April 26, 2006

Molegate Update: Press Is Damned Sure McCarthy's Big Donations To Democrats Aren't "Relevant"
— Ace

Whitewash from the LAT.

They have their story and they're sticking to it -- she was a pure-as-snow Warrior of Conscience who acted only to uphold the Constitution. And any facts that might undermine this storyline must be embargoed from the public.

The public can't be allowed to be "confused" about the correct interpretation of the facts... and if that means withholding certain facts, well, that's necessary, because the public isn't qualified to interpret facts without media hand-holding.

Meanwhile, the WaPo's Dafna Lizner was asked in an on-line chat why the WaPo has completely embargoed McCarthy's Democratic donations and connections. Her answer is jaw-dropping:

. I disagree with Howie [Kurtz] on this one. I think in his chat he said her campaign contributions go to motive but I don't know yet what she's done so I'm not sure how to assign motive here. Intelligence officers do not check their citizenship at the gates of Langley and like all government employees they are free to vote and make contributions - all of which is very much apart from their commitment to government service and to fulfilling the policies of any president.

But we are living in partisan times and people want a partisan, political motive and explanation for everything. I don't think that's reasonable. Should we publish the campaign contributions of every person who testifies before Congress, every person who briefs a president, every person who writes a policy paper or plays any role in government whatsoever or who is ever quoted in a story? We could, the information is public. But I don't want to confuse readers or issues by throwing that into the mix unless I understand its relevance. We have reported that she worked in Clinton's NSC and whom she has worked with and will continue to write about it.

She.

Doesn't.

Want.

To.

"Confuse."

Readers.

With.

Facts.

Presumably that they're not able to "correctly interpret."

Facts used to be kind of important to reporters, didn't they? Now, not so much. They're subordinate to "narrative."

The Media Blog has itself a nice little giggle over the Washington Post's lack of any aversion to note the political connections of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

They were pretty sure those connections and donations were relevant as to motive, weren't they?

I find this disgustingly arrogant. The bias is now really shocking, and I don't mean that in an ironic way. I am absolutely shocked that they WITHHOLD FACTS from the public until they are sure of the "relevance" of those facts, at least when it comes to people/causes they favor.

It's one thing for the Post to mention the facts, and then argue against the relevance of those facts. They could, for example, mention McCarthy's donations, and then get her good friend, always-ready-to-defend-her-with-a-quote Rand Beers to say those donations don't mean anything at all.

That's the sort of bias we've come to expect -- the grudging admission of a fact that undermines their storyline, but with the liberal go-to-quote-provider getting the last word and dismissing the relevance of that fact.

They're now going quite beyond that. No longer will facts be grudgingly admitted and then dismissed by a liberal (usually unidentified as such, of course).

Now the facts will simply be omitted entirely, obviating the need for the "but this really doesn't matter anyway" quote. Just cutting out the middle-man, I guess they figure.

Most of the American public thinks this is relevant, or possibly relevant. (Or they would, if any MSM organization lowered itself to actually inform them.)

But the Keepers of the Sacred Journalistic "Storytelling" Narrative disagree, and they simply have decided they will not let mere facts undermine their chosen "frame" for the story.

"Narrative" and "context" first, last, and always; facts are permitted only to the extent they advance the agreed upon "narrative" and "context."


More... Great bit from the WSJ:

The press is also inventing a preposterous double standard that is supposed to help us all distinguish between bad leaks (the Plame name) and virtuous leaks (whatever Ms. McCarthy might have done). Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie has put himself on record as saying Ms. McCarthy should not "come to harm" for helping citizens hold their government accountable. Of the Plame affair, by contrast, the Post's editorial page said her exposure may have been an "egregious abuse of the public trust."

It would appear that the only relevant difference here is whose political ox is being gored, and whether a liberal or conservative journalist was the beneficiary of the leak. That the press sought to hound Robert Novak out of polite society for the Plame disclosure and then rewards Ms. Priest and Mr. Risen with Pulitzers proves the worst that any critic has ever said about media bias.

The deepest damage from these leak frenzies may yet be to the press itself, both in credibility and its ability to do its job. It was the press that unleashed anti-leak search missions aimed at the White House that have seen Judith Miller jailed and may find Ms. Priest and Mr. Risen facing subpoenas. ....

We've been clear all along that we don't like leak prosecutions, especially when they involve harassing reporters who are just trying to do their job. But then that's part of the reason we didn't join Joe Wilson and the New York Times in demanding Karl Rove's head over the Plame disclosure. As for some of our media colleagues, when they stop being honest chroniclers of events and start getting into bed with bureaucrats looking to take down elected political leaders, they shouldn't be surprised if those leaders treat them like the partisans they have become.

Yup.

Thanks to Instapundit.

Posted by: Ace at 10:06 AM | Comments (112)
Post contains 974 words, total size 6 kb.

1 First?

I made it past shock to revulsion a long while ago.

Posted by: Birkel at April 26, 2006 10:13 AM (DSGrX)

2 "I won't include anything in the story unless I understand it" she says.

Rather severely limits things, non?

Posted by: at April 26, 2006 10:13 AM (l1oyw)

3 These aren't the facts you're looking for.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at April 26, 2006 10:16 AM (JKlMI)

4 Wow, apparently I'm clairvoyant. I shit you not, I asked that question yesterday without reading or hearing about it anywhere. I just followed the link to Allah's blog , saw the para about campaign contributions and said to myself "Huh?"

I guess all us "traitors to the cause" must think alike, eh? LOL

Posted by: Larry the U at April 26, 2006 10:19 AM (Lpswv)

5 Wait one:
If

It goes to motive that McCarthy only made personal donations to a Democratic candidate.

Then

It also goes to motive that Abramoff only made personal donations to Republican candidates

QED. On that basis, I'll give you this one.

(PLEASE NOTE: I said PERSONAL, not from his firm, not from his clients, PERSONAL, as in from his own pocket. )

Posted by: Larry the U at April 26, 2006 10:28 AM (Lpswv)

6 Should we publish the campaign contributions of every person who testifies before Congress, every person who briefs a president, every person who writes a policy paper or plays any role in government whatsoever or who is ever quoted in a story?

Umm, why not? People have been screaming for years about the contributions that corporations or executives make and how that should be made public so we can see where their political sympathies may lie. What's wrong with the same thing going for those who actually work for the government?

Think Joe Wilson.....

Posted by: wiserbud at April 26, 2006 10:30 AM (AQGeh)

7 They sure threw a lot of character evidence out there defending her as a nonpartisan who plays by the rules to not provide the key piece of contrary character evidence.

Posted by: Mark V. at April 26, 2006 10:31 AM (2ipxY)

8 Given this revelation from the MSM, does that mean that Jack Abramoff's donations have no real direct partisan relationship as well & shouldn't be counted as a bribe? Is the convincing of his clients to donate to particular Congress members' campaigns or PACs to have no bearing on his guilt or innocent as well? How is Abramoff's attempting to influence a vote or passing of a Bill any different than McCarthy's attempts to influence public & world perceptions of the Executive Office & its Administration? But only possibly harmed active & covert actions, programs & particpants.

