Bad Credit Mortgages | Bad Credit Credit Card | Hospedaje | Loans | HP Notebooks from IT247
The CIA Is Still After Bush [Archive] - FreeConservatives

PDA

View Full Version : The CIA Is Still After Bush


Lubbock
07-10-2006, 02:36 PM
The CIA Is Still After Bush
By Cliff Kincaid | July 10, 2006

The Washington Post on July 9 published an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701146_pf.html), "When in Doubt, Publish," which began by saying that, "It is the business—and the responsibility—of the press to reveal secrets." It was signed by five major figures involved in the field of journalism education. In fact, however, it attempted to justify the publication of some—but not all—"secret" information. In the process of trying to sound like guardians of the public's right to know, they disclosed their preference for keeping the American people in the dark about what the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says is a major faction of the CIA that is deliberately subverting the foreign policy of the Bush Administration.

While the New York Times' violation of the law barring publication of classified communications intelligence information was justified by these titans of modern-day American journalism, there was said to be "no justification" at all for conservative columnist Bob Novak to have written a column identifying Valerie Plame as a "covert CIA officer." Claiming she had been "unmasked" by Novak, they implied that her employment status in the agency was a closely held secret and that revealing this information about her was a major threat to the national security of the U.S.

The Times is being excused for compromising secret programs to apprehend terrorists, while Novak is excoriated for writing about a CIA employee working a desk job and running a "front" company. This attitude helps explain why the media went into a feeding frenzy over the Novak column about Plame but defend the New York Times for publishing stories that facilitate the murder of Americans.

In contrast to the conduct of the Times, which disclosed a highly classified NSA program in clear violation of Section 798 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Novak's publication of Valerie Plame's name and affiliation with the CIA was not a violation of the law. The law which drove the investigation of the case did not apply to Novak, who was simply passing on information from administration officials about her role in getting her husband Joseph Wilson sent on a CIA mission to Africa. The law covered those who deliberately exposed a CIA officer's secret identity for the purpose of damaging U.S. intelligence. That was not the case here, and no charges in that regard have been filed.

Novak should be praised, not criticized, for bringing forth information that is still critically important to understanding the nature of the Wilson mission and the rogue CIA elements behind it. It is a story that we still need to know if U.S. intelligence agencies are to remain under the clear control of elected officials.

The signers of this Post column were Geoffrey Cowan, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California; John Lavine, dean, Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University; Nicholas Lemann, dean, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University; Orville Schell, dean, Graduate School of Journalism, University of California at Berkeley; and Alex S. Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center, Harvard University.

http://www.aim.org/special_report_print/4703_0_8_0/

Naturalized-Texan
07-10-2006, 03:06 PM
There are many Clinton holdovers still in many parts of the Bush Administration in non-political-appointment postions, including, especially, the CIA. Rush calls them the "Shadow Government." Those Clintonistas are the ones who have been leaking all that classified information to the leftist media in an effort to destroy the Administration's ability to prevent further terrorist attacks. Those Clintonistas are hoping for another 9/11-type terrorist attack that may help them get back in power.

ConspiracyBuff
07-10-2006, 03:12 PM
Lubbock...
This may be of some interest to you in regards.....with regards...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060710/cm_thenation/3100520

ConspiracyBuff
07-10-2006, 03:15 PM
NT- I agree with you, however, I'm sure there are some rogue R in the mix.

ConspiracyBuff
07-10-2006, 03:21 PM
Let us not forget It who was once CIA director.....

gnome
07-10-2006, 03:22 PM
There are many Clinton holdovers still in many parts of the Bush Administration in non-political-appointment postions, including, especially, the CIA. Rush calls them the "Shadow Government." Those Clintonistas are the ones who have been leaking all that classified information to the leftist media in an effort to destroy the Administration's ability to prevent further terrorist attacks. Those Clintonistas are hoping for another 9/11-type terrorist attack that may help them get back in power.

I must say, that would be an insane plan. The nation shifted noticeably to the right after 9-11. Another such attack would probably generate a political shift even further in the same direction. Fear of terrorists does not benefit liberals.

Naturalized-Texan
07-10-2006, 03:48 PM
Let us not forget It who was once CIA director.....
So, how is that relevant to anything? George H. W. Bush was CIA director for only about a year in the mid-1970s.

