leak itself.

    Libby’s putative leak: Valerie Plame works for the CIA.
    McCarthy’s putative leak: There are secret CIA torture prisons in eastern Europe.

    The fact that McCarthy may have leaked is overshadowed by the revelation contained in the substance of the leak.

  119. 119
    Brian says:

    The fact that McCarthy may have leaked is overshadowed by the revelation contained in the substance of the leak.

    It is scary that you think this way, because to me it’s an indication that not only you believe this, but that others of your political persuasion believe so as well.

    Would it have been appropriate for someone in the Manhattan Project to reveal the plans to drop an atom bomb on Japan to both score a political defeat against Truman and prevent the deaths of Japanese innocents? You may think this to be an extreme example, but is it? Can you not see someone with a political axe to grind thinking this would be good to get out to the media and the world?

    Who are you, or anyone in the CIA who agrees contractually not to release state secrets, to determine what’s “substantive” or not? If Libby or anyone else broke a law with Plame, then charge them for it. Same should go for McCarthy. You’re playing a dangerous game if you cherry-pick what intel any person can “leak” based on it being “substantive”. That is highly subjective, and can be rationalized in any number of ways.

  120. 120
    Pooh says:

    Yes, yes, we know Ahmadenijad equals Tojo+Hitler with a sprinkle of the Clenis thrown in. Do Brians of the Right know that there were other wars than WWII with which to draw a historical parrallel? (and let me save you some trouble by saying yes, the Pooh’s of Center-Left Moonbatisphere are aware of there being other wars than Vietnam, especially since he hasn’t made the Vietnam analogy)

    More false equivalence please.

  121. 121
    Par R says:

    Brian, I believe you are wasting your time in responding to the drivel posted here by Tim and to the even more ridiculous nonsense included in the comment threads. A reasoned discourse is not welcome, in large measure because most of the dullards who comment here are incapable of articulating a coherent and reasoned argument based on real facts, as contrasted with the typical lines that they have memorized and repeatedly muster: “Bush is Hitler,” “Halliburton Controls the Government,” “Rethugs Suck,” etc.

  122. 122
    Tractarian says:

    The fact that you impute to me a particular “political persuasion” is an indication to me that you are blind with rage and are hence unable to comprehend simple statements.

    First, if you read very carefully, you will notice that I did not say that either alleged leak was “appropriate” or “good”, rather, I was trying to explain why the reactions to the two (in the media, blogosphere, wherever) might be different.

    Second, I did not state that one was “substantive” and the other not. In fact, I set forth what I consider to be the “substance” of each alleged leak rather clearly.

    My point, contrary to what you somehow have gleaned, is that both alleged leaks are of equal morality/legality, but one (McCarthy’s) is treated as less important because of the seriousness of the substance allegedly leaked. Capisce?

  123. 123
    tBone says:

    If Libby or anyone else broke a law with Plame, then charge them for it. Same should go for McCarthy.

    Just to save you some shadow-boxing, Brian, I don’t think you’ll find many people here who disagree with this statement.

  124. 124
    ppGaz says:

    Note the timestamp, and record that you heard it here first.

    McCarthy will not be prosecuted, and the case will fall apart faster than George Bush’s response to rising gas prices. There is no there there, although it appears that unauthorized contacts with reporters is a firing offense at CIA, that’s about all there will turn out to be to this story. The Priest material (see: Pulitzer Prize) at issue here was constructed from many sources, none of whom, WRT classified information, will turn out to be have been Ms. McCarthy.

    When the bloviating punditocracy gets done yipping over this non story, and the facts come out, it’s going to look a lot more like the case of Richard Jewell than the case of Scooter Libby.

    McCarthy is this week’s jackalope. Tim, I think you’ve been had. You’d think by now, we’d know better than to fall for this government’s crap.