Posted by: Pmain at April 26, 2006 10:32 AM (Wi32/)

9 Ooooo, pmain. Even Larry the Citydweller was honest enough to admit it was only Abramoff's personal contributions that were solely Republican. The controversial money broke, like, 60/40.

Being out-integritied by L the U. Ouch.

Posted by: S. Weasel at April 26, 2006 10:34 AM (1HKrT)

10 Keep strokin' it, lar.

Abramoff? Are you f'ing kidding? That story lost its legs about two months ago. Wanna know why? Because the press figured out pretty fast that, as desperately as they wanted to hang this on Repubs, they really couldn't make it stick because Jack was so generous with the cash on both sides of the aisle.

Maybe you and George Clooney can get together for a good three hanky sob party since it appears you two are the only losers still beating that dead horse.

Posted by: kelly at April 26, 2006 10:37 AM (AISkQ)

11 Kelly: Go do some research. Personal is different from coporate or Clients. Jacks personal donations are 100% republican, showing that he was a party man, down the line. Or at least hat's the thinking W.R.T.
to McCarthy

Posted by: Larry the U at April 26, 2006 10:47 AM (Lpswv)

12 The Abromoff story got deep 6'd as soon as the MSM found out donks were in on it too. I remember Harryballs Reid shrieking "no, no,no... this is a republican scandal...", when first asked if donks were involved. When they couldn't pin it ALL on the GOP, it died on the spot.

Posted by: hutch1200 at April 26, 2006 10:47 AM (cz2Zx)

13 How is Abramoff's attempting to influence a vote or passing of a Bill any different than McCarthy's attempts to influence public & world perceptions of the Executive Office & its Administration?

Abramoff exercised his rights and the rights of his clients through the use of political donations to members of both parties. These rights are protected by the Bill of Rights (See 1st Amendment.) Ambramoff is being prosecuted for problems that have nothing to do with the actual donation of money to politicians. He does nto work for the government in any way, shape or form.

McCarthy was a government employee who worked for an agency who's job it is to find out information and to keep this information secret at the behest of her superiors. In fact, she is under strict legal restraints about what she can do with the information she learns during the course of her duties. She violated the law when she released classified information and was fired for that offense. Her personal political donations have nothing to do with this situation, other than to provide motive for why she would violate her sworn duty and endanger our national security.

And you really can't see a difference here? What, did you and Larry get the fax with the latest talking point/diversionary tactic from the DNC at the same time?


Posted by: wiserbud at April 26, 2006 10:50 AM (AQGeh)

14 Well, $2,000 gets you one kind of influence.

$2MM gets you another. I certainly get it that the personal donations from Abramoff go to "here's the candidates I want to personally support".

But let's not get stupid on what amount of cash influences decisions, k?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 26, 2006 10:52 AM (pzen5)

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 26, 2006 10:54 AM (XbJeu)

16 NewsFlash: the 04' democrat van tire slashers in WI got jail time when the judge rejected the plea!

Obviously the judge was... a racist Republican... talk about... redundant!

Posted by: M/ke at April 26, 2006 10:56 AM (s4Eoy)

17 Campaign contributions only count when it comes to people's motives, uh, you know, like the Swift Boat Vets. Then we would find out things like one of the vets aunt's cousin's sister's niece's ex husband donated $$ to the GOP.

Posted by: Jill at April 26, 2006 11:01 AM (Ffvoi)

18 Kelly: Go do some research

All the research I need can be summed up like this, lar: the Abramoff scandal dropped off the front page of the fishwraps and the lead story of the news shows weeks ago. If this were only a Repub scandal as Howard Dean claimed apparently with a straight face, we'd still be hearing about it ad nauseum from the MSM.

But by all means, if you want to keep pounding sand over this be my guest. BTW, the upshot of ace's post was about the MSM withholding salient facts about a Democrat in a tight spot. (I'm sure you'll appreciate my euphemism here. If it helps, substitute "treasonous" for "tight".)

Please try to keep up.

Posted by: kelly at April 26, 2006 11:07 AM (c2+Oq)

19 In all honesty I could care less who she donated to, unless it somehow impacts her crime or implicates others. It's pretty obvious she was no friend of the administration (along with the other gang of ... well traitors might be too strong, for now at least), and her actions demonstrate that.

What bothers me is that if she was a big time conservative or Republican, they'd have that as the banner headline every time the story was mentioned.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 26, 2006 11:44 AM (1Vbso)

20 Kelly: Nice misinterpretation of my argument. And nice attempt to get yourself onto safer ground using an inferred decision by the media re:abramoff. Go back to my "wait one" post. The point there being that, if personal donations prove motive or intent, then Abramoff is guilty (of being a partisan, not of being a briber, mind you.)

I believe the point that Ace is making is that the media ought to report on McCarty's donations, to show she is also a partisan.

So, the theory here is that donations show partisanship, and partisanship shows intent/motive for some other alleged crime. Fine. I agree. Then Abramoff is just as likely guilty as you all say McCarthy is. Can't say otherwise without using a different standard for old Jacky.

If the media reported this as you all want (and they should, why not, right?), the only difference (so far!) would be that Abramoff has copped a plea, and McCarthy is denying the crime.

Oh, and Jack's PERSONAL donations are shown here:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-was-that-about-abramoff-giving.html

Are you saying he personally donated to a Democrat? I showed my source, show me yours.

Posted by: LArry the U at April 26, 2006 11:45 AM (Lpswv)

21 Oh, and Dave in Texas's mention of the $2MM in an attempt to influence would (hypothetically) be evidence of a crime, not of intent, the latter of which is what I'm talking about here. Two very different things, both generally and legally.

Posted by: Larry the U at April 26, 2006 11:50 AM (Lpswv)

22 What McCarthy's donations prove to me is that liberals are willing to damage our war effort against Islamic fascism, just so they can bring down Bush.

I don't know how Abramoff relates to that. He was a sleazebag and, yes, a Republican. He contributed to the corruption of our system which is bad, but not as bad as endangering our allies in the WOT.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at April 26, 2006 11:53 AM (zpoIQ)

23 Well, actually it's a stupid straw man argument you're making Larry. The topic is treason and motivation.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 26, 2006 11:55 AM (pzen5)

24 Sorry, lar, still doesn't matter to me who blew whom in the Abramoff scandal. Still don't care how much or to whom McCarthy gave perfectly legal campaign donations. It's nevertheless a salient point and the MSM being the same slanted-highly-preferential-treatment-to-Dems MSM, decided to elide the fact.

Peculiar, no?

Posted by: kelly at April 26, 2006 11:56 AM (Bd0+F)

25 So Abramoff is a partisan because he was making personal donations to Republicans while performing illegal actions on behalf of both parties?

McCarthy's donations show her motive for performing illegal acts. Abramoff's donations only show his personal political preferences and have no bearing on the work he did for members of both parties.

Posted by: Slublog at April 26, 2006 12:02 PM (aGpO3)

26 See Larry spin.

The topic is the political motivation of a treasonous leaker fired by the CIA and how the press bends itself into pretzels to explain it all away while holding Repubs to a different standard.

