Powered by WebAds

Friday, July 22, 2005

Mi Amar El Mi?

(Who said the following to who?)
At the threshold, an agent whose identity has been revealed must truly be "covert" for there to be a violation of the Act. To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent. ... She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active, at Langley. She had been residing in Washington -- not stationed abroad for a number of years. ... [T]he CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name.
What's your guess? Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Scotty? The NY Sun?
No, no, no and no.

The correct answer is....ABC, CNN, CBS, Fox, NBC, Reuters, AP, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, the Tribune Company, the Washington Post, and many, many, more news providers. These statements were made as part of an amicus curiae brief that was filed to appeal the grand jury subpeonas of Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller. More choice tidbits from the brief:
There is ample evidence on the public record to cast considerable doubt that a crime has been committed...
and
Congress intended only to criminalize only disclosures that "clearly represent a conscious and pernicious effort to identify and expose agents with the intent to impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States..."
Now, please don't mistake my position on this. If Rove is guilty of a crime, I'm all for Bush following through on his threat to fire whoever might have been responsible for that crime. But get your story straight, people! Was there a crime committed, or not? If not, why the breathless reporting style? A little consistency, please!

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just because their lawyers filed a brief saying there is no crime doesn't mean that is true. They could be wrong. I trust the way the evidence is pointing, and it seems to point to Rove being guilty.

12:13 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

Sigh.
I don't disagree. There may well be a crime here. But what I am attacking as objectionable in this particular rant of mine, is the fact that the news organizations are so quick to change their tune when no longer protecting their own. Wouldn't you be surprised to see the words from the brief published on the editorial page of the NY Times tomorrow? Well so would I. Three words for you:
Not. Gonna. Happen.

12:18 PM  
Blogger AMSHINOVER said...

you want A little consistency.take fiber,don't watch the news

12:53 PM  
Blogger orthomom said...

LOL

12:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home