  125. 125
    Brian says:

    but one (McCarthy’s) is treated as less important because of the seriousness of the substance allegedly leaked

    Seriousness, according to whom? Is the “substance” more important that the fact that classified information was leaked, and therefore trumps any legitimate claim to being classified in the first place? And again, this is determined according to whom? McCarthy? Rand Beers? WaPo? John “I was against leaking before I was for it” Kerry? These entities were not elected to make these decisions. The story is of a CIA agent, an agent of our government and nation’s security, who willfully leaked information rather than go through perfectly legitimate channels. Instead, she went to a dear friend in the media (who’s now being mysteriously silent), and is now being protected and defended by a number of high-profile people, all on one side of the political spectrum, and all related somehow in recent campaigns and/or administrations.

    This is what you missed. Capisce?

  126. 126
    Brian says:

    Note the timestamp, and record that you heard it here first.

    ppGaz is a buffoon.

  127. 127
    ppGaz says:

    Meet me here in 90 days, July 25, you spoofing piece of shit, and let’s see where the story is.

    On that day, you will kiss my entire ass.

    I’ll remind you in case you forget. Meanwhile you might want to look into the details of this “story.”

    Look carefully, because you’ll be quizzed on it later.

  128. 128
    Tractarian says:

    These entities were not elected to make these decisions.

    The story is of a CIA agent, an agent of our government and nation’s security, who willfully leaked information rather than go through perfectly legitimate channels.

    Looks to me like you’re making lots of decisions for someone who isn’t an elected official.

  129. 129

    Would it have been appropriate for someone in the Manhattan Project to reveal the plans to drop an atom bomb on Japan to both score a political defeat against Truman and prevent the deaths of Japanese innocents?

    So you’re now claiming that gulags are as important to us winning the War on Terror as the Atom bomb was to us winning in WWII.

    Interesting, and quite bizarre.

  130. 130
  131. 131
    W.B. Reeves says:

    A couple of points which should be obvious but apparently are not.

    First off re: Dr. King and Ghandi. Neither of these men were Saints as they would have been the first to admit. They were individuals who practiced non-violent law breaking in pursuit of what they conceived was a greater good and went to jail for it. I believe that was the point of comparison.

    Of course McCarthy does not admit to breaking any law, much less leaking classified information. She only admits to violating CIA rules about unapproved contacts with the press. Whether there is any substance to the accusations otherwise is something for the courts to sort out. In the meanwhile, treating the accusations as established fact is an exercise in dishonesty.

    Secondly, I doubt that McCarthy will ever see the inside of a Court room. If there were any substance to the accusations being retailed here and elsewhere, any hard evidence that she had committed an actionable offence, I find it difficult to believe that she wouldn’t have been arrested on the spot rather than fired. Considering the mileage that the partisans are trying to get out of this issue, it strains credibility to think the current regime in Washington would have settled for firing her when they could maximalized their advantage by frog marching her in cuffs before the media.

    If, however, McCarthy’s version is factual, then firing her while claiming she seriously compromised intelligence would be the best way to politically exploit the case. No proof required. No evidence to present. No unpleasant public airing of the Government’s dirty laundry. Just unsubstantiated, quasi-official slurs to feed the Right Wing fog generator up through the mid terms. Admittedly a long shot but at this point muddying the waters is about all they have left.

    Anyone willing to wager ten bucks that ppgaz’s analysis will be proven wrong? I’ll take that action.

  132. 132
    Brian says:

    Just unsubstantiated, quasi-official slurs

    Reminds me of Fitzmas. know you want this to go away, and the media may certainly give you your wish. Since the media, by and large, dictate the national discourse, if the story is not covered or is covered in a “nothing to see here” fashion, of course it’ll go nowhere. If I were you, I’d feel confident making bets.

    However, it does not escape those who delve more deeply into the subject that there is a highly symbiotic relationship between spooks in the CIA and our established press (WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.), where information flows freely to serve political ends. The writing’s not only on the wall, it’s graffitied all over the building.

