Thursday, April 06, 2006

A leak?

Despite the screaming headline, it's difficult to understand how divulging information that has been declassified and that you have specifically been authorized to disseminate can be called a leak.

Shall we call this wishful thinking by the New York Times?

I'm seriously hurt. I feel like I haven't heard from you in...well, in HOURS!!!!

I'm losing it here, RW.


With a migraine you wanted to hear from me????
At the risk of posting something on topic...

You can question Bush's motivation for this alleged "leak". You can even question how smart it was. But since he's the President, it's almost certainly legal.

Washington Post

Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters, but they add that the leak was highly unusual and amounted to using sensitive intelligence data for political gain.

Hi Nicole!

It's unbelievable to me that the press and their many fellow travelers on the left can act as if it is somehow nefarious to counter the lies that are being spread by that very same press and the politically motivated liar Joe Wilson.

That being said how dare you post on topic?
Doesn't it also say that the "intelligence documents" were made completely public 2 weeks later?


ML's blog has been completely taken over by polluting spammers. I went to do some research on Manuel Miranda, and by the time I finished - maybe 30 minutes later - there was an all time document dump.

If you would allow us an open thread...
Actually, it was the NY Sun that broke this story. The leak is not the issue, it is all the lies W spewed related to the leak.

Do you actually still believe this man?
Buy Danish,

I went for a quick run and all heel had broken loose over there. I'll open one up.
If the geniuses who run ml's blog would place a word or character limit on posts, it wouldn't have that monstrosity that's now crapping it up.

Yeah, I know... hindsight is 20/20...

In late breaking news, the Senate's stuck on immigration, Dan Brown isn't a plagarist, and CyMcK's hair still sucks. Film at 11....
I guess heel works, but I meant hell.

This isn't even a story for the New York Sun to break. It's all been in the open before and the only new issue is that maybe President Bush declassified the info instead of Cheney.

And there can be no leak when the information is authorized as it properly was.
No story huh?

Really, so the headline of the newspapers were all wrong?

If your idea of a valid story is something with a headline then it is a story. On the other hand, people that can think for themselves without being led around by the nose by the press realize this is NOT a story.

At least you are on you "toes"!

I'm going to send one more futile email to the top secret address for upper level customer service honcho at the ajc.

Here's the email address if anyone else is interested in wasting their time:
It may have been authorized but it still looks bad for Bush politically. That's the story. You can argue semantics but when you send Libby to disclose this to the Times under deep background, smells like a leak to me.

By the way, wasn't Joe Wilson's information regarding the Niger connection ultimately proven to be true? Who was discredited in the end? How can you call Wilson a liar and not call out this Bush crowd for thier lies?

Who authorized releasing Valerie Wilson's identity? If the Prez, authorized it (I'm not saying he did), would that make it legal?
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?