Plame ‘Outs’ Herself
From ibdeditorials.com:
Blonde Faith
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, March 16, 2007 4:20 PM PST
Political Theater: The congressional testimony of Valerie Plame, the ‘spy’ who became a Vanity Fair cover girl, was staged to embarrass the Bush White House. It actually completed Plame’s exposure as a fraud.
When all was said and done, the least preposterous sight at Friday’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing could be found in the audience: namely, the woman dressed in hot pink who kept standing up behind Plame during her testimony to show the television viewers her ‘Impeach Bush’ T-shirt.
That woman was a lot more honest about what was taking place than Mrs. Joseph Wilson, who looked like the cat who ate the canary when Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland asked her whether she and her husband are Democrats.
After giving her husband’s Republican family background, she said: ‘I would say he’s a Democrat.’ As for herself, she conceded: ‘Yes . . . I am a Democrat.’
As if we all didn’t know.
Plame’s ‘cover’ as a CIA employee was so secret she was listed in her husband’s ‘Who’s Who in America’ entry. Her cover was ‘blown’ in 2003 by then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Armitage was never charged with a crime, because she was no longer a covert agent. So special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald instead went after Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, for his bad memory.
Plame’s fellow Democrats, led by committee Chairman Henry Waxman of California, spent much of their time waving at the cameras a new version of the Clinton administration’s ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ flowchart. The chart featured a big, black box labeled ‘UNKNOWN,’ representing the mysterious personage who told Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney about Plame.
Gee, the republic must be in mortal danger if someone is giving CIA secrets to the vice president and a senior presidential adviser.
Plame repeatedly answered questions about her official status at the CIA with an unconvincing ‘I’m not a lawyer.’
Then she claimed that the smoking-gun e-mail she sent to her superiors recommending that her husband be sent to Niger — after which he wrote a New York Times op-ed questioning Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear material in Africa — was taken ‘out of context.’
Far from being a ‘covert agent,’ Plame and her husband are a politically motivated PR partnership. She’s negotiating a book deal for her life story, titled ‘Fair Game,’ for which Simon & Schuster has reportedly paid her a $1 million advance. She appeared with Wilson on the cover of Vanity Fair just months after being ‘outed.’
Just why was Plame, who listed her CIA cover company as her employer when she gave to Al Gore’s campaign, riding a desk in Langley, Va.? The Washington Times’ Bill Gertz has reported that U.S. officials said her identity was first disclosed to Russia by a Moscow spy in the mid-1990s. She returned to the U.S. in 1994 because the CIA suspected her cover was blown by turncoat Aldrich Ames.
By placing Plame under the hot spotlights, Democrats have unwittingly caused her story to melt before the public.
The Truth About The CIA, Valerie Plame Leak
From nationalreview.com:
Breach
Lewis Libby didn’t compromise national security, but others did.
By Clifford D. May
Lewis Libby’s lawyers are quietly filing appeals while President Bush privately ponders arguments for and against a pardon. But now is not the time for this controversy to fade away. Now is the time for it to begin in earnest. The compromise of America’s national security should not be swept under a rug.
The good news: There never was a conspiracy on the part of Libby or others in the White House to reveal the identity of a secret agent. Valerie Plame’s name was first leaked to columnist Robert Novak by Richard Armitage, a State Department official who was not seeking to harm Plame or her husband, Joseph Wilson. (This is obvious to anyone who knows anything about Armitage; had it been otherwise, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would, without doubt, have brought charges against him.)The bad news: The CIA actually did send Wilson — a retired ambassador with no investigative skills and a blatant bias against the Bush administration — to conduct a highly sensitive investigation.Key to that decision was Plame’s recommendation. Despite Wilson’s insistence that his wife played no role, a memo from Plame on behalf of Wilson was sent to the CIA’s directorate of operations. That memo was retrieved and revealed by Senate investigators. Among the national-security questions this raises: Did CIA officials have no qualified agents they could assign? Or did they regard the inquiry into whether Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa as not worthy of serious attention?
