HomeMediaA question for those still outraged over the Plame leak… A question for those still outraged over the Plame leak… Jay Tea November 22, 2005 Media, Valerie Plame, War On Terror 16 Comments Why is is that the Plame case leads for demands that Karl Rove or other high officials “get frog-marched out of the White House,” but leaks like this one (or even this one) catch almost no outrage, let alone demands for serious investigations? 60 Minutes Newest "Expert" is Sinking Faster Than New Orleans Do you like mid-day quickies in the rain? Tags:media, on, plame, terror, valerie, WarRelated Posts The fate of hostages Rasmussen: 55% Say Media Bias Bigger Problem in Politics Than Big Contributions New York Times in Quagmire About The Author Jay Tea 16 Comments BlogDog November 22, 2005 Or the CIA facilities in other countries for that matter. I think the explanation is in Matt Cooper’s “this is a *good* leak” explanation. If it is bad for the current for the current administration, it’s a good leak. If it exposes an administration critic for a liar, it’s a “bad” leak and there should be trials. Newspeak lives! Mike November 22, 2005 Do we even have to ask these questions anymore?? Anything that can harm the Bush Administration is worth going after. All other leaks/investigations fall into the category of good journalism. bindare4u November 22, 2005 Everybody knows that these leaks originate from the CIA itself. My question is if these people lack the integrity to support the President to the extent that they actively try to undermine him, how can they be trusted not to betray their country also. Since their actions betray their character, shouldn’t they be purged from such sensitive positions in government. I don’t think it’s a huge step to go from betraying your boss to betraying your country. eLarson November 22, 2005 It goes to show that Big Media is still the undisputed king of “Noise Machines”. When they want to participate in the outrage, they can do it on the grandest scale possible. SCSIwuzzy November 22, 2005 bindare4u, The other possible source would be congress critters and senators that have access to briefings. kbiel November 22, 2005 Double plus ungood. Report to the reeducation center. JEW November 22, 2005 You forget SCSIwuzzy, the congress gets different information than the president.This was admitted to on Fox the other night when Bob Becknel who work for Clinton shouted that it was standard procedure for him to withhold intelegence. Therefore Bush must be doing the same thing. Outlaw_Wizard November 22, 2005 Jay Tea (et al), This is merely the lastes example that, for the Democrats, there is nothing more important than the Democratic Party. Not the National Security of the United States, not some semblance of a neutral and objective press, not the well being of our men and women in uniform overseas. There are no tactics out of bounds, no lies which may not pass their lips. Having sown the wind, let them now reap the whirlwind. Da_Wiz Les Nessman November 22, 2005 The world is the Web. The Dems/MSM are the trolls. Anyone who has spent any significant time debating the ‘outing’ of ‘undercover agent’ Plame has been own3d. SCSIwuzzy November 22, 2005 JEW, The point I was making that the leak could have come from congress or the senate, not just the CIA. It wouldn’t be the first time a congresscritter outed secret operations for political points David November 22, 2005 Off topic Anybody know a good left blog(if such a thing exists) I can go screw with that doesn’t have a registration like Whizbang. Thanks Chris November 22, 2005 “This is merely the lastes example that, for the Democrats, there is nothing more important than the Democratic Party.” I guess I missed it. Where exactly did they mention the Democrats in those articles? epador November 22, 2005 OK Chris, so sorry. I’ll apologize for Wizbang posts for mistakenly substituting “Democrats” for “extremist left wing moonbats,” a grievous error indeed. -S- November 23, 2005 JEW: and thus, as per your pathway of possibility, HILLARY CLINTON, having been integrally involved in the Executive, complete with all the pillow talk she was willing to put up with (if I perceive Hillary’s personality correctly, that is), she’d have “intimate” familliarity with a range of intelligence that only the Executive would/should/procedurally could have. Who knows who she shares with and has…but I do know that Matt Cooper’s wife was (is?) in relationship (to put it professionally here) with Hillary Clinton. Has anyone ever defined just what the employment status ever was/is of the “Administrative” “leaker” — the person allegedly from whom Woodward received his “leak” information about Plame who is described as being affiliated/with the “Administration.” Could be someone with the Clinton Administration, unless otherwise more specifically identified, in keeping with the range of possibilities. And, to repeat this important point again, Plame — as per the investigation — was of covert status BUT she was NOT of covert status to be covered by any laws requiring punishment, naming violations, given her type and description of employment. Which means no law was broken by referring to her status. It’s just an issue for Joe Wilson to bang his boney voo-doo doll again and again about Rove and yelp on behalf of Kerry’s Konspiracy Krypt. -S- November 23, 2005 As in, nothing “happened” in the definition of the law describing what violations occur when who is named as to what type of employment status and for what calendar dates employed existed. -S- November 23, 2005 Chris: take a very big guess as to which political party Matt Cooper (AND his wife, ‘former’ aid/associate of Hillary Clinton) is affiliated with. And which political party Joe Wilson (and I’m assuming also his wife) is/are affiliated with? And John Kerry? And media owned and invested in by those affiated, co-inspired, mutually itended? If you know of another political party other than the DNC, please advise, because I’d like to know what it’s called.