Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Bush Takes a Leak

I want to point out that the following is an opinion. It is my own personal opinion, and has been my own personal opinion remaining unchanged since the first time I heard Bob Novak mention that Joe Wilson was married to an undercover CIA operative.

George Bush is the "leaker".

I don't think there is anyone else in the administration as mean spirited, as prone to reprisal for slights real or imagined, and who understands or respects less the rule of law and the parameters which define their office and power.

I think Bush did it, and did it on purpose. I think that Rove and Libby are just sweating out who is going to have to fall on the sword to protect this arrogant butt wipe we've installed in the highest and most powerful office in the world.

Judith Miller and her "Uh, I forget" position reflects a consistent stance of protecting this administration, and I think she's trying to protect the President, not Libby. Was George in the room with her when she interviewed Libby? Is that why "Valerie Flame" appears in the same notebook she used for that interview but she "doesn't think" that name came from Scooter?

As I've pointed out before, Bush clearly stated that he released all members of his STAFF from confidentiality as sources and told THEM to cooperate. He remains as uncooperative and secretive as ever.

I could be wrong, but if one of his public justifications of an invasion of a country which had not attacked the US was that Saddam was the guy who tried to kill his dad...why should I think that outing a man's wife as a CIA operative during war time would be beyond a president who didn't like being called a liar in public?

The Republicans have a history of going after wives...remember that Whitewater was an investigation of Hillary, not Bill...and all they could hang on Bill was a dress with a stain on it....which again came about from an illegally recorded telephone conversation.

The Ken Starr independent investigation came in at more than $70 million....Now that was tax payer dollars well spent, don't ya think?

Further Reading:

And Woman of Mass Destruction by Maureen Dowd, added 10.24.05

(PS, Vet, because I also listen to Rush I know that something like the last 7 Presidents have had approval ratings lower than the current President has...how many of the last 7 Presidents were Republican? Or am I supposed to just accept that this statistic means that it doesn't matter whether or not the majority of people in a democracy disapprove of their elected leader? Tell it to Governor Gray Davis.)

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry to dissapoint you but Valerie Plame was not undercover. The law is "Undercover CIA Operative". And the law was for those agents traveling outside the country on assignment in the last 5 years which she also wasn't.
VET

1:22 PM  
Blogger Archie Levine said...

You do disappoint me, VET, you really do.

So, not technically against the law, no matter how unethical, and regardless of how many times it was officially denied, so I shouldn't be upset about it?

Wow, some America you want to live in.

George Bush, the technically not a law breaker President.

Me feel much better knowing he's technically in charge.

2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on Archie,everyone in every party is in denial. What are you going to put everyone in jail that ever denied something?
Go ahead get upset but that doesn't change the fact that the democrats would be nothing without these scandals and frivolous indictments. It's really starting to get old and lame.And people are seeing right through it. So what they need to do is have a stance on something and stop the blame game. I feel like I'm back in Junior High Schoool "Look what he did","Did you hear what he said"?Nah,nah,nah,nah
VET(Rick)

7:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

Here's some ethics for you.
VET

12:39 PM  
Blogger Archie Levine said...

Vet...It seems to me that you were the first one to do the "look what he did" thing when you started posting irrelevant comments about the Clintons instead of adressing the concern in my original post.

So, uh, I'm supposed to be stung by the criticism that I'm being all Junior High and saying "look what he did"? or is this a burst of self criticism on your part...in which case, I'm proud of your maturity in adressing your own junior high like behavior.

Secondly...about the crime stats you cite for Clinton...which seems like you back sliding from your position of not liking the "look what he did" discussion and once again being incapable of getting past your pathalogical hatred of the Clintons...it seems a bit ironic in light of the investigations and the actual arrest of Tom DeLay today.

Maybe what you mean to do is put up a score card that your side is determined to beat.

Thanks for the tip, I'm betting with you, the Bush Administration is likely to beat the Clintons in the area of unethical and illegal behavior.

I'm awful glad he ran on the platform of bringing dignity back to the White House and re-establishing a moral compass.

Yay, Bush! And he's so dreamy, too.

Oh, and you will notice that I try to go to the trouble to cite my sources when I make a post. Maybe you could do that too, so we'd know how seriously to take them.

Also, next time you do a Crime Stats listing, maybe you could do us a favor and defend your peeps by putting up the corresponding list of indictments and illegal business dealings for a side by side comparison, starting with Ken Lay.

And maybe...just maybe someday you'd respond with something directly related to the post to which you are commenting on. Undercover or not, Valerie Plame was an agent of this government working on issues at the very heart of the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq, and her effectiveness was compromised, intentionally, as a reprisal for her husband's going public with the information which contradicted the justification for taking this nation to war.

Why, for the love of God, as a veteran, are you more concerned with the technicality of whether or not this leak was legal than you are about the intentional use of faulty information to send your fellow soldiers into harm's way?

As a side note, why is ANY veteran more upset at the inability of liberals to prove Bush didn't serve than you are at Bush's inability to prove he did?

Why is the warmongering of men like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsefeld who DIDN'T serve their country in combat during war time more appealing to you than the peace activism of a decorated combat veteran?

You make my brain hurt. And my heart. And my ass. You are a big pain in all three of them things.

3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you missed the Joe Wilson interview with John Bachelor when he said "I was mistaken when I said Iraq didn't get uranium from Africa" Just like Sandy Berger was mistaken when he stuffed those documents down his pant.
It amazes me what gets coverage by the media and what gets swept under the table.
There I hope you are hurting more now.
And yes I need to point fingers because it seems that the democrats do no wrong,ever.
VET
Come on aren't we having fun?

7:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want to see the country behind the soldiers so when they come home they don't get spit on like we did.
And that's what people like John Kerry did and all this other negative coverage. Those guys have to be there like it or not so we need to let them know we are behind them either way.
VET

7:10 AM  
Blogger Archie Levine said...

Vet,
I am behind the soldiers. I support them 100%...unless they do something stupid and illegal like setting the bodies of suspected Taliban soldiers on fire and then dare the people watching them to come collect the bodies ala "bring it on." Or when they see torture as a matter of policy. Or when they think it is a hoot to photograph themselves with the dead bodies of people they've recently tortured...or trade those photos for internet porn....or, you know, do things that endagner their own lives, the lives of their comrades, and the mission at large. I don't support that, but not every soldier is doing that.

I also think it shows more support to try to use their lives wisely than to just keep dumping them into a meat grinder with the only plan being to win total victory (and never mentioning the alternative to total victory which is total defeat.)

I also think it does not show support of those troops to send them to war on intelligence the president has repeatedly been told is not reliable.

It is perfectly logical and indeed patriotic to be supportive of the troops and opposed to the policies of an administration which is deploying them.

Just like I can personally be against abortion but pro-choice because I feel it is immoral to legislate morality...and in this I follow God's lead, who gave us free choice so that we could freely choose to obey him.

7:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home