And were they oblivious to the conflict of interest? Since the CIA neglected to require that Wilson keep his CIA mission confidential, they were giving him a credential he could use to sign up lucrative clients. Those clients would see him as an intelligence insider and their fees would enrich the Wilson/Plame household. Does the CIA make it a habit to give its employees such gifts?We now know also that Wilson’s mission was botched. He returned from Africa certain there had been no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium. Alarms were not set off for him by the fact that in February 1999, Saddam sent a “trade mission” to Niger, the country from which Iraq had first acquired uranium in 1981 (as confirmed in the Duelfer Report).Thanks to the reporting of Christopher Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/) , we know, too, that that this trade mission was led by Wissam al-Zahawie, Saddam’s top expert on nuclear matters. Did Wilson fail to uncover that fact? Or did he assume that al-Zahawie went to Niger for the waters? It is on the basis of the al-Zahawie mission that British intelligence continues to stand behind its conclusion — validated by two independent commissions — that Saddam did indeed seek uranium in Africa. That is what President Bush asserted in his 2003 State of the Union address. Wilson responded with his New York Times op-ed: “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” which in turn led Bob Novak and other reporters to try to figure out who Wilson was and why the CIA had chosen him as their man in Niger. Yes, some administration officials attempted to provide truthful answers to the reporters’ questions. To see a scandal in that, one has to be a fool or a hyper-partisan. (Washington lacks for neither.)The CIA’s errors and misjudgments in this and other matters should be investigated by a panel that would propose to the president and the congressional committees overseeing intelligence ways to fix what is broken.
As for Libby, he did not contribute to the dysfunction at the CIA. If he lied about anything, for any reason, that is wrong. But he has lost his job, his reputation has been soiled, his personal finances and family life devastated. Is that not punishment enough? Is it not time to “move on”?
As a matter of equity, consider that former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger stole classified documents, stuffed them in his pants and hid them on a construction site. He will serve not a day in prison. President Clinton also lied to a grand jury. He kept his job, did no jail time and has been treated with respect by his successor in the White House.
Meanwhile, Valerie Plame, who persuaded her superiors to send her husband on a mission for which he was unqualified and from which he brought back misinformation that he marketed to the public through credulous journalists, is to receive $2.5 million for her “story.” It will, I’ll wager, be more akin to a fable, omitting all of the pertinent facts noted above.
© Scripps Howard News Service
— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , a policy institute focusing on terrorism
Global Warming Hypocrisy On The Left
Just remember that this whole carbon offset scam is a precursor to a manditary tax that is sure to follow. This is the Democrats way to indoctrinate the people that taxing us is good for the environment.
This article displays the hypocricy of the left on the whole carbon offset scam. How they can just pay money and not alter their energy consumption, while telling you that you have to change your’s.
From time.com:
Limousine Liberal Hypocrisy
Goldman Sachs has been one of the most aggressive firms on Wall Street about taking action on climate change; the company sends its bankers home at night in hybrid limousines.
–The New York Times, Feb. 25
Written without a hint of irony–if only your neighborhood dry cleaner sent his employees home by hybrid limousine–this front-page dispatch captured perfectly the eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they are received.
Remember the Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore global-warming pitch at the Academy Awards? Before they spoke, the screen at the back of the stage flashed not-so-subliminal messages about how to save the planet. My personal favorite was “Ride mass transit.” This to a conclave of Hollywood plutocrats who have not seen the inside of a subway since the moon landing and for whom mass transit means a stretch limo seating no fewer than 10.
Leo and Al then portentously announced that for the first time ever, the Academy Awards ceremony had gone green. What did that mean? Solar panels in the designer gowns? It turns out that the Academy neutralized the evening’s “carbon footprint” by buying carbon credits. That means it sent money to a “carbon broker,” who promised, after taking his cut, to reduce carbon emissions somewhere on the planet equivalent to what the stars spewed into the atmosphere while flying in on their private planes.
In other words, the rich reduce their carbon output by not one ounce. But drawing on the hundreds of millions of net worth in the Kodak Theatre, they pull out lunch money to buy ecological indulgences. The last time the selling of pardons was prevalent–in a predecessor religion to environmentalism called Christianity–Martin Luther lost his temper and launched the Reformation.