See Larry spin again. He'll post a "but look at what your guy did ...bla, bla, bla." to change the subject.

Spin, Larry, spin. It's positively Clintonesque.

Posted by: Log Cabin at April 26, 2006 12:05 PM (Vsh3q)

27 Okay, let's say the donations by Abramoff and the donations by McCarthy are the same, for the sake of argument.

The media reported Abramoff's donations, but has been more reluctant to point out McCarthy's. If you believe the donations are truly equal in showing motive, do you agree there's a media double standard at work here?

Posted by: Slublog at April 26, 2006 12:09 PM (aGpO3)

28 I see: Corruption of public officials (R or D), in the name of greed and partisan politics, is OK. Disclosing alleged wrongdoing by Republican admin, in the name of the people ought to know because it's, y'know, immoral to torture people, is wrong. Greed good, whistleblowing, bad.

Hmmm, I think you'd fail an ethics test there Adolfo. Both might be illegal, but one is at least one doesn't involve lining your own pockets.

And you'll say "It's treason! They shoot people for treason!" Sorry, since I'm a Kantian, I'd say personal morality outweighs patriotism. Love of one's country does not permit immoral actions. And, if the terrorist had a nuclear bomb, and I needed to torture someone to prevent it from being set off in NYC? Then love of humanity would outweigh the immorality of torture. But torture (without imminent WMD implications), for general military intelligence is just wrong. (q.v Geneva conventions, general moral thought and the fact that it doesn't, in the long run, work.)

Posted by: Larry the U at April 26, 2006 12:09 PM (Lpswv)

29 Hi larry

Posted by: Goalpost Moving Service at April 26, 2006 12:13 PM (yHvEo)

30 Aw, Larry, you have to know you're speaking fluent bullshit. Being from a city and all.

Posted by: S. Weasel at April 26, 2006 12:14 PM (1HKrT)

31 Slublog:

Abramoff's donations only show his personal political preferences and have no bearing on the work he did for members of both parties.

Um, that would be the double standard I was talking about. AND, you are confusing crime with intent again. McCarthy's political donations are purported to show she was a D partisan. Abramoff's then show he was a R partisan.

If you believe the donations are truly equal in showing motive, do you agree there's a media double standard at work here?

Reading comprehension much?

If the media reported this as you all want (and they should, why not, right?),

Character assasination by association is a freakin' sport in D.C., so why not? I'm just pointing out that the cognitive dissonance of the arguments here (i.e. IOKIYAAR).

Posted by: Larry the U at April 26, 2006 12:19 PM (Lpswv)

32 Goalpost Moving Service

Back At cha'

Posted by: Level playing field at April 26, 2006 12:22 PM (Lpswv)

33 Reading comprehension much?

Excuse me? Could you show me where I showed you similar disrespect?

Now I see why people hold you in such low esteem, and will no longer waste my time with you.

Posted by: Slublog at April 26, 2006 12:22 PM (aGpO3)

34 Larry, if you can point to ONE AoS commenter who thought Abramoff deserved to get off, I'll concede the point. I'm damned if I saw one. Abramoff was a guy who did bad things, and he was a Republican. The things he did didn't help the Republicans, though -- they helped his clients. So his party affiliation is only of passing interest in the crime.

McCarthy, on the other hand, did things that had the potential to benefit one party and harm the other. So her party affiliation is material to her crime.

Posted by: S. Weasel at April 26, 2006 12:25 PM (1HKrT)

35 Sorry larry

Posted by: Strawman at April 26, 2006 12:25 PM (yHvEo)

36 Remember a day or two ago when Larry the U congratulated himself for threadjacking?

He's trying to do it again.

Posted by: Lipstick at April 26, 2006 12:27 PM (HuQ1x)

37 There is a definate difference in the leaks. One got a lot of antique MSM ink and one got several American Soldiers killed, but very little ink outside of denial. Who leaked the ink maker is still unknown (i'm still betting on one of the Klington holdovers in the CIA) , and the other was caught, identified, and is being defended by the left wing for endangering the entire country. What a wonderful country we now live in, but not for long if the left wing continues on their path to destruction. No matter who is elected the damage can't be undone.

Posted by: Scrapiron at April 26, 2006 12:28 PM (wZLWV)

38 Crap said by Larry at April 26, 2006 05:09 PM

You're assuming that secret prisons are immoral. They're not. As far as I can tell, they're standard procedure for prisoners of war. Grow up partisan Larry.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at April 26, 2006 12:30 PM (zpoIQ)

39 Slublog: You wound me! Really, people here at A o S have pretty think skins generally, and such conventions are NOT out of place. (See Log Cabin's response to me. I'm not spinning, I'm making a valid point.) And, since I don't buy the whole liberal media meme, it'd be hard for me to agree. But for the sake of argument , sure, they should report her donations.

(And then attempt to explain them, as Ace pointed out they have done with other non-culpatory facts. All I care about is that we, the reading public both R's and D's, should pick one way and stick with it, not apply different standards to each case.)

That being said, I apologize.

Now, how about an rebuttal on the topic?

Posted by: Larry the U at April 26, 2006 12:37 PM (Lpswv)

40 Outside of flamewars, I try to maintain some level of civility in conversation. I believe politics has gotten too nasty in this country, and believe there is room to disagree agreeably.

I actually do have a pretty thick skin generally. Comes with being a former customer service desk employee at a major smiley-face retailer.

Posted by: Slublog at April 26, 2006 12:41 PM (aGpO3)

41 That having been said, I think S. Weasel's comment above makes the point well. Personally, I think Abramoff is a bad guy who did bad things and deserves to pay for his crimes.

I also think if the media made an issue of Abramoff's donations, they should treat McCarthy with the same level of scrutiny.

Posted by: Slublog at April 26, 2006 12:44 PM (aGpO3)

42 Could we stop talking about Abramoff? This is exactly what Larry brags about doing--changing the subject!

Sheesh.

Posted by: Lipstick at April 26, 2006 12:53 PM (HuQ1x)

43 Hey! Everybody want a happy-clappy, Kumbaya moment? If this stays in the news long enough, we will be freed of the exhausted specter of poor, dead, unattractive Tailgunner Joe McCarthy. Next to Mister Godwin's favorite German, I'm so sick of Joe I could spit.

From now on, though, it just might be, "McCarthyism? Do you mean Mary, or...?"

Posted by: at April 26, 2006 12:53 PM (1HKrT)

44 05:53 is me. I'm so rarely the barer of happy tidings, I want credit...

Posted by: S. Weasel at April 26, 2006 12:55 PM (1HKrT)

45 Crap said by Larry at April 26, 2006 05:09 PM

Really, you don't need to specify a time, there.

Posted by: bbeck at April 26, 2006 12:57 PM (qF8q3)

46 I wanna know why Larry is trying to claim that there is more than a dime's worth of difference between who Abramoff personally donated to out of his own pocket and who he directed his clients to donate to, other than to bolster a deficient argument. I can't see why this would be at all relevant, either in the original Abramoff brouhaha, or in this totally unrelated CIA leak case.

