It’s clear to me
Published by Mike Stark April 25th, 2006 in Rush LimbaughTalked to Rush today. He was railing about how Ms. McCarthy is being treated as a hero by the press for illegally leaking classified information, while Scooter Libby and the President are slammed by the press for legally “sharing” information that exposed a liar.
Heh.
First of all, I’m troubled that Joe Wilson is being smeared as a liar. Because of a coupla ass-covering reports done in the Senate, the conventional wisdom has turned against Wilson. It truly is Orwellian. A partisan smear, under cover of a Senate report, is now used as the foundation for so much of what passes as journalism. As we saw just a week or so ago, even the Washington Post’s editorial board joined the pile-on.
Anyway, Rush never did dispute my main contention in this call - because it is indisputable:
Intelligence professionals looked at some information, decided its release could hurt national security and classified it as SECRET. The President got in some political hot water, ran roughshod over the judgment of his professional intelligence staff and played politics with our national security by selectively declassifying certain information that benefited him politically.
Also, I left the next caller on the end of this clip because she asked an extraordinary question regarding Ms. McCarthy: If what she leaked was false, why fire her? Her firing can therefore be taken as further evidence that the CIA is running an archipegalo of secret torture camps across Eastern Europe.
Finally, I thnk it is interesting to note that Ms. McCarthy vigorously denies that she was Dana Priests’ source. It’s beginning to look more and more like there is a political purge going on - all career public officials that haven’t shown fealty to the neocon agenda will be harassed out of their jobs or terminated outright. That should scare you.
13 Responses to “It’s clear to me”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Good grief - what a fucking whackjob he is. His response was so full of holes, I would think even the staunchest ditto-heads would see through it (yeah right!).
Your “cheating on your wife” analogy was brilliant - and he was scared to death to go there, as he knew the logical path would lead back to the inconsistent way the repugs went after Clinton!
The “Cheating on your wife” analogy was also brilliant considering the number of times Rush has been divorced. I love how he lies about these government reports. Do a search on the 9/11 report for “Wilson” or “Niger”. There is nothing even discussed about Iraq trying to buy yellowcake uranium in the 9/11 Commission report. There is in the Robb-Silverman report, but in reading that, there is nothing that says Wilson’s findings support the Bush administrations claims. Also, the Robb-Silverman report and the Iraq Survey Group WMD report are clear in saying that the reports do not attempt to address the issue of how the administration used (or misused) intelligence information. So, saying that these Senate reports clear the administration of wrong-doing is dishonest.
Isn’t it great that Rush’s Freudian slip came thorough? Rush said that Libby was only following orders to get the story out to counteract the lie concocted by Wilson and his wife about SOMETHING THAT THE BUSH ADMINSITRATION WAS LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT.
Also, see how Rush dredges up the “criminalization of politics.”
What a douchebag.
ive debated conservatives a little about this issue, and i still dont understand, what did joe wilson lie about? of course, even if he had lied its still no reason to ruin the career of his wife. i think what they are alledging is that wilson said cheney asked him to go to niger, which wilson never said (wilson said that cheney’s office asked the cia, which then asked him, which is true), but even if wilson had said that, why would you need to out valerie wilson to rebut it? couldnt you just say “cheney denies he asked wilson to go to niger”?
it must be frustrating to debate someone when they have all the power, but you clearly have all the facts. it seems the best they can do is deflect it into a more minor issue (like whether or not cheating on your spouse is a crime, which i doubt it is), or otherwise obfuscate. i would guess thats unavoidable.
also, corinthfrog, i believe it is spelled silberman
Mike said:
“Anyway, Rush never did dispute my main contention in this call - because it is indisputable:
Intelligence professionals looked at some information, decided its release could hurt national security and classified it as SECRET. The President got in some political hot water, ran roughshod over the judgment of his professional intelligence staff and played politics with our national security by selectively declassifying certain information that benefited him politically.”
Ok great. Where’s your proof, your evidence of this contention? I mean in law school and the legal profession, you are required to actually go out and find hard evidence for your contentions. You are not allowed for example to say: “Because I don’t personally like the defendant and think he is mean, dirty looking, and stupid therefore he is guilty.”
Again, I just do NOT understand how your mind works. You constantly make all these contentions, with no back up. And thats fine for talk radio but if you think you will even survive the first semester of law school by applying this same sort of thought process, you are kidding yourself.
Chuck - ya know what? I never saw that donation come through… Do you have a job?
Anyway, do your own friggin research. This info isn’t that hard to find… in fact, it’d by now be considered common knowledge…
Chuck - how about posting proof of YOUR claim? Oh yeah, that’s right…it DOESN’T EXIST. bwaaahaaahaa
Wasn’t she supposed to retire in a few weeks anyway? If true, that kinda deflates the purging theory (which did scare me before I remembered her retiring).
chuck, i believe the claim is based on what scooter libby has said
Mike said “Well it’s legal to cheat on your wife but you wouldn’t do it right? Because its wrong”
Well from a 2003 Wash. Post story…
“According to a report in the Washington Post, a man in Luray, Virginia recently pled guilty to adultery, a crime for which the maximum penalty is a $250 fine. Ironically, it wasn’t his wife who complained; it was apparently his lover. (He reportedly has reconciled with his wife.)
This case is a potent reminder–particularly for the man charged–that adultery is in fact a crime in more than twenty states. Though the laws are seldom enforced, their existence still affects the way people behave.”
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20031216.html
HEY guess what? Mike is wrong, once again. Mike who says he wants to go to law school, doesn’t know the law. What a surprise! And if he didn’t know the law he also didn’t bother to look it up before making what he thought was a smart aleck example to Rush. Yet another blow to whatever credibility Mike thinks he has. GONE.
chuck, you douchebag -
Law school teaches one how to “think like a lawyer”, along with the basics of common law, and how to research the applicable law and legal precedents in a particular jurisdiction.
If a law student (or, god forbid, even a lawyer) cited your little piss-ant obscure blurb as a rule of law, they would be laughed out of class and/or disbarred for incompetence.
So, return to your basement to masturbate to your mother’s most recent underwear catalog until she tells you it’s time for dinner…bwaahahhaaawaaa!!!
cosmo said, “Law school teaches one how to “think like a lawyer”, along with the basics of common law, and how to research the applicable law and legal precedents in a particular jurisdiction.”
You proved my point. Thank you.
Mike didn’t do any research before he opened his mouth, which is his usual MO. If he had, he would have realized adultery laws are still on the books in over 20 states and therefore his little example to Rush is null and void.
wow chuck, when i criticized rush’s debate tactics by saying, “it seems the best they can do is deflect it into a more minor issue (like whether or not cheating on your spouse is a crime, which i doubt it is), or otherwise obfuscate.” i wasnt offering advice. who the fuck cares if its a crime? that s not the issue. you already spoke on the issue, found you were completely wrong, and so deflected it onto a much more minor issue.
i guess if conservatives have to learn how to propagandize from somewhere, rush is as good as any.