A very few of the very rich have some awareness of the emptiness–if not the medieval corruption–of ransoming one’s sins. Sergey Brin, zillionaire founder of Google, buys carbon credits to offset the ghastly amount of carbon dioxide emitted by Google’s private Boeing 767 but confesses he’s not sure if it really does anything.
Which puts him one step ahead of most other eco-preeners who actually pretend that it does–the Goracle himself, for example. His Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the electricity used by the average American home. Last August alone it consumed twice as much power as the average home consumes in a year. Gore buys absolution, however. He spends pocket change on carbon credits, which then allow him to pollute conscience-free.
What is wrong with this scam? First, purchasing carbon credits is an incentive to burn even more fossil fuels, since now it is done under the illusion that it’s really cost-free to the atmosphere.
Second, it is a way for the rich to export the real costs and sacrifices of pollution control to the poorer segments of humanity in the Third World. (Apparently, Hollywood’s plan is to make up for that by adopting every last one of their children.) For example, GreenSeat, a Dutch carbon-trading outfit, buys offsets from a foundation that plants trees in Uganda’s Mount Elgon National Park to soak up the carbon emissions of its rich Western patrons. Small problem: expanding the park encroaches on land traditionally used by local farmers. As a result, reports the New York Times, “villagers living along the boundary of the park have been beaten and shot at, and their livestock has been confiscated by armed park rangers.” All this so that swimming pools can be heated and Maseratis driven with a clear conscience in the fattest parts of the world.
The other form of carbon trading is to get Third World companies to cut their emissions to offset Western pollution. The reason this doesn’t work–and why the carbon racket is a farce–is that you need a cap for cap-and-trade to work. Sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. were capped, and the trading system succeeded in reducing acid rain by half. But even the Kyoto treaty doesn’t put any cap on greenhouse gases in China and India, where billions of these carbon credits are traded. Sure, you can pretend you’re offsetting Western greenhouse pollution by supposedly cleaning up a dirty coal plant in China. But China is adding a new coal plant every week. You could build a particularly dirty “uncapped” power plant, then sell hundreds of millions in carbon credits to reduce it to a normal rate of pollution. The result? The polluter gets very rich. The planet continues to cook. And the Gores of the world can feel virtuous as they burn up the local power grid.
If Gore really wants to save the planet, he can try this: Turn off the lights. Ditch the heated pool. Ride the subway. And spare us the carbon-trading piety.
The Democrats Will Be On The Wrong Side Of History
This is a very good article about how the Democrats have positioned themselves to accept defeat, and in my opinion, ultimately be on the wrong side of history. I also believe history will look back on George W Bush alot kinder than the present.
From washtimes.com:
Slow bleed syndrome
By Paul Greenberg
The terrorists and their sympathizers in Iraq keep saying U.S. resolve is fading — and that American troops will soon fade away with it. But a headline last week told a different story: “U.S. general says Iraq needs buildup into ’08.”
What’s this — are the Americans still determined to win in Iraq? How unsettling that possibility must be for Sunni insurgents, Shi’ite zealots, al Qaeda killers and any armed Ba’athists still lurking about. Read more…
Democrats’ Quotes About Saddam Hussein
Here are some interesting quotes by Democrats about Saddam Hussein and WMD. For those of you blinded by hatred of George W Bush, note that many of these quotes are from 1998.Did the Democrats believe then that Saddam had WMD or were they just backing their man President Clinton? President Clinton must have believed Saddam had WMD. Didn’t he use the same intelligence as president Bush? Yes he did!
Senate Democrats Waiver On Iraq War Funding Resolution
Here is another article about the Democrats going down in defeat on the Iraq war funding resolutions. See my last post here for more details about this vote.
I am so proud of my fine Senator, Judd Gregg, and hope he continues his great work in the future.
This is from cnsnews.com:
Senate Dems Fail to ‘Change Course in Iraq’
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
March 16, 2007(CNSNews.com) – Senate Democrats finally got the vote they wanted on whether to change the course of the war in Iraq, and their views did not prevail.The Senate voted on three resolutions Thursday, but the first one was the most critical.
A Democratic proposal (the Reid resolution) to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq within 120 days — with the goal of redeploying all but a few combat forces by March 31, 2008 – was defeated 50-48. That was 12 votes short of the 60 needed for passage.
