It has been an interesting week hasn’t it? The lefties have been holding their breaths until they are blue on the hope and prayer, wait they don’t pray, on the hope that they would get a perp walk out of Karl Rove. You can breath now looney left — didn’t happen; but I’m sure you will keep on trying. They got Martha in the end didn’t they?
Sister Toldjah’s has a great post on this. It pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole disgusting thing. What the loony left needs to remember is that the investigation started to learn who outed Valerie Plame aka Wilson as an undercover CIA agent. Problem is folks, at the time this all happened she wasn’t an undercover agent. She was just an agent. And as for this “classified” crap Fitzgerald muttered yesterday, I would think that most people at the CIA are classified and have a security clearance of some sort.
Mr. Fitzgerald used yesterday’s press conference to make a name for himself, ala Ronnie Earl. Like Rush has been saying for a long time now, if the left can’t at the Republicans honestly by winning elections, they will go after them and their supporters in Court.
I feel sorry for the loony left - really I do. Must be so hard to walk around with such a black, cold unfeeling heart all the time. To hate so much that you would do and say anything to win is so sick.
Now we are going to be subjected to their attacks, their twisting of the facts all in an attempt to bring down the Republicans, or more to the point, the President.
They can’t stand the fact their boy Clinton was impeached in the White House and want the same thing for Bush before he leaves office. Problem is Bush doesn’t cheat on his wife so they can’t get him there. They are now going after his people — doing all they can do to destroy a man.
This is all about hate people — pure out and out hate. The country will never heal as long as the loony left is allowed to put their hate into action.
October 30th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
“This is all about hate people — pure out and out hate. The country will never heal as long as the loony left is allowed to put their hate into action.”
You set an interesting example of the alternative of tolerance for differing opinion. Were the word “lefties” globally substituted with “righties” in this post, would you find yourself praising the writer for their non-hateful, tolerant, moderate, rhetoric?
Serious question.
October 30th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Evidenced by organizations like Moveon.Org …. and equivalent the right doesn’t have — what else can you expect? If the true democratic party does not want to be lumped in with the loonier portion of their party, then they need to come out against them. But their silence is acknowledgement.
October 30th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
Both “he hit me first” and “they made me do it” aren’t usually submitted by adults. Presumably you would object to a leftist defending his or her rhetoric by citing some rightwing organizations they object to and saying “what else can you expect?” You wouldn’t find that an adequate defense, and then say “oh, well, that’s okay, then, you’re right,” would you?
I don’t see that you clearly answered either “yes” or “no” to my query, which may be my own fault; should I assume your answer is not “no”? Because “what do you expect” certainly seems to imply to me that your answer is indeed “no,” but with a Justification. A justification you wouldn’t, I expect, allow your hypothetical interlocutor to get away with. But please clarify anything I’m getting wrong.
Thank you, however, for your courteous response.
Re “that the right doesn’t have,” I assume that from your perspective, Focus On The Family, and The Eagle Forum, and Concerned Women of America, for example, are completely incomparable to MoveOn.org (an organization, for what it’s worth, that I don’t believe in five years of blogging I’ve ever even mentioned, let alone praised or recommended, and yet, I’m more or less a Democrat [who votes for Republicans from time to time, and agrees with some Republican notions, but has also grown quite partisan against this Administration after a couple of years of giving them a chance]).
Of course, if you don’t feel there’s any parallel, I must point out that those who are enthusiastic MoveOn types would surely say the same thing: they’re the Good Guys, and not at all comparable to Focus On The Family, etc.
On the substance of this: “Problem is folks, at the time this all happened she wasn’t an undercover agent. She was just an agent. And as for this “classified” crap Fitzgerald muttered yesterday, I would think that most people at the CIA are classified and have a security clearance of some sort.”
People aren’t classified. Documents are classified, not people. People get security clearances. Neither of which is related to whether or not Valerie Plame worked for the Directorate of Operations, which she did, and the fact that she worked undercover, which she did. These are established facts, which are incontrovertible, if perhaps inconvenient to some theses.
I take it you feel that the U.S. Attorney is somehow being misleading in these flat statements of fact. Not much one can say to that.
October 31st, 2005 at 1:05 am
FYI: Plame’s haveing been undercover.
HTH.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:11 am
Gary,
Victoria Toensing, who wrote the law, said that Plame was not covered by the law because she was not posted overseas within the 5 years before Novak’s article. Also, Wilson was pretty liberal in spreading around that his wife worked for the CIA. Get your facts in order, then wallow in your liberal hate.
October 31st, 2005 at 10:36 am
I guess putting yourself and your husband’s picture in a nationally read magazine is really working toward keeping oneself “under cover”
October 31st, 2005 at 10:50 am
“Victoria Toensing, who wrote the law, said that Plame was not covered by the law because she was not posted overseas within the 5 years before Novak’s article. Also, Wilson was pretty liberal in spreading around that his wife worked for the CIA.”
And yet Patrick Fitzgerald disagrees. Who do you think is more familiar with the facts of the case? Whose opinion matters more, do you think?
“Get your facts in order, then wallow in your liberal hate.”
Thank you kindly for your loving advice. Can you point to something “hateful” I’ve said here, by the way? Because, as it turns out, I’m an individual, not a cardboard cutout for “liberals.” I’m fairly sure I’ve not insulted anyone here, or leapt to any conclusions about the belief-systems of people I don’t know; my sort of “liberal hate” involves, you know, not actually accusing people I don’t know of things I don’t know, nor actually, um, hating people I disagree with. How silly and childish that would be.
Incidentally, Here is an opinion from that bastion of “liberal hate,” NRO (Andy McCarthy, in this case):
Jerking knees possibly may not be the best approach to useful discussion. Assuming one is interested in useful discussion.
October 31st, 2005 at 11:05 am
“I guess putting yourself and your husband’s picture in a nationally read magazine is really working toward keeping oneself “under cover””
Well, yes, it certainly does put the country in danger. If any of our enemies have a time machine.
Jo, I don’t know you, and I assume strangers are intelligent and reasonable until proven otherwise. I’ll make another effort to assume you understand the fallacy you’ve just engaged in — it’s kinda obvious, isn’t it?
For instance, I think we can all rest easy that if we mention “Operation Overlord” now, we’re actually not “blowing the cover” of that operation. Because, you know, it’s already blown. At least, that’s my understanding.
It’s that whole “linear time” thing.