SOS a new disease in American politics
There is a new disease out there in American politics called Selective Outrage Syndrome (SOS). We had years of investigation and countless front page articles on the "leak" of Valerie Plame's name. However, I have seen no such outrage over the leak on eavesdropping.
In fact not only is this a serious breach of national security, the New York Times has seriously sold what soul it had left to time the story with the release of a book after having sat on the information for months.
Instead of Democrats calling for an investigation on the leak of national security classified information, they are calling for an investigation into the eavesdropping. That is a fair topic of debate, but the Dems and their water carrying media are bleeding credibility here by not exhibiting outrage over the leak.
Then there is Arlen Specter who can't keep from embarrassing himself. The MSNBC article states:
In fact not only is this a serious breach of national security, the New York Times has seriously sold what soul it had left to time the story with the release of a book after having sat on the information for months.
Instead of Democrats calling for an investigation on the leak of national security classified information, they are calling for an investigation into the eavesdropping. That is a fair topic of debate, but the Dems and their water carrying media are bleeding credibility here by not exhibiting outrage over the leak.
Then there is Arlen Specter who can't keep from embarrassing himself. The MSNBC article states:
"Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has promised hearings next year and said he would ask Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, his views of the president’s authority for spying without a warrant."How many times does it need to be repeated. A SCOTUS nominee should not be commenting on issues where cases are likely to come before his court if confirmed.
posted by All_I_Can_Stands @ 8:47 AM
8 Comments:
At 12:44 PM,
Anonymous said…
Valerie Plame. She committed no crime. Her name and that of her cover company was leaked. The leak is under investigation.
NSA wiretapping. That is illegal without a warrant, either Title 3 or FISA. A crime was committed, and that will be investigated. The leak that led to the exposure of this crime will be investigated as well.
Asking Alito about his opinion on legal issues is part of the confirmation process. By the time the question is asked, I'm sure it will be well vetted.
At 9:32 PM,
Anonymous said…
Wild eyed liberal Bob Barr had this to add to limp wristed Specter's comments:
"What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order."
At 11:54 AM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
Anon, so you subscribe to the "bad leak/good leak" belief.
Sorry, the illegality of the wiretapping has been debunked. Amazing how you libs are so quick to state a crime has been committed when it is a GOP being accused.
"The leak that led to the exposure of this crime will be investigated as well."
Boy I can feel the outrage. Not.
"Asking Alito about his opinion on legal issues is part of the confirmation process."
Yes, asking is part of the confirmation process, knowing full well that the other part of the confirmation process is the response not to comment on specific issues for cases that may come before his court if confirmed.
I will somewhat agree with you on the "wild eyed" part about Bob Barr. He has been a bit off his game since leaving Congress.
At 1:38 AM,
Anonymous said…
"Sorry, the illegality of the wiretapping has been debunked."
No it hasn't.
At 10:02 AM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
To the hard core lib who's sole fantasy is to see Bush impeached and does not want truth to get in the way of things: no it has not been debunked for them. For the rest of the thinking world it has.
Besides the burden of proof is on others to show all three of the following before we can even begin to discuss impeachment:
- it was illegal
- it was without precedent
- it was outside presidential powers
At 12:52 PM,
Anonymous said…
Dream on.
At 4:20 PM,
Anonymous said…
Thomas H. Kean, a Republican who was chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, weighed in for the first time in the debate. Mr. Kean said he counted himself among those who doubted the legality of the program. He said in an interview that the administration did not inform his commission about the program and that he wished it had.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress passed in 1978 after widespread abuses by intelligence agencies, created a system for court-ordered wiretaps for terrorism and espionage suspects. That system "gives very broad powers to the president and, except in very rare circumstances, in my view ought to be used," Mr. Kean said.
"We live by a system of checks and balances," he said. "And I think we ought to continue to live by a system of checks and balances."
NY Times, Jan 7, 2006
Welcome to "the rest of the thinking world."
At 5:40 PM,
All_I_Can_Stands said…
The Sept. 11 commission was a partisan circus. It does not surprise me that Bush did not notify them of this. Kean is entitled to "doubt" all he wants. Let's hear his explanation why he "knows" it is illegal.
Kean showed during his term as head of the commission that he is weak and could not stand up to the Dems on the committee. He had no stomach to confront the facts of the Goralick wall and how seriously that hampered anything that could have prevented 9/11.
He refused to push entering the tape into evidence where Clinton was offered Bin Laden and did not take advantage of it because it was a "hot potato".
So, congratulations you found a Republican that agrees with you. To me Kean has not shown a lot that passes for the "thinking world" and has been quite a disappointment.
Post a Comment
<< Home