“This legislation is dangerous,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) “It is constitutionally dubious. And it would authorize a scattered band of U.S. Senators to tie the hands of the commander in chief at a moment of decisive importance in the fight against terrorism in Iraq.” Read more…
Do you remember two months ago when the Republicans were accused of blocking debate on the Iraq War? It was actually Harry Reid and the Democrats who blocked debate because they were afraid of Sen. Gregg’s proposal. See here for details. Well now we know why they didn’t want to let Gregg’s proposal be voted on. Because it passed today 82-16 when Reid finally allowed a vote on it. Interesting enough is that Hillary and Barack Obama voted in favor of Gregg’s resolution today. As did Sen. John Kerry, I guess he is now for the war again. To think he was almost president. I give these three credit though, at least they voted. Sen. McCain didn’t vote, perhaps he doesn’t want to go on record on this issue.
The other interesting aspect of this is how the Democrats are trying to spin this runaway defeat as a victory. You will see this in the article below.
The Democrats are dividing on this issue and the Republicans are starting to unite, this spells possible political doom for the Democrats. Perhaps it’s time to pull out of the debate on this issue,or cut and run from the debate if you prefer.
This is from nysun.com:
A United GOP Rebuffs Bid by Democrats |
By ELI LAKE
The Democratic Party‘s presidential field is dividing over the question of funding American soldiers in Iraq, with senators Obama of Illinois and Clinton of New Yorkvoting with an 82-to-16 majority for a Republican resolution against cutting any money for troops in the field. Senators Biden of Delawareand Dodd of Connecticut were in the minority.
The vote, along with the narrow 50-to-48 defeat of a binding resolution calling for the withdrawal of soldiers from Iraq by March 31, 2008, was a major victory for the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, a Republican of Kentucky who quietly worked for two months to persuade his caucus to vote together. Read more…
The Flying Imams’ True Target
From startribune.com:
The Real Target Of The 6 Imams’ Discrimination Suit
By Katherine Kersten
The “flying imams’ ” federal lawsuit, filed this week in Minneapolis, has made headlines around the country. The imams are demanding unspecified damages from US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, both with deep pockets. But their suit includes other defendants, as yet unnamed. These people, unaffiliated with the airline industry or government, are among the imams’ most vulnerable targets.
Recall the November 2006 incident that gave rise to the suit. The imams engaged in a variety of suspicious behaviors while boarding a US Airways flight, according to the airport police report. Some prayed loudly in the gate area, spoke angrily about the United States and Saddam, switched seats and sat in the 9/11 hijackers’ configuration, and unnecessarily requested seatbelt extenders that could be used as weapons, according to witness reports and US Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader.
After extensive consultations, the pilot asked authorities to remove the imams for questioning, which they did, releasing them later that day.
“The pilot did what he had to do,” passenger Rita Snelson of Maplewood told the Star Tribune. “I told the airline afterward, ‘Thank you for watching over us.’ ”
The imams’ lawsuit, however, asserts that US Airways and the MAC acted solely out of religious and ethnic discrimination. It includes 17 separate counts.
It also rehearses a catalogue of harms allegedly suffered by the imams, including fear, depression, mental pain and financial injury. They have not only endured exhaustion, humiliation and ridicule, but also have lost sleep and developed anxiety about flying.
Their lawsuit appears to be the latest component in a national campaign to intimidate airlines and government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is advising the imams, is also calling for congressional hearings and promoting federal legislation to “end racial profiling” in air travel. If the legislation passes, airport personnel who disproportionately question passengers who are Muslim or of Middle Eastern origin could be subject to sanctions.
But the most alarming aspect of the imams’ suit is buried in paragraph 21 of their complaint. It describes “John Doe” defendants whose identity the imams’ attorneys are still investigating. It reads: “Defendants ‘John Does’ were passengers … who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged ‘suspicious’ behavior of Plaintiffs’ performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”
Paragraph 22 adds: “Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants’] liability … at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same.”
In plain English, the imams plan to sue the “John Does,” too.
Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as “an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch” as they prayed. “The gentleman (‘John Doe’) in the couple … picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray,” then “moved to a corner” and “kept talking into his cellular phone.”
In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.