    Personally, I’ll settle for her career being ruined.

  133. 133
    Kirk Spencer says:

    Stupidity is firing someone ten days before retirement (30 to 90 days after announcement), allegedly on an action which can bring criminal charges, and not being able to bring criminal charges.

    Age discrimination cases have been won on less.

    If the government doesn’t even bring charges, they’re going to face that court case and be at a disadvantage. And if they wait till she brings suit then they’re facing risk of fines for retaliation.

    Whether she did it or not, starting the job of dumping her and not following through is stupid incompetence. Which, while an unfortunate trademark of this administration, surely isn’t EVERYWHERE in the upper echelons, is it?

  134. 134
    ppGaz says:

    Personally, I’ll settle for her career being ruined.

    Heh. I have $100 that says (a) she will never be charged with any crime, and (b) she ends up with a book deal that pays a lot more than her CIA career ever would. And good for her.

    No crime has been alleged, and I think it is beyond unlikely that one will be alleged. If a crime were involved, she’d have been arrested, not fired. I doubt that there is even a serious criminal investigation going on here. I also doubt that the DOJ and the Bushpotemkin government will want to expose themselves to a defense against a punitive criminal charge. They lose in this battle. In fact, I will bet you another $100 that Bush’s approval rating goes down during the short period that this “story” is in the front part of the newspaper.

    Nope, this is a jackalope story, and a badly played one. McCarthy wins, and Bush loses.

    Put your money where your spoofing mouth is. You will, before this is over, kiss my entire ass, lose money if you bet me, and be exposed as a spoof.

    Your move.

  135. 135
    Par R says:

    The Turd, otherwise known as ppGaz, speaks. I seriously doubt that he even has a $100 to wager, unless he’s been caught stealing again from his grndchild’s college fund.

  136. 136
    tBone says:

    However, it does not escape those who delve more deeply into the subject that there is a highly symbiotic relationship between spooks in the CIA and our established press (WaPo, NYT, LAT, etc.), where information flows freely to serve political ends.

    Replace “spooks in the CIA” with any other power structure in DC and your statement still holds. It’s not a grand conspiracy, it’s the way things work.

  137. 137
    ppGaz says:

    I seriously doubt that he even has a $100 to wager

    Pick somebody to hold our money, and bet me now.

    Or, STFU.

  138. 138
    W.B. Reeves says:

    Reminds me of Fitzmas. know you want this to go away, and the media may certainly give you your wish. Since the media, by and large, dictate the national discourse, if the story is not covered or is covered in a “nothing to see here” fashion, of course it’ll go nowhere. If I were you, I’d feel confident making bets.

    The last time I checked it was the Government and not the media which charged and prosecuted alleged criminals. I can’t credit your implication that the current regime in Washington would shrink from a legitimate prosecution due to media intimidation. If you are correct about their degree of spinelessness, it doesn’t augur well for their ability to stand up to the bin Ladens of the world.

    Contrary to your presumption, I would be glad to see this case pursued in the courts. I would like nothing better than to see the issues of rendition, torture and secret prisons being fully and publically aired in a court of law. Can you imagine the sort of things that might emerge in pre-trial discovery? Can you envision the various personages that might be called to testify? Particularly if the issue of selective prosecution were raised?

    Since you recognize that wagering against Ppgaz is a suckers bet I have a second proposal. Why don’t you start a petition campaign demanding that the Government bring charges, put up or shut up? I’d be happy to be the first signatory.

  139. 139
    ppGaz says:

    Since you recognize that wagering against Ppgaz is a suckers bet

    How so? It’s a simple bet, and the handling of the money easily arranged. I’ll even split the “charges filed” wager from the “book deal” portion.

    If no charges are filed against McCarthy within 6 months from today, I win.

    John or Tim can hold our checks which will be accompanied by copies of our current bank statements, just to dispel any notion that I’m either kidding, or not good for the money.

