Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (692046)	7/14/2005 9:57:46 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Why I Don’t Buy The Democrats’ Recent Concern About The National Security Implications Of The Plame Matter -- Lorie Byrd PoliPundit.com Perhaps it would be easier for me to believe Democrats, and those in the media like David Gregory and Terry Moran, when they get all worked up about the national security implications of the Valerie Plame matter, if their concerns were not so recently born. I challenge anyone out there who wants to take the time to do the research, to find similar statements of outrage and concern from Democrats about the following: 1. Senator Patrick Leahy’s history of leaking. Shouldn’t Senator Leahy’s history, which includes charges that he revealed classified information during the Achille Lauro terrorist incident, and that he leaked a draft report on the Iran-contra affair, which resulted in his resignation from the intelligence committee, be of great concern to security conscious Democrats? Shouldn’t that history prevent him from serving in his current positions on Senate committees? Have any Democrats ever called for him to resign, or, at the very least, to no longer be allowed access to classified information? 2. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s theft of documents. When Sandy Berger removed classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks from the archives by stuffing them into his pants, some never to be recovered, I don’t recall Democrats being terribly concerned. Let me repeat that – this was the former NSA stuffing classified documents into his pants. Excuse me for raising my computer voice, but I take this one a bit personally, so let that scenario sink in a bit. What was Bill Clinton’s reaction? Clinton told the Denver Post he has known about the federal probe of Berger's actions for several months, calling this week's news a "non-story.".... "We were all laughing about it on the way over here," Clinton said of the publicity. "People who don't know him might find it hard to believe, but ... all of us who've been in his office have always found him buried beneath papers." Think about it. Those were classified documents that were known of, and that were under the control of the federal government, and were being monitored. I can’t help but wonder what may have become of some of the documents that never made it to the archives. Where was the outrage from the national security conscious Democrats and media? 3. Eight years of the Clinton White House. Where to begin? When Gary Aldrich warned the public in his book Unlimited Access, that there were many in the Clinton White House working without security clearances, did Democrats say, “We love you, Bill, but national security is important and your people need to be checked out” or did they attack Aldrich? When (in the words of one columnist) “Chinese arms and drug dealers and members of the People’s Liberation Army enjoyed regular access to the White House,” where were these outraged, security conscious Democrats? When Bill Clinton gave a young intern enough blackmail ammunition (through hours of phone sex and cigar handling) to sell to any enemy of the U.S. for enough money to let her live like a queen for life, did we hear any concern for the national security implications? Forget that this creepy guy who thought he was Elvis reincarnated liked doing a girl not much older than his daughter, which is the way far too many Republicans saw the situation. Bill Clinton gave a young woman he attempted to have painted as an unstable stalker the opportunity to tape hours of him on the phone talking about things I don’t even want to imagine. There are reasons that those in the White House undergo security clearances. It is a security risk to have those in high office hiding secrets that make them vulnerable to blackmail. Did any Democrats voice any concern over that aspect of the Monica saga? None that I am aware of. Unfortunately, very few Republicans did either. For the record, I was one of those few. If anyone can show me evidence that the Democrat leaders that have been calling for Karl Rove’s head on a platter this week, voiced concern over the national security implications of the above matters, maybe I will find their sincerity on the subject easier to swallow. polipundit.com nationalreview.com polipundit.com washingtontimes.com jewishworldreview.com polipundit.com

To: JBTFD who wrote (692046)	7/15/2005 6:59:00 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

SEN. SCHUMER'S 'OUTRAGE' NEW YORK POST opinion/editorial July 15, 2005 Need more proof that the wolves nipping at Karl Rove's heels are basically out- for-blood Democrats? Joseph Wilson, the widely discredited, Bush-bashing former CIA consultant whose wife was "outed" as an agency employee, yesterday demanded that Rove's security clearance immediately be lifted. And he did so standing shoulder-to-shoulder with New York's senior senator, Chuck Schumer — head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, whose chief responsibility is to elect more Democrats to the Senate. And the DSCC's Web site is flogging an online petition demanding that the White House "stop the Karl Rove coverup" — and, by the way, soliciting: "Help to build the critical financial resources so we can help our candidates and achieve a Democratic Senate majority." What's ironic about this sudden sense of moral outrage is that congressional Democrats — including then-Rep. Chuck Schumer — fought hard back in 1982 to defeat the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which was enacted at President Ronald Reagan's insistence after rogue CIA agent Philip Agee publicly named covert agents and agency sources abroad. Sen. Joe Biden — who now is demanding Rove's removal over a "national security breach" — warned back then that the bill would "harm, not help, our national security." And The New York Times demanded that the courts "wipe the law from the books." Now, hoping to score a major hit on the president, they're singing an entirely different tune. Hypocrisy as usual. One question, though: How does Schumer keep a straight face? nypost.com