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 26, 2006 12:58 PM (gWvet)

47 Bearer. That should be "bearer."

In my defense, I'm more than one and less than three sheets to the wind. I am approximately 1.67 sheets to the wind, at present. I am working to improve my overall sheets to wind ratio, however.

Thank you for your support.

Posted by: S. Weasel at April 26, 2006 01:00 PM (1HKrT)

48 What's your beverage of preference, Mr. Weasel?

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 26, 2006 01:04 PM (gWvet)

49 The media reported Abramoff's donations, but has been more reluctant to point out McCarthy's. If you believe the donations are truly equal in showing motive, do you agree there's a media double standard at work here?

Exactly. Not reporting her campaign contributions is their choice, it doesn't matter much. What matters is the inconsistency of reporting.

This is one of the top 10 ways the legacy media expresses their bias: bychoosing what details to report. A typical exercise of this is to always give the party affiliation of a dirty politician when it's a Republican but failing to mention it when its a Democrat.

Conservatives notice this kind of thing.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 26, 2006 01:09 PM (1Vbso)

50 Vodka. The cheapest (which, in my neck of the woods -- which is now Ace's neck of the woods! -- is a brand called Rubinoff). And Diet Polar Tonic. Over ice. And I keep my hooch in the freezer.

If you do this fast enough, you get a lovely brain freeze. Or a flashback. I never could tell the difference.

Posted by: S. Weasel at April 26, 2006 01:10 PM (1HKrT)

51 Here it is in the post:

Please Sit Down Before Reading This (Big Udpate At End)

I'm really suprised that Wicked fell for my thread hijack. I figured the whole McCarthy thing was a loser for liberals so.... look, a shiny object.

Posted by Larry the U at April 24, 2006 06:59 PM

Posted by: Lipstick at April 26, 2006 01:13 PM (HuQ1x)

52 Oops, paraphrasing wiserbud above, OM didn't get the RNC talking points memo.

Posted by: LArry the Urbanite at April 26, 2006 01:13 PM (Lpswv)

53 My my, look at the time. Gotta go.

Posted by: LArry the Urbanite at April 26, 2006 01:14 PM (Lpswv)

54 So, let me get this straight:

You idiots believe that ANYBODY who does ANYTHING contrary to what you believe they should be doing (in this case leaking)...MUST be doing it for purely political reasons...because they contribute money to specific politicians or political parties...and could NEVER possibly be because they believe American laws are being broken...and that they have no other avenue of getting that information into the public domain??

I can't imagine this has anything to do with things that have happened in the past...you know, little leaks about Republican administrations breaking the laws of our land...as in: The Pentagon Papers and Watergate.

Of course, Bush leaking or Rove leaking or Cheney leaking or Libby leaking...is just fine.

And you wonder why I think most of you people are morally corrupt sycophants.

Oh...and little Georgie is at 32% today.


Posted by: Mike at April 26, 2006 01:14 PM (leJWb)

55 Yep. Yep, that's about it, Mike.

Oh, and -- guess what? Bush's plunge in the polls (to the extent it's real) largely represent Righties who are pissed off that he's not far enough to the Right.

Sweet dreams!

Posted by: S. Weasel at April 26, 2006 01:17 PM (1HKrT)

56 Lipstick, in the thread you quoted we were talking about something that originally meant "to fart" . That was an honest thread hijack, I admit it.

Here, you don't like the strength of my argument, so this is your counter? I'm always thread jacking now?

Way to stiffle discussion. .

Posted by: LArry the U at April 26, 2006 01:19 PM (Lpswv)

57 Lipstick, in the thread you quoted we were talking about something that originally meant "to fart" . That was an honest thread hijack, I admit it.

May I remind you:

I figured the whole McCarthy thing was a loser for liberals so.... look, a shiny object.

The "strength of your argument"? Your argument has about the strength of a petard in a hurricane.


Posted by: Lipstick at April 26, 2006 01:28 PM (HuQ1x)

58 Way to stiffle discussion...

Someone call me?

Posted by: Stiffler from American Pie at April 26, 2006 01:37 PM (Bc9zE)

59 Oh...and little Georgie is at 32% today.


And still President, AND Commander-in-Chief.
He needs to be IMPEEEAAACCCHHEEDD!!!!!

Posted by: Unruly Human at April 26, 2006 01:45 PM (AYAKP)

60 She donated money to the Democratic Party? Oh my God, i'm so confused now!

Posted by: Rip at April 26, 2006 01:57 PM (q2HEf)

61 The "strength of your argument"? Your argument has about the strength of a petard in a hurricane.

Yes, but for once in internet history, a liberal was honest about how they desperately attempt to deflect attention away from a left-slaughtering topic by bringing up something else. As if that helps.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 26, 2006 02:19 PM (1Vbso)

62 Attn Dana Priest:

We do not wish to discussthe campaign contributions of every person who testifies before Congress, every person who briefs a president, every person who writes a policy paper or plays any role in government whatsoever or who is ever quoted in a storyJust the ones accused of leaking classified information.

HTH, HAND.

P.S. Does your dictionary have the word disingenuous in it? Mine does...

Posted by: register_allocation at April 26, 2006 03:32 PM (6rFej)

63 Therre are many thing that smell real bad SULPHER,ROTTEN EGGS,SEWER GAS,FETULENCE,SKUNKS,MANURE,AND THE LIBERAL NEWS MEDIA SMELL THE WORSE OF ALL

Posted by: spurwing plover at April 26, 2006 05:20 PM (uPdgJ)

64 "Oh...and little Georgie is at 32% today."

Mike, if you bothered to read what people here have to say, you'd quickly realize: plenty of us aren't always that fond of Bush either.

If asked "do you approve of the job the president is doing," I'd say, "no," only because, "Hell, no" isn't an option.

Does it follow that I'm going to vote/fervently wish for a Democratic congress this fall? Let alone want such a hypothetical congress to then impeach Bush (whom, follow me closely here now, I simultaneously disapprove of job-performance-wise, and yet still don't think should be impeached)?

Bush's numbers are notso hot, yes indeedy. There might be some skewing and spinning and spiking, spindling, mutilating and folding going on, but you can't fudge it that much. At best, a solid majority of people are PO'd at the man.

But you know, Bush don't gotta run no more. And impeachment isn't something automatically triggered by low approval ratings.

(By the way - when you keep heralding the coming of THE IMPEACHMENT, you're talking about phase-I impeachment, right? You don't actually think 67 Senators - no matter how many seats the Dems pick off in your fantasies - will vote to REMOVE Il Chimperalissimo? Or do you not actually understand how impeachment works? Or are you just gloating about the stain that impeachment-but-not-removal would leave on him? Because that doesn't seem to have fazed Clinton much).

The numbers you need to look at are in particular districts distributed widely across the country.

Your outfit has a shot - let's be honest, everyone, they've got a better shot at taking the House than they've had in a few cycles now.

But that's still not how I'd bet ... if I were a gambling man.

Posted by: Knemon at April 26, 2006 08:19 PM (a3KVd)

65 I'm more worried about the presidency in '08, Knemon. Over the years, the voting population has, by some instinct, liked that office to go back and forth between the parties. Most of the time, that's no bad thing. But the voters who haven't been paying attention (and that's a lot of them) may not realize how whack the Dems have become in the last decade.