    All a wagerer needs is a checking account and the guts to step up and identify himself to a neutral third party.

    Par? Brian? Money, mouth, etc?

  140. 140

    Reminds me of Fitzmas. know you want this to go away, and the media may certainly give you your wish.

    I don’t understand why I would care if it went away. How would it effect me one way or another?

    I would like to know the truth. Why are you running around claiming she admitted to something, when news articles claim she is denying it?

  141. 141
    Brian says:

    Your move.

    Your move? Are you always running around, challenging people the way you do it here? “Bet me now!” “Where’s your evidence? I want numbers, NOW!” “STFU, or show me a list of twelve, no….one HUNDRED and twelve….things that Rumsfeld has done right, and do it NOW!”

    You must get bitch-slapped a lot.

  142. 142

    Contrary to your presumption, I would be glad to see this case pursued in the courts. I would like nothing better than to see the issues of rendition, torture and secret prisons being fully and publically aired in a court of law. Can you imagine the sort of things that might emerge in pre-trial discovery? Can you envision the various personages that might be called to testify? Particularly if the issue of selective prosecution were raised?

    Good point. I’d like to know if these allegations are true. I’m praying to god they are not, as if it is true the Bush administration was doing this, that’s only going to give aid and comfort to our enemies… As George Washington so aptly noted when he commanded British prisoners should be well treated.

  143. 143
    Brian says:

    So you’re now claiming that gulags are as important to us winning the War on Terror as the Atom bomb was to us winning in WWII.

    This is indicative of the vacuousness of this site’s commentariat. You missed my point by miles, OCSteve. Get your hand out of your pants so that you can concentrate with your other mind; what you have left of one.

  144. 144

    Your move? Are you always running around, challenging people the way you do it here?

    Why are you so afraid of being challenged?

  145. 145
    ppGaz says:

    claiming she admitted to something

    The details are murky, but the root story appears to be that she admitted to talking with a reporter, which, without prior approval, is technically a firing offense … although, according to MSNBC, the rule is seldom enforced.

    She has neither admitted any leak, nor has the CIA alleged that she made any particular leak. Nor does the Priest story hang on any particular “leak.”

    The thing has the appearance of being a Bush con job, a move to create the appearance of something that is not really there, stir up the base and get the blogs chattering during a period of hideous news for the administration. Have you looked at the raw news stream in the last week? It’s just a steady drumbeat of bad news for the poataoheads.

  146. 146
    W.B. Reeves says:

    The Turd, otherwise known as ppGaz, speaks. I seriously doubt that he even has a $100 to wager, unless he’s been caught stealing again from his grndchild’s college fund.

    Given the above I think any reasonable person would be justified in doubting you have anything to say that is worth reading.

  147. 147
    ppGaz says:

    Your move?

    Put up or shut up. If $100 is too rich for you, then wager what you can afford.

    Pick a third man, send him your check for the amount and a copy of your current bank statement and let’s see who wins.

    What’s the matter, Mister Spoof? Afraid someone will find out who you are?

  148. 148

    This is indicative of the vacuousness of this site’s commentariat. You missed my point by miles, OCSteve.

    In all fairness, I said that. Not OCSteve.

    How is it vacuous? That is what you said? You compared this leak to leaking the atomic bomb. Obviously if you made that comparison, you believe they are equivalent.

    What next, are you going to claim Roosevelt was as evil as Hitler because he ordered the bombing of Dresden? Wouldn’t surprise me, as I’ve been amazed at the utter hatred that the right wing has felt for Roosevelt.

  149. 149
    ppGaz says:

    You missed my point by miles, OCSteve. Get your hand out of your pants so that you can concentrate with your other mind; what you have left of one.

    Bad spoof move, Bri. OCS is probably the most reasonable righty around here.

    Points off. You’re slipping badly today.

