Tuesday, April 25, 2006

For Love & Money & Loyalty

From Mind in the Qatar via Jim at Gateway Pundit

Well there ARE a lot of lines there, aren't there.

The Mary McCarthy Story -- Andrew McCarthy's view

The Corner on National Review Online

I substantially agree with Jonah’s point that the extraordinary amount of money at issue here is relevant but not dispositive when it comes to divining Mary McCarthy’s motives. But I do think it’s highly relevant – not just another fact in a firmament of facts.

That’s because McCarthy’s situation cannot be considered in a vacuum. Even with McCarthy considered alone, we are not talking about a single leak – the reporting indicates that she may be a serial leaker, the black-sites story being only the most prominent instance. But the broader context here is an intelligence community that was, quite brazenly, leaking in a manner designed to topple a sitting president. A big question here -- maybe not for purposes of guilt under the espionage act, but for the more important policy issue of a politicized CIA -- is whether she was part of a campaign that was grossly inappropriate for the intelligence community to engage in.

Remember Michael Scheuer, aka “Anonymous.” It is simply dumbfounding that, as an intelligence officer heading up the bin Laden team (i.e., the unit targeting the number one, active national security problem facing the country) he was permitted by the CIA to write books about what he was doing. He has indicated, though, that it was fine with the agency as long as he was slamming the Bush administration.

Valerie Plame Wilson thought the whole Bush administration notion that Saddam was trying to arm up with nukes was crazy. She maneuvered to have, not an objective analyst, but her husband – with no WMD expertise but an enemy of the president’s policy – sent to Niger, whence he returned and wrote a highly partisan, misleading and damaging op-ed in the NYTimes about the Bush administration’s case for toppling Saddam … which op-ed he was permitted by the self-same CIA to write notwithstanding that his trip was (and should have been) classified.

All the while, there has been a steady drumbeat from the former intelligence officers – who anonymously fill Seymour Hersh books when they are not venting their spleens on the record – attacking every aspect of the administration’s handling of the war on terror.

This has all been steady since 9/11. But it was especially frenetic in the run-up to the 2004 election (and the flavor of it ran throughout the 9/11 Commission hearings and, to a somewhat more muted extent, in the Commission’s final report). The transparent purpose of it was to get Senator Kerry elected.

Now we find that an intelligence officer who was leaking information very damaging to Bush was a Kerry backer to a degree that was extraordinary for a single person on a government salary, and, even more extraordinarily, gave $5K of her own money to Democrats in the key swing state (Ohio) that, in the end, did actually decide the election.

From where I sit, that’s pretty damn relevant.
Yes, it is relevant. The blogosphere is all atwitter at McCarthy's firing. Righties saying traitor, lefties saying whistle blower. Mongo is saying okay, let's have a TRIAL. Then we will hear the facts. Oh by the way McCarthy already has a lawyer out spinning her dismissal.

There is also some interesting talk that Sens Rockefeller and Turdbin might be involved. Juicy!

Here's to another Dan Rather decapitation... Viva La Revolucion!!!

Oh, Mary, you just might want to look up the name Rosenberg for some historical reference...

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

The Immigration Protests


The protestors were holding signs which said
Today we march. Tomorrow we vote! And don't the Democrats know it! Why do you think Ted Kennedy and Hillary were in full pandering mode yesterday? Remember, there are movements in areas of Hispanic population concentration for giving non-citizens the vote in local elections. In New York City there are calls for allowing illegal aliens to vote. After the next amnesty agreement the pressure will be on to get these Hispanics, citizens and non-citizens, to the polls.
Good point. I personally have no problem with ANYONE immigrating to our Nation. Just do it legally. But show up to the polls to vote as a non-citizen?

Legend has it that Lyndon Johnson was elected to his first term in Congress by two dozen dead mexicans, so I guess the Democrats have some precedent for their dispicable actions. Oh, they might be surprised with the Hispanic community, though. Many of the immigrants have religious values and other thoughts which might go against the secular progressives...

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Why were guns taken from law-abiding citizens in New Orleans?

John Lott
Last September 8, a little more than a week after the hurricane, New Orleans’ police superintendent, Eddie Compass announced: “No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.” Even legally registered firearms were seized, though exceptions were made for select businesses and for some wealthy individuals to hire guards.

After five months of denial in federal district court, the city last week made an embarrassing admission: in the aftermath of the hurricane, the severely overworked police apparently had the time to confiscate thousands of guns from law-abiding citizens.
If you have any delusions of the police or others from government protecting you and your family, try googling the "DeShaney" decision where the Supreme Court decision in DeShaney states that "Law enforcement has no affirmative obligation to act..." in the defense of an individual citizen. It is your personal responsibility to protect yourself and family.