I worked with someone who voted for Clinton the first time around because he was bored with same-old, same-old and wanted a change. I think about that a lot.

Posted by: S. Weasel at April 27, 2006 12:43 AM (1HKrT)

66 Keepers of the Sacred Journalistic "Storytelling" Narrative disagree

The so-called news media certainly do everything that Ace describes -- embargoes on facts, construction of narratives, storytelling rather than reporting.

But there's a word for all of this: propaganda.

Posted by: Phinn at April 27, 2006 03:19 AM (DiZv6)

67 Larry, I can't tell whether or not you're being deliberately obtuse on the Abramoff matter, but I'll go ahead and take your question at face value and address it.

Abrahamoff's political affilitation does not speak to motive because the motive for his actions is already clear.

The man is a paid lobbyist who bribed others in order to achieve the ends his clients desired. He had clients on both sides of the aisle. Clearly his motivation was the accumulation of money and power. Otherwise, he would have worked for only one side.

This is not to say that his political affiliation should have been suppressed by the MSM. Abramoff is most certainly a Republican who has close ties to powerful members of the Republican party. At the very least, the political damage this uncomforatble fact could cause these members should have been (and was) part of the story.

But what was Mary McCarthy's motivation for her action? It couldn't have been money. The press has provided us with one possible motivation - that St Mary was so upset and distraught over Smirky Chimplerburton's shredding of the constitution that she heroically and at great personal peril leaked the offending material to the media.

Ok. Maybe. But this doesn't explain why St. Mary would have circumvented internal remedies.

Given that the majority of leaks are political in nature (either to help your party or hurt your other guy) it would make sense to explore a leaker's political loyalties, would it not? Obviously it would. And obviously the MSM is reluctant to do this. Now, you've stated that you don't believe in a liberal media bias. Could you explain to me, then, why McCarthy's political donations aren't being discussed by the MSM?

Posted by: The Warden at April 27, 2006 03:46 AM (rZ5uY)

68 "I'm more worried about the presidency in '08, Knemon."

Mike can't wait for that, though ... he's staking it all on the IMPEACCCCCCCCCCCHMENT.

Posted by: Knemon at April 27, 2006 03:52 AM (a3KVd)

69 Warden, I'd say your question has about a snowball's chance in Hell of getting a straight answer.

Lefties who deny media bias leftward are either too stupid or too dishonest or too freaking demented to discuss so much as the weather with. I wonder if they know how quickly that particular denial relegates them to "ignore" status.

Posted by: spongeworthy at April 27, 2006 04:01 AM (uSomN)

70 Warden, I'd say your question has about a snowball's chance in Hell of getting a straight answer.

Probably not. I have first hand experience on the matter, BTW. More than 10 years worth.

Anyway, back to the Abramoff question. Let's look at it this way - if St Mary had leaked information under both the Clinton and Bush administrations (similar to how Abramoff lobbied for both parties), then her political donations would be less of an issue, as partisanship could reasonably ruled out as the motivation behind the leaks.

Posted by: The Warden at April 27, 2006 04:46 AM (rkK3q)

71 Abrahamoff's political affilitation does not speak to motive because the motive for his actions is already clear.

I disagree. His motives were partially personal gain, but also partially support of his strongly held conservative/Republican beliefs. He was an uber-conservative from the git-go, and (I believe) many of the connections to Dems to be mis-direction.

The man is a paid lobbyist who bribed others in order to achieve the ends his clients desired. He had clients on both sides of the aisle. Clearly his motivation was the accumulation of money and power. Otherwise, he would have worked for only one side.
See the above reponse. And, you all are conveniently neglecting the change in donations of his clients from largely D to largely R during his tenure as his consultants. I believe this is more indicative than the 60/40 split that is touted as the be-all-end-all of the "it was both sides" argument.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924

While I may not use calculus any more, I can still see that, in this case, the rate of change of Abramoff's tribal clients donations from D to R is more important than the base values of giving. Jack was changing the giving pattern from largely Democratic to largely Republican. Ergo, he was, on balance, trying to help Republicans.

But what was Mary McCarthy's motivation for her action? It couldn't have been money. The press has provided us with one possible motivation - that St Mary was so upset and distraught over Smirky Chimplerburton's shredding of the constitution that she heroically and at great personal peril leaked the offending material to the media.

If she did what she is accused of, she did it because of personal morality/beliefs that she felt strongly enough about to risk going to jail over. Not for the money. That speaks volumes to me. I disagree with a lot of the things commenters here say, but I try to respect strongly held beliefs/principles.

Ok. Maybe. But this doesn't explain why St. Mary would have circumvented internal remedies.

Hahahahahaha. You made a funny. Internal remedies? What "internal remedies" do you have when your boss (Goss) is a hand picked conservative Bush-o-phile and the admin thinks they are right and are willing to invoke the anything the Pres thinks necessary clause? (BTW: the politicization of this post is extraordinarily unwise. I'd honestly argue the same if a Dem Pres put Feingold in charge of the CIA.)

See this link:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact

An avowed conservative Navy lawyer got (mostly) shut down when arguing against torture at Gitmo. This guy played by the rules and had very limited success at a US military base. How much success would McCarthy have had at reducing torture at "secret" prisons? Be honest.

Posted by: Larry the U at April 27, 2006 05:47 AM (Lpswv)

72 Internal remedies like going to Congress.

I think her personal morality means getting Democrats elected by damaging the President. That would appear to be the motivation of all of this cabal, from McCarthy to Lying Joe Wilson. I would assume you find that more noble than filthy lucre, but I don't.

Ergo, on balance, he was trying to help his clients, Einstein. With the GOP holding the keys, the money goes that way.

You can be shockingly obtuse when you're spinning.

Posted by: spongeworthy at April 27, 2006 06:00 AM (uSomN)

73 he was trying to help his clients, Einstein. With the GOP holding the keys, the money goes that way.

Now who's being obtuse.

"In emails now made public by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which is investigating his activities, Abramoff repeatedly referred to Native Americans as "monkeys", "troglodites" and "morons."[22]

Abramoff once asked his co-conspirator Scanlon to meet a client, saying in an email, "I have to meet with the monkeys from the Choctaw tribal council. You need to close the deal... with the client..."

About one tribal client (date unknown) Abramoff wrote to Scanlon, "These mofos are the stupidest idiots in the land for sure." In another email message he wrote, "we need to get some money from those monkeys!!"

"Monkey" and "Troglodyte" are often considered racist when applied to a specific race or ethnic group."


Tribal donors were outraged by Abramoff's diversion of funds to Israeli settlers. " 'This is almost like outer-limits bizarre,' says Henry Buffalo, a lawyer for the Saginaw Chippewa Indians who contributed $25,000 to the Capital Athletic Foundation at Abramoff's urging. 'The tribe would never have given money for this.'

The funds were diverted to a number of projects, including the Eshkol Academy, an all-boys Orthodox Jewish school set up by Abramoff in Maryland.