  150. 150
    ppGaz says:

    You compared this leak to leaking

    Heh. Ask him which leak he is referring to. Unless I missed it, no particular leak or leak event has been alleged. And the Priest story is built on many sources, not one. None of those sources will turn out to have been McCarthy.

  151. 151

    The thing has the appearance of being a Bush con job, a move to create the appearance of something that is not really there, stir up the base and get the blogs chattering during a period of hideous news for the administration. Have you looked at the raw news stream in the last week? It’s just a steady drumbeat of bad news for the poataoheads.

    I suspect you are correct.

    The muffinheads do need something to crow about. They’ve got nothing else left with all the policy failures.

  152. 152

    Wait! I think I see a Jackalope!

  153. 153
    Brian says:

    Contrary to your presumption, I would be glad to see this case pursued in the courts. I would like nothing better than to see the issues of rendition, torture and secret prisons being fully and publically aired in a court of law. Can you imagine the sort of things that might emerge in pre-trial discovery? Can you envision the various personages that might be called to testify? Particularly if the issue of selective prosecution were raised?

    Yes, I would like to see it. I would like it to be demonstrated that having prisons to house terrorists outside our legal system, a system that they have every desire and intent to destroy, is entirely appropriate. Better that than to have them gaming our system, or making a mockery of it the way Moussaoui has. First, it’s not even been demonstrated that the prisons existed, not that I care that they were. And if they did, you carelessly toss in the terms “torture” and “gulag” as if those actually apply in our case.

    This shows how polluted your mind has become, and the derangement from which your arguments are framed. But you take great care to mask it within a “greater good” contect that sounds high-minded, but is nothing short of a repellent sort of rationalization.

  154. 154
    ppGaz says:

    This shows how polluted your mind has become, and the derangement from which your arguments are framed.

    Not your best work. That’s just boilerplate spoofapalooza.

  155. 155
    W.B. Reeves says:

    How so? It’s a simple bet, and the handling of the money easily arranged. I’ll even split the “charges filed” wager from the “book deal” portion.

    I was referencing this statement by Brian:

    Since the media, by and large, dictate the national discourse, if the story is not covered or is covered in a “nothing to see here” fashion, of course it’ll go nowhere. If I were you, I’d feel confident making bets.

    Which was his response to this previous proposal of mine:

    Anyone willing to wager ten bucks that ppgaz’s analysis will be proven wrong? I’ll take that action.

    I was simply giving Brian credit for being smart enough to recognize that he would lose the bet, even if the reason he gives for that conclusion is nonsensical.

  156. 156
    Brian says:

    You compared this leak to leaking the atomic bomb. Obviously if you made that comparison, you believe they are equivalent.

    Correct, I meant TOS. Apologies to OCS.

    The comparison I made was to an event (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) that could easily have been framed as leak-worthy for good intentions. The project’s secrecy could have easily been broken by someone who either had an axe to grind with FDR or Truman, or had moral objections to the bomb and what its long term effects would be on Japan and world politics. Therefore, a justification for release of the details of this project by this employee could easily be framed in the media of that day. For all I know, the media did know about the project, yet protected the project’s integrity for the purpose of the war effort, but with extraordinary consequences for Japan. I would think two atomic bombs are more serious to contemplate than secret prisons in Eastern Europe, so I chose it as an example of how, if the prison story can be justified, surely the bomb could have been justified under the “public’s right to know”, but it wasn’t, nor should it have been.

    The problem I have tried to outline is that, whether it’s a Dem or Republican adminsitration, that administration should be able to do its business of intelligence, classifying information as required, without that information being handed to the media (and outside normal channels) based on the whim of an individual, because in such an environment any information can be rationalized as being worthy of dissemination. Nothing can be secret.

    Is this not even important for Democrats to understand?

  157. 157
    ppGaz says:

    Brian shifts into his every-other-day “Gosh, you guys, I’m only trying to put up reasonable opposition here” voice.