The imams’ attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security. Average folks, “John Does” like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams’ suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our “first responders” against terrorism. But the imams’ suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.
Ironically, on the day the imams filed their suit, a troubling internal memo came to light at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The memo revealed that our airport is at particular risk of terrorist attack because of its proximity to the Mall of America, its employment of relatively few security officers and other factors. The memo advised heightened vigilance to counter “this very real and deliberate threat.”
The imams may not be the only ones losing sleep and growing more afraid of flying.
Katherine Kersten • kkersten@startribune.com
New Hampshire , Welcome To The Nanny State 3 : Gun Control
Update: Since I first posted this, the gun control bill was defeated 5-0. This does not mean the issue will go away though. The way liberals work, they will keep proposing this while trying to change public opinion until they finally succeed. We must vote these people out of office before it’s too late!
I hope you New Hampshire Democrats are happy. We are going to get hit with so many taxes and laws you will think we are in Mass. A little hint to you ex Mass. and ex Vermont residents, when you migrate here you can’t vote for the same type of candidates you voted for in your old states. That’s why you left there in the first place. You wanted change, now you have to change the way you vote.
Now we have gun control legislation being debated, we are going to lose our independent way of living if you people don’t change your ways when you move to this state.
From wmur.com:
N.H. Lawmakers To Debate New Bill To Tighten Gun Permits
CONCORD, N.H. — A new plan proposed to tighten restrictions on all state gun permits drew fierce opposition from gun owners on Thursday.
Angry gun owners packed a Senate hearing room to register disapproval in the proposed gun permit crackdown.
“It’s fixing a problem we don’t have,” said one gun owner.
“If anyone thinks a terrorist will be dissuaded by a law it’s wrong,” said another gun owner.
They’re talking about a bill offered by state Sen. Peter Burling, D-Cornish, who said the current state police background check for gun licenses doesn’t protect residents from gang members and terrorists.
“If someone walked in and said, ‘I’m from al-Queda, and I’d like a permit,’ there is no legal way to deny a permit absent a felony,” said Burling.
Burling offered a bill to empower selectmen and local police to deny gun permits if they reasonably believe that a person is a terrorist or a member of a criminal group.
Burling said he offered the bill after a young person in Lebanon applied for and received a gun permit, even after admitting to being part of a criminal gang and having been arrested several times, though never convicted.
But critics said the bill offered no definition of a terrorist and gives local officials too much power over who gets gun permits.
“It’s a solution in search of a problem,” said Alan Rice of the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition. “There’s no evidence that terrorists and criminals can obtain use of firearms in the state of New Hampshire.”
Lawmakers agreed with gun owners, voting 5-0 to recommend killing the bill.
Burling offered an amendment to fashion the law after Vermont, which lists who is not allowed to get a gun permit.
That was also rejected.
A full Senate vote is expected next week.
Company To Start Offering Post-Abortion E-Greeting Cards
This is unbelievable. A company called Exhale is going to start to market sympathy e-cards for woman who have had abortions. Shouldn’t the aborted babies be the ones who the cards are sent to? They are the ones who need sympathy. These woman made a choice and they now have to live with it. If they are feeling down and depressed it’s because they know what they did was wrong and they feel guilty.
The card I really find unbelievable is this one- “Sympathy” reads: “There are no words to express my sympathy for your loss. As you grieve, remember that you are loved. I am thinking of you.” Your loss? Isn’t that a sentiment you send to someone who lost a loved one? How can an abortion be a loss if there is no life there?
Here is an article from cnsnews.com about the abortion e-cards:
‘May You Find Peace After Your Abortion’
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Managing Editor
March 15, 2007
(CNSNews.com) – Greeting card companies may not – yet – offer products to send to someone after an abortion, but a California-based organization that offers a “non-judgmental” talk line service for women in that position are hoping to fill the gap in the market.
“Do you know someone who’s had an abortion?” the group, Exhale, asks on its website. “Are you having trouble knowing what to say? Do you want to let them know you care? Send them an e-card.”
Electronic cards are the increasingly popular form of greeting card sent via the Internet. Rather than shop around for the perfect card, an Internet user simply selects a card, inserts a recipient’s email address, adds a personal message, and hits the “send” button. Read more…