(Sorry, these come from Wikipedia, and I didn't want to just link to the whole page)

Posted by: Larry the U at April 27, 2006 06:08 AM (Lpswv)

74 While I may not use calculus any more, I can still see that, in this case, the rate of change of Abramoff's tribal clients donations from D to R is more important than the base values of giving.

That's some weak spin. I never argued that the split between Dems and Repubs was 50-50, just that he lobbied for both sides. Why don't I post the contributions so people can judge for themselves?

1) Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $285,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $191,960
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (9/2000 - 2003): $401,500

2) Tribe: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 9/2000): $61,320
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 9/2000): $48,560
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (9/2000 - 2003): $64,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP(9/2000 - 2003): $162,590

3) Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 4/2001): $1,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 4/2001): $750
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (4/2001 - 6/2004): $40,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (4/2001 - 6/2004): $168,750

4) Tribe: Pueblo of Sandia (New Mexico)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 3/2002): $24,000
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 3/2002): $15,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (3/2002 - 6/2003): $18,500
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (3/2002 - 6/2003): $11,500

5) Tribe: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (California)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 7/2002): $371,250
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 7/2002): $400,200
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (7/2002 - 6/2004): $70,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (7/2002 - 6/2004): $216,708

6) Tribe: Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma)
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1/2003): $35,470
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1/2003): $6,050
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1/2003 - 12/2003): $250
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1/2003 - 12/2003): $0

7) Tribe: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Pre-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1991 - 1995): $4,600
Pre-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1991 - 1995): $31,000
Post-Abramoff contributions to Dems (1995 - 2004): $409,273
Post-Abramoff contributions to GOP (1995 - 2004): $884,927


If she did what she is accused of, she did it because of personal morality/beliefs that she felt strongly enough about to risk going to jail over.

Nothing like substituting opinion for fact. You know this how, Larry? If it were purely a matter of personal conscience, then why leak at all? Why not put your mug on television and make the case that the administration is in the wrong?

I mean, I'm sure you're happy that the MSM is parroting your own take on things, but do you think that the average reader should be at least be allowed to consider that maybe St Mary had a partisan agenda? Or do you agree with hiding her contributions because you and the MSM have come to a different conclusion?

Hahahahahaha. You made a funny. Internal remedies? What "internal remedies" do you have when your boss (Goss) is a hand picked conservative Bush-o-phile and the admin thinks they are right and are willing to invoke the anything the Pres thinks necessary clause?

Hard to say since, as far as we know, she never tried. But feel free to predict for us what the result would have been. Wait, you already did. Must be nice to be clairvoyant.

Posted by: The Warden at April 27, 2006 06:10 AM (rkK3q)

75 Spin away, troll. You're only trying to divert from a serious problem your boys are having with the imminent exposure of a Donk spy ring that enjoys slipping secrets to the media. All for partisan reasons.

The media can only sit on this for so long, you know. This isn't the old days where you guys could count on the entire media to disappear this stuff down the memory hole.

Posted by: spongeworthy at April 27, 2006 06:19 AM (uSomN)

76 Bush approval rating 32%
Congressional Reps 28%
Congrssional Dems 23%
Whoops.

Posted by: nikkolai at April 27, 2006 06:20 AM (70wcC)

77 Oh, and the Republicans are doing a fine job of making sure Dems get elected, all by themselves.

You are assuming motivation for McCarthy without proof. While she may have been motivated by politics, she may also have been motivated by morality. Do you have a link that argues she was an uber-partisan?

I may be out of date on this, but even A0S pal Allah notes " Smells real bad, but there’s much less here than meets the eye: as mentioned above, the best anyone’s been able to do thus far conspiracy-wise is put McCarthy and Wilson on the NSC at the same time eight years ago, which is hardly damning. "

Posted by: LArry the U at April 27, 2006 06:21 AM (Lpswv)

78 I guess this'll put a little dent in the Bush Suckfest celebration...

WASHINGTON — Despite the CIA's goal of cracking down on leaks of classified information, the government may forgo criminal charges against a senior agency officer fired last week for disclosing operational secrets, according to current and former intelligence and law enforcement officials.

The officials cited a number of obstacles to pursuing the case, including that the employee was fired in part over polygraph results that would not be admissible as evidence and that she was accused of leaking secrets the government would be reluctant to air in court.

ADVERTISEMENT
The strength of the CIA's evidence against the fired employee, Mary O. McCarthy, also has come under scrutiny. McCarthy's attorney, Ty Cobb, said that contrary to the CIA's statement last week, she did not disclose classified information or confess to doing so to agency investigators.

Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2006 06:27 AM (leJWb)

79 Looking forward to 'Lil Dick Durbin and Jay Rockefeller being deposed. Firing squad, anyone?

Posted by: nikkolai at April 27, 2006 06:39 AM (70wcC)

80 (Sorry, these come from Wikipedia, and I didn't want to just link to the whole page)

Heh. Wikipedia. The website where any idiot with a computer can post anything about anything. Good legitimate source you have there.

Posted by: truly gutless at April 27, 2006 06:40 AM (iDneH)

81 You are assuming motivation for McCarthy without proof. While she may have been motivated by politics, she may also have been motivated by morality. Do you have a link that argues she was an uber-partisan?

Incorrect. I am arguing that the possibility that she is motivated by partisanship is one that should be allowed for by the MSM. This would require including supporting evidence for the theory - campaign contributions to Kerry, ties to people like Sandy "Socks" Berger..etc, not burying these relevant facts.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Posted by: The Warden at April 27, 2006 06:44 AM (rkK3q)

82 A couple things Larry. You probably have noticed that the numbers posted byt the Warden dove tail nicely with the Republicans taking control of the House for the first time in 40 years. In other words, money started shifting to the Republicans because 1) there were now more of them and 2) they were now in charge. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a lobbyist to be giving the lion share of your money to people who can't help you.

As to Mary McCarthy and a choice of conscience, give me a break. Where does it say that spooks get to leak info based on a personal belief? No laws have been broken, obvioulsy, with the CIA rendition program which was in fact known to various members of the Congress Intelligence Committess. How do I know? Because the program has been going on since the Clinton Administration, when Porter Goss was NOT Mary's boss, and not a single charge has been brought. Not by any Democrat in Congress. Not by anyone.

If you honestly believe that gov't officials can make decisions based on what they believe not what the law says, then what possible problem could you have with Libby or Rove or anyone else in the whole sorry Plame nonsense? Can't they just claim that they believe that Wilson is a lying sack of shit who was using lies to distort the truth by publishing bogus op-ed pieces claining the President lied? They didn't get any money for rebutting his bullshit to the press, it was their belief that he was scum and they acted on it.

Shouldn't that be enough by your standard to just call the whole thing off?

As to assuming without proof, again, please. The left has been saying for 2 years that Libby and Rove leaked Plame's name without a single shred of proof. When did proof become important to you guys? Theres ample proof that Wilson was absolutely lying, many times, and you guys ignore that when it suits your agenda.