    This generally happens only after an ass-whipping or when he is feeling too close to being exposed as a fake.

    Make a bet with me, Brian. All you have to do is mail a check to a mutually acceptable third party. In other words, just identify yourself.

    That isn’t so scary, is it? Sports, current affairs … there must be something you’ll bet on.

    What are afraid of?

  158. 158
    W.B. Reeves says:

    Yes, I would like to see it. I would like it to be demonstrated that having prisons to house terrorists outside our legal system, a system that they have every desire and intent to destroy, is entirely appropriate. Better that than to have them gaming our system, or making a mockery of it the way Moussaoui has.

    This, of course, is the logic of the police state.

    First, it’s not even been demonstrated that the prisons existed, not that I care that they were. And if they did, you carelessly toss in the terms “torture” and “gulag” as if those actually apply in our case.

    One of the main purposes of a court proceeding is to establish what the facts are. If you don’t understand this, it is easy to see how you would come to embrace authoritarian and totalitarian principles. There was nothing careless about my use of terms. Are you seriously suggesting that these issues would not be raised if this case ever made it to trial?

    This shows how polluted your mind has become, and the derangement from which your arguments are framed. But you take great care to mask it within a “greater good” contect that sounds high-minded, but is nothing short of a repellent sort of rationalization.

    This only demonstrates how incoherent your thinking is. I make a few observations about how a court case might evolve and you presume that I’m arguing the case rather than describing it’s potential developement. Is the distinction too complex for you? Possibly, since you appear ignorant of the distinction between rational and rationalization as well. “Repellant rationalization” strikes me as more appropriate to one who argues that the US should ape the criminal behaviors of the 20th century’s worst despotisms.

  159. 159
    Krista says:

    And if they did, you carelessly toss in the terms “torture” and “gulag” as if those actually apply in our case.

    And you carelessly dismiss them, as though Abu Ghraib never happened.

  160. 160
    jg says:

    Is the distinction too complex for you?

    Some people need to go rent some old Month Python classics. The issue here WB is that you’re having an argument with someone who is only contradicting. There’s no chance of agreement, spoofs can’t agree, so no matter what you say somethign will be found to continue the discussion while avoiding wrapping up any business.

    This place is pretty much dead now. Very few right wingers with anything real to say show up here anymore. All we get is talking point commando’s.

  161. 161
    W.B. Reeves says:

    This place is pretty much dead now. Very few right wingers with anything real to say show up here anymore. All we get is talking point commando’s.

    Yes I’d noticed. Funny how the supposed tough guys hit the bricks when confronted. Same thing used to happen on the playground.

  162. 162
    ppGaz says:

    Very few right wingers with anything real to say show up here anymore.

    Reasonable righties are just embarassed these days. They know that they’ve got a giant clusterfuck on their hands and they are smart enough to stop digging their hole deeper.

    The folks who still show up to defend George of the Jungle are the ones who just don’t get it. The Darrells of the Right, we might call them.

  163. 163

    This place is pretty much dead now. Very few right wingers with anything real to say show up here anymore. All we get is talking point commando’s.

    There hasn’t been any right wingers with anything real to say since at least the Reagan administration, but most likely since Nixon.

    It appears Nixon damaged them greater than we initially thought.

  164. 164
    skip says:

    They went easy on Franklin, but not because he was a Republican. He was forgiven because he was helping Israel spy on us.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Feel like you need a little outrage?

    Nary a single world we were told in the build-up to our illegal war in Iraq was true. Worse, the truth was known and willfully repressed. John Cole’s exquisite wrap-up of recent revelations about what the CIA knew and when…

  2. Mary McCarthy makes four

    Mary McCarthy is the fourth Clinton NSC member to assault the Bush White House. … The media never cites those Clinton connections. Joe Wilson is always “Ambassador,” but never “Clinton appointee.” … Then we have the Clinton generals, who we…

Comments are closed.