Naturalized-Texan
07-10-2006, 03:54 PM
I must say, that would be an insane plan. The nation shifted noticeably to the right after 9-11. Another such attack would probably generate a political shift even further in the same direction. Fear of terrorists does not benefit liberals.
It's undoubtedly an insane plan, but it is illustrative of the thinking of the loony leftists that now control the Demonrat Party. They are convinced that another 9/11-type attack on Bush's watch would return them to power for decades to come.

Lubbock
07-10-2006, 04:07 PM
Nail on the head, NT.

Fear of terrorists does not benefit the Left, nor would another attack on this nation benefit the Left, but try telling the Left that.

It's the Right Shift that has sent the Left completely over the brink into anti-American hate and insanity. It's the Right Shift that makes the likes of Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi and Dingy Harry pray daily for more spilled blood at the hands of Militant Islam.

Tell me that's not insane!

Lubbock
07-10-2006, 04:10 PM
CB, when I saw David Corn's name at the top of the article, I didn't go one word further.

Corn is as far out on the fringes of the Loony Left as you can get; a virulent Bush Hater, and a charter member of the Clinton Knee Pad Society.

Why would I ever want to read one word written by that prick?

[Can I say "prick" in this forum?]

Jester21
07-10-2006, 07:02 PM
Obviously SOMETHING is going on. But what?

And WHY is this still going on six years later?
Probably because the White House blamed them for not producing the right intelligence.

It's petty, but they're human.

Naturalized-Texan
07-10-2006, 07:19 PM
Obviously SOMETHING is going on. But what?

And WHY is this still going on six years later?
President Bush can't do anything about those Clintonistas because they are civil service employees who can't be fired. If they had been political appointees, they would be long gone. Valerie Plame Wilson is an excellent example.

Foquet
07-10-2006, 08:20 PM
Not to mention that "New Tone" crap. Not to mention that most Senate Intelligence Committees made sure that nearly half of the intelligence team that W had appointed not only were not confirmed, but were twisting in the wind even trying to get a hearing. Ditto for judges for years afterwards, all thanks to the Kennedy and Terrorist Left asswipes of the time that say their fat asses on those wooden chairs..

And that was still the case when some of Bill (The Puppet) Clinton's biggest campaign contributors slammed their planes into the Pentagon and the WTC. While the thought of the WTC Towers made President Hillary Clinton so wet in her nether regions that she could not stand it. She was also furious that when the towers finally came down, that she was furious that she could not "preside" over it and become some sort of anti-hero.

After all, this is the same regime that armed China and North Korea with nukes and guidance technology in exchange for filthy campaign lucre. All paid for by your tax dollars.

Foquet
07-10-2006, 09:22 PM
Because killing reporters is out of favor nowadays. (A shame, I am all for the execution of a lot of reporters).

Though, I hvae no problems with seeing their brains and blood spilling. And their kids orphaned.

omegatrump
07-10-2006, 10:43 PM
Because killing reporters is out of favor nowadays. (A shame, I am all for the execution of a lot of reporters).

Though, I hvae no problems with seeing their brains and blood spilling. And their kids orphaned.

Not if my troops are being endangered by their reporting. If a reporter has made himself an enemy agent he is no different than Zarkowii or any other enemy operative.

Bush, is being what Bush is. And yes he likes it. It serves his purpose.

Naturalized-Texan
07-11-2006, 01:19 PM
LOL!

Reporters can be forced to give up their sources. Why has this not been done?
Forced how? Torture? Get real.

Lubbock
07-11-2006, 01:28 PM
This is another one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Can you just see Punch and a half dozen reporters from the NYT behind bars? Not that it isn't an inviting picture, but can you imagine the media storm?

Talk about an issue that would cause Bush to take his eye off the Terrorism Ball.

Rhino
07-11-2006, 01:44 PM
Forced how? Torture? Get real.
Hold church services in his cell and play the Rush Limbaugh show every day. He'll talk eventually.

ConspiracyBuff
07-11-2006, 01:46 PM
:sad:CB, when I saw David Corn's name at the top of the article, I didn't go one word further.

Corn is as far out on the fringes of the Loony Left as you can get; a virulent Bush Hater, and a charter member of the Clinton Knee Pad Society.

Why would I ever want to read one word written by that prick?

[Can I say "prick" in this forum?]

Well I was not aware of that. Looking back I see what you mean. I only put it there because It dealt with the same issue and did talk about Hoefstra and his belief that the CIA has underminded the Bush admin....alluding to what NT had said in his first post.