Bottom line. Anyone who illegally took money from Jack A. ought to be prosecuted. If there is a real crime in the whole Plame thing then whoever did it ought to be prosecuted. And if Mary McCarthy revealed classified CIA secrets no matter why she did it, she ought to be prosecuted. The damage she has done far outweighs anything done in the Plame kerfuffle.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 27, 2006 06:52 AM (J8+2b)

83 Warden: It's not prediction/ clairvoyance. It's inductive logic. The NY article shows that someone else tried to work inside the system and got largely ignored. Therefore, I can say that (based on a single point sample, but still) perhaps her views were justified.

Dude, what was thepoint in posting all the donations? Did you not understand that I was making the arguement that the rate of change was what was important, not the base amounts?

G/L = Gain/Loss, losses are negative percentages.
Note that a big negative is bigger loss than a small negative.

Beneficiary
1) Tribe: Saginaw Chippewa (Michigan)
$371,250 Dem G/L -31.83%
$285,000 GOP G/L 16.97% Strong R
$191,960
$401,500

2) Tribe: Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana
$61,320 Dem G/L 2.14%
$48,560 GOP G/L 54.00% Strong R
$64,000
$162,590

3) Tribe: Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana
$1,000 Dem G/L 95.18%
$750 GOP G/L 99.12% Weak R
$40,500
$168,750

4) Tribe: Pueblo of Sandia (New Mexico)
$24,000 Dem G/L -12.94% Weak D
$15,000 GOP G/L -13.21%
$18,500
$11,500

5) Tribe: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (California)
$371,250 Dem G/L -68.27%
$400,200 GOP G/L -29.74% Strong R
$70,000
$216,708

6) Tribe: Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma)
$35,470 Dem G/L -98.60% Weak D
$6,050 GOP G/L -100.00%
$250
$0

7) Tribe: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
$4,600 Dem G/L 97.78% Weak D
$31,000 GOP G/L 93.23%
$409,273
$884,927


So we have three "strong R" changes, one weak R, and Three weak D changes. Note that two of the three "weak D" changes involve small amounts of money, and that all of the three strong R changes involve relatively large amounts of money.

How was showing these amounts a rebuttal to my argument?

Posted by: LArry the U at April 27, 2006 06:57 AM (Lpswv)

84 More GOOD news for the Bush Suckfest!!!

Bush Poll Numbers: 4/21-24/06

Approve Disapprove
NBC/Wall Street Journal 36 57

CNN 32 60

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 33 57

.
Posted by Mike at April 27, 2006 11:55 AM

Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2006 07:00 AM (leJWb)

85 Another way to look at those numbers is:

Delta % change
Dems pre Abramoff $868,890
GOP Pre Abramoff $786,560
Dems Abramoff $794,483 91.44% -8.56%
GOP Abramoff $1,845,975 234.69% 134.69%

Jack: I agree: broke the law, prosecute, jail. ( I signed secrecy oaths and never even told my wife what I was working on. Most guys did. But I was never faced with what I considered immoral actions by the gov't)) I was arguing about motive.

Posted by: Larry the U at April 27, 2006 07:08 AM (Lpswv)

86 Jackstraw: Yes, but funnelling money to your support base while calling your client's names shows a bit of two-faced-ness, no? And funneling to Israeli settler's is not only two-faced and insulting but illegal.

Posted by: Larry the U at April 27, 2006 07:13 AM (Lpswv)

87 The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll showed 47 percent of voters “strongly” disapprove of Bush's job performance, vs. 20 percent who said they “strongly approve.”

Clinton’s strong disapproval never got above 37 percent in Post-ABC polls during his presidency.

Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2006 07:15 AM (leJWb)

88 I was arguing about motive.

Of which you're speculating. I say St. Mary leaked because she's a partisan Democrat and wanted to damage the Bush administration, no matter what it did to our country or our intelligence-gathering capabilities.

And my speculation is just as good as yours.

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 27, 2006 07:17 AM (gWvet)

89 I'm coming to the conclusion that Mike is autistic. Repetitive, unresponsive, unable to connect with people.

Posted by: S. Weasel at April 27, 2006 07:20 AM (rasT+)

90 The damage she has done far outweighs anything done in the Plame kerfuffle.

Sorry, Jackstraw, I have to disagree, not with the relative merits of damages done, but that she was morally (not legally, though) correct to do what she did.

Rendition (presumably for the purposes of torture, why else do it?) to a third country is morally inexcusable (except with the immenent threat of WMD, see my response to adolfo way above).

The whole Plamegate thing was politics, pure and simple, and the moral implications likely a push, unless Plame was supervising/ linked to NOC's in hostile territory, which she wasn't was she?

Posted by: Larry the U at April 27, 2006 07:21 AM (Lpswv)

91 Larry, I can't tell whether or not you're being deliberately obtuse on the Abramoff matter

I can.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at April 27, 2006 07:22 AM (/PQWt)

92 I'm coming to the conclusion that Mike is autistic. Repetitive, unresponsive, unable to connect with people.

In other words, a Democrat.

Posted by: Anon E. Mouse at April 27, 2006 07:23 AM (iDneH)

93 OM: Yes that's true. But your comment doesn't really add to the thread of discussion. Go back and read the previous comments and see my and others for/against such speculation.

Posted by: Larry the U at April 27, 2006 07:24 AM (Lpswv)

94 I am glad to see the Larold of the city gets to decide what leaks are good and bad. Evidently, policy is now made my upper level bureaucrats, not their elected leaders or the heads of the agencies. Who are we to judge the sacred and time honored traditons of other countries? What about diversity, man!!! Have you no idea how your chauvanistic forcing of your values on these on-McDonald's eating people harms diversity and propigates americanism abroad!!!!!

Posted by: joeindc44 at April 27, 2006 07:29 AM (K0x/A)

95 I am glad to see the Larold of the city gets to decide what leaks are good and bad. Evidently, policy is now made my upper level bureaucrats, not their elected leaders or the heads of the agencies.

Huh? I said: I agree: broke the law, prosecute, jail. ( I signed secrecy oaths and never even told my wife what I was working on. Most guys did. But I was never faced with what I considered immoral actions by the gov't)) I was arguing about motive.

Posted by: Larry the U at April 27, 2006 07:52 AM (Lpswv)

96 Another way to look at those numbers is:

Delta % change


Jeepers, that's some serious spin, Lar. Ever think of going to work for Howard Dean? He's been desperately trying to spin Abramoff into a purely Republican scandal for months now, only it doesn't appear to be taking. Perhaps you can lend a hand.

Posted by: OregonMuse at April 27, 2006 08:22 AM (gWvet)

97 Larry if you honestly believe rendition is a bad thing (which I do not) and that gives her a pass to leak it, then why didn't she leak it when she worked for Clinton and Berger, the guys who instituted the program?

That's not conjecture thats a fact. Remember, Berger hired McCarthy and Scheuer is no fan of the Bush admin. So how do you spin this? She obviously knew about the program for years and did nothing.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 27, 2006 08:33 AM (J8+2b)

98 The whole Plamegate thing was politics, pure and simple, and the moral implications likely a push

Its not a push Larry when leaders of other countries who have participated in this secret program, highly moral and ethical countries such as Germany if you read the link I gave not, say they don't trust our intelligence agencies to keep their mouths shut. Very dangerous.

