Poor Little Eleanor
She's writing with half her brain tied behind her back again. And it isn't flattering. Let's take a look at
her babblings:
Needless to say, Ms. Clift's initial premise is destroyed. And that's before I demolish her saying that the President authorized the 'leaking' of classified information. That's like Laurence Wilkerson's claiming that the "Vice President had hijacked" U.S. foreign policy from a two bit bureaucrat. Right Larry. It's the bureaucrats that the Constitution puts in charge of setting foreign policy.
The President didn't authorize a leak. He declassified the NIE and put it out on the web for the entire world to read. And he took responsibility for doing that.
By definition, leaking involves someone secretly and/or anonymously dispersing information without proper authorization. It's impossible for Ms. Clift to successfully argue that the President did this secretly or without proper authorization. Frankly, if she wants to argue that, I'll gladly make her look like an idiot every time on that. Without an effort even.
SIDENOTE: Frankly, it's astonishing how journalists like Ms. Clift either don't know anything about the Constitution's enumeration of authorities or their reckless disregard for the Constitution. It's journalism like this that's driving people away from the NY Times and the network news in droves. It's also what's made the Right Blogosphere the prosperous powerhouse that it is.
As for Mrs. Wilson being a covert operative, please don't argue that. If you do, I won't be able to stop laughing. The Chicago Tribune ran a series of articles on how 'covert' she was. In their series, they said she was registered at an embassy, something that CIA operatives never do. They don't register anywhere because the Russians check out everyone assigned to embassies.
I know throwing words around like "leaking classified documents" and "covert CIA operative" sounds mysterious or intriguing but they don't have a place in responsible journalism. Unfortunately, Ms. Clift's columns aren't responsible journalism. They never were. Think of it this way: She's the 'youthful' version of Helen Thomas.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, April 7, 2006 7:04 PM
No comments.
President Bush promised to restore honor and dignity to the White House. It was a not-so-veiled reference to the indiscretions of his predecessor. Bush relied on the trust that stemmed from his supposedly higher character to take the nation to war, a war we have since learned was waged on mostly made-up intelligence.Ms. Clift's not-so-veiled inference is that the Bush Administration is more immoral and scandal-ridden than Bill Clinton's scandal-a-week Administration. Nobody in their right mind thinks that. If you need proof, just look at Ms. Clift and try arguing she's in her right mind.
Lewis (Scooter) Libby's claim that it was the president who authorized the leaking of classified information for political gain may not mean that Bush did anything illegal, but it sure strips away the last fig leaf of his moral standing. It places the president at the center of a schoolyard fight to bully retired ambassador Joseph Wilson into shutting up about the administration's lies that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa. Wilson had traveled to Niger and reported back to the CIA that the claim was false, yet Bush made the alleged purchase a centerpiece of his case for war.It must be impossible for Ms. Clift to admit that Wilson lied about Bush lying. Here's what FactCheck.org , a research facility at the definitely not conservative University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center said about Bush's infamous 16 words:
The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.Then there's this:
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded.
The Senate Intelligence Committee ReportLast but not least, let's not forget this:
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.
The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen.Nice try, Mr. Wilson, but that isn't what the President's 16 words claimed. Here's what he said:
Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.So it seems that President Bush never claimed that Iraq had bought yellowcake, just that he tried buying it. The difference matters.
Needless to say, Ms. Clift's initial premise is destroyed. And that's before I demolish her saying that the President authorized the 'leaking' of classified information. That's like Laurence Wilkerson's claiming that the "Vice President had hijacked" U.S. foreign policy from a two bit bureaucrat. Right Larry. It's the bureaucrats that the Constitution puts in charge of setting foreign policy.
The President didn't authorize a leak. He declassified the NIE and put it out on the web for the entire world to read. And he took responsibility for doing that.
By definition, leaking involves someone secretly and/or anonymously dispersing information without proper authorization. It's impossible for Ms. Clift to successfully argue that the President did this secretly or without proper authorization. Frankly, if she wants to argue that, I'll gladly make her look like an idiot every time on that. Without an effort even.
SIDENOTE: Frankly, it's astonishing how journalists like Ms. Clift either don't know anything about the Constitution's enumeration of authorities or their reckless disregard for the Constitution. It's journalism like this that's driving people away from the NY Times and the network news in droves. It's also what's made the Right Blogosphere the prosperous powerhouse that it is.
The leak set in motion the chain of events that led to the unmasking of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, as an undercover CIA officer who had been working for an energy-related front company while investigating nuclear proliferation. It is a serious crime to reveal the identity of a covert operative, and Bush called for a criminal investigation to 'get to the bottom" of the scandal. It turns out he may be the bottom.Again, Ms. Clift's cluelessness is staggering. If she can't figure out that President Bush didn't authorize the leaking of Mrs. Wilson's name, then she needs to get a life. Or at least get a clue.
As for Mrs. Wilson being a covert operative, please don't argue that. If you do, I won't be able to stop laughing. The Chicago Tribune ran a series of articles on how 'covert' she was. In their series, they said she was registered at an embassy, something that CIA operatives never do. They don't register anywhere because the Russians check out everyone assigned to embassies.
I know throwing words around like "leaking classified documents" and "covert CIA operative" sounds mysterious or intriguing but they don't have a place in responsible journalism. Unfortunately, Ms. Clift's columns aren't responsible journalism. They never were. Think of it this way: She's the 'youthful' version of Helen Thomas.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, April 7, 2006 7:04 PM
No comments.