And lets use some of your logic. You say why would we use rendition if not to torture. Highly specious but lets go with it. By the same logic, why would we do it for over 10 years unless it worked? Again, in the link I provided you have a senior level CIA operative saying it was one of the most effective programs the CIA ever ran, better once it was under Bush's control. And that from an agent who didn't like Bush.

Posted by: JackStraw at April 27, 2006 08:50 AM (J8+2b)

99 How was showing these amounts a rebuttal to my argument?

Because in two cases, Democratic donations also went up (albeit, by a lesser rate than their Republican counterparts.) If Abramoff's motive was simply to enrich Republicans, this would not be the case. Also, as has been pointed out, the party in control usually garners the larger portion of political contributions because they have more influence.

Really, I find your hairsplitting on the matter to be rather goofy, but I guess if that's all you've got, then you really have no choice.

It's not prediction/ clairvoyance. It's inductive logic. The NY article shows that someone else tried to work inside the system and got largely ignored. Therefore, I can say that (based on a single point sample, but still) perhaps her views were justified.

Justified? Perhaps. But you're implying that her LEAK was justified based on one story of one guy who addressed a disagreement with the administration internally and was overruled.

Guess what? This is what happens all the time. This is how it is supposed to work. This Mora guy was heard and overruled by his superiors. They didn't persecute the guy or run him out of town. They simply disagreed.

Does being overruled justify leaking classified intelligence? It sounds to me that you're arguing that it does if lefties don't like the result. The right have your concerns heard and considered does not mean the right to have your opinions agreed upon by your superiors.

I've also noticed that you've ignored the question on why St Mary leaked covertly instead of taking her case to the media OPENLY if she thought she had such a strong moral case. My goodness, she could have probably even involved some Democratic senators for backup, right? I mean it's such a clear cut (according to you) case of illegal activity by the Bush administration.

Posted by: The Warden at April 27, 2006 08:50 AM (rkK3q)

100 Also, Larry, you still haven't told me why the MSM shouldn't present its viewership with all relevant facts regarding possible motivation and let the people make up their own minds. This was the point of the original post, afterall.

And if they won't present these facts(which they haven't in most cases), and if it is not due to bias, then what is the motivation behind leaving Mary McCarthy's personal political contribution's out of the story when it was included in Abramoff's?

Posted by: The Warden at April 27, 2006 08:56 AM (rkK3q)

101 Jack: I had no idea you knew what McCarthy knew about rendition and when, exactly, she learned about it. Jus tbecause she worked for the CIAdoesn't mean she knew about tit then. Also, the process of "extraordinary rendition" was vastly different then than now.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

From the New Yorker:

Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognition—becoming, according to a former C.I.A. official, “an abomination.” What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspects—people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants—came to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms “illegal enemy combatants.” Many of them have never been publicly charged with any crime.

and lastly, rendition when started gave people up to other gov'ts. They did not put them in prisons run under US auspices.

You may say these are all piddling points, but I say they make your case much weaker. Weaker to the point that someone like McCarthy might have initially been able to convinve themselves that it was a necessary evil, but then, as it grew and mutated and grew some more and then seemed to be becoming our new S.O.P to anyone suspected ( instead of a every once in a while to people who were all but dripping in the blood of innocents), finally felt they had to speak out about it.

But I speculate about why she did what she did. Just as you speculate about when she knew what she knew. I got an idea: Let's have a congressional inquiry to get to the bottom of it. How about a special proscecutor? I'm all for that, let the chips fall where they may. How about you?

Posted by: Larry the U at April 27, 2006 10:23 AM (Lpswv)

102 Yeah, one data point is a pretty narrow peg to hang it on, Larry.

Contrary to dramatic portayal, most "whistleblowings" are not a one-humyn operation. Watergate got uncovered only because multiple people at multiple levels dropped the dime/ found their conscience/ rolled over on the next guy. When something is rotten in the state o d, you don't need to piece it together from tea leaves on Wikipedia.

I've seen a fair amount of smoke - but smoke doesn't always come from fire. Sometimes it comes from a malfunctioning fan, a-spinnin.

Posted by: Knemon at April 27, 2006 10:33 AM (a3KVd)

103 Knemon,
Yeah, that's it...this all nothing more than "smoke."

Report after report, unreported flights from border to border of cooperating nations, people coming forward who have actually been taken...it's all "smoke."

Duh.

Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2006 01:08 PM (leJWb)

104 S. Weasel & Anus,
Blow me.

Posted by: Mike at April 27, 2006 01:09 PM (leJWb)

105 Larry sure works hard at deflecting attention away from this story at all costs. I wonder why.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 27, 2006 04:46 PM (1Vbso)

106 These lefties DO seem a little TOO nervous over this, don't they?

Posted by: nikkolai at April 28, 2006 12:37 AM (70wcC)

107 Mary, your trolling is bad enough, but the constant begging for oral sex is nothing short of pathetic.

Posted by: Anon E. Mouse at April 28, 2006 02:24 AM (hoofE)

108 Some call it begging, I call it foreplay.

Posted by: Mike! at April 28, 2006 02:58 AM (R8+nJ)

109 Larry The U,
Why do you waste your time and energy trying to actually "discuss" anything with these Cretins? They could give a flying fuck what you, or anybody for that matter, has to say or thinks...unless of course, it fits into their narrow view of the political universe.

This entire McCarthy "leak" story is nothing more tha a new diversion, pulling attention away from the Bush administration's ineptitude in all matters.

The Leher Report had two ex-CIA officials on the other night (who both agreed McCarthy should be fired), but also said another "leaker," but higher up the food chain, was caught a few years ago, but "quietly" dismissed, without fanfare or massive publicity...now why do you suppose McCarthy is being treated differently? (poloitics?)

And...there are already reports she won't even be charged anyway...so this is all nothing more than another right wing trashing of a critic.

And I love the way they jump on YOU for supposedly picking and choosing which leaks or leakers or important and which are not...which is rather hilarious considering Bush leaks whatever he deems necessary to discredit anyone with whom he disagrees or is critical of his highness.

The Bush administration is doomed, and these idiots know it, too...you can feel it in their collective and frenzied attempt to defend, defend, defend...regardless of the facts or logic.

Posted by: Mike at April 28, 2006 05:28 AM (leJWb)

110 leftists are doomed, and this idiot knows it, too...you can feel it in my frenzied attempts to attack, attack, attack...regardless of the facts or logic!

Posted by: Mike! at April 28, 2006 07:52 AM (rkK3q)

111 I love the smell of liberal flop sweat.

Smells like...victory.

Posted by: Bill Kilgore at April 28, 2006 07:56 AM (R8+nJ)

112 Larry The U,
Why do you waste your time and energy trying to actually "discuss" anything with these Cretins?


Awwwww....it's trying to make a friend!

pssssttt...Mikey! Even fellow lefties are repulsed by you. And there's no reason to capitalize "cretin" as it's not a proper noun, you chest slapping tard.

Posted by: at April 28, 2006 08:35 AM (rkK3q)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
159kb generated in CPU 0.13, elapsed 1.6011 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.499 seconds, 348 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.