Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:
From Codrea's War on Guns:
*'Give Me Back My Property'--from Len Savage to gun-grabber Sullivan at the ATF. This is today's MUST-read!
*'Grand Opening of the New Red's Trading Post'--Ryan has a new URL for Red's website as well.
*'Of Course You Realize This Means War'--the slippery slope of the Fairness Doctrine could end squarely with bloggers being forced to grant 'equal time.'
*'Stalled in Lake County' --it seems nobody had the guts to pick up the ball and run with a pro-2nd Amendment resolution in this Illinois county.
Armed and Safe says it's time for McCain to do some serious fence-mending with gun-rights folk.
Nicki at The Liberty Zone makes an important distinction on the subject of discrimination.
The hideous practice of law enforcement officials seeking to identify anonymous online posters who are critical of their practices has spread from Memphis to Oklahoma. This time, however, the culprit is the District Attorney! Mike McCarville has the complete story.
Roberta X makes an important point about caliber wars. I don't disagree with her point at all. It's just that I prefer larger caliber handguns over the others.
Gun Nuts posts last night's show and comments on the subject matter--Action Airgun. Go and give it a listen in case you missed last night's 'Gun Nuts--The Next Generation' featuring Ahab and Squeaks.
21 Guns Salute points to some good insight for those who carry and are faced with dangerous situations.
Dark Blog comments on the police-state notion of presumed guilt just because you own a gun.
Sebastian has vital reading on how an Obama Presidency would shut down shooting ranges.
Robb Allen flips the bird at Barack Obama. Now I can really get into that one!
Speaking of Obama, Say Uncle exposes some rather deceptive 'endorsements' of Barack, with the exception of the Communist Party, which has thrown its support behind the candidate.
Alphecca highlights some rather disgusting and downright infuriating statements in the Democrats' 2008 Party platform.
Texas Fred has the scoop on a Border Patrol agent who wounded a Mexican near the border. Be sure to read Fred's commentary on the story. Now, I like that!
The Smallest Minority has Wednesday's Quote of the Day.
Western Rifle Shooters Association posts Mike Vanderboegh's latest chapter of his upcoming novella.
Gateway Pundit reports that Valerie Plame's case against several Bush Administration officials has been tossed out of court.
Gun Pundit has a story that shows what simply showing a .357 mag can do.
The Volokh Conspiracy posts an interesting read on the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment and an update and commentary on the Appellate Court decision on the Fincher case.
Showing posts with label Valerie Plame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Valerie Plame. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Valerie Plame Back in the News
Valerie Plame, the CIA operative who claims she was 'outed' by Bush Administration officials in retaliation against her husband, Joe Wilson, is back in the news. This time she claims her 'covert' work involved gathering information on Iran's nuclear program.
Immediately both the mainstream media and the Left are placed in a precarious situation by the claim.
Supposedly Iran had no such program. Conventional wisdom, as relayed by the mouthpieces of the mainstream media, always cast doubt on the suggestion that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons program.
One can safely assume that the reason for such well-placed doubt was the suspicion that Bush Administration officials were using such claims as justification for attacking Iran. Thus, any slight hint that Iran either had nukes or was intending to develop such weapons had to be dismissed.
For example, as recently as June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Iran was absolutely no threat to the U.S. or the world, and that there was no credible evidence that Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group in Iran was sending insurgents into Iraq.
And this leads us to the following question. Where did the materials for Iran's nuclear program come from?
We know that loosely connected terrorist organizations and rogue nations have a vested interest in Iranian nukes.
The bottom line is that if what Plame is saying is true, then the preconceived notions concerning Iran on the part of the mainstream media and the Left have been totally wrong.
The other alternative is the possibility that Plame is making the whole thing up. While this alternative is highly unlikely, such a possibility raises the stakes in the charges made against Scooter Libby. If Plame is no more trustworthy a witness than to fabricate or exaggerate her work with the CIA, then how can she be believed when giving testimony concerning her supposed 'outing' by the Bush Administration?
Her credibility at that point goes out the window.
Yet we already know there is at least some credibility to Plame's claims. We know that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons, and we have a good idea who is helping them do it. But we knew this anyway, without any information provided by Plame.
The problem is we cannot know for sure if Plame is being totally candid concerning the role she played, if any, in the Iranian nuke intelligence gathering process. But we do know enough to totally debunk the Left's contention that Iran is no serious threat.
Immediately both the mainstream media and the Left are placed in a precarious situation by the claim.
Supposedly Iran had no such program. Conventional wisdom, as relayed by the mouthpieces of the mainstream media, always cast doubt on the suggestion that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons program.
One can safely assume that the reason for such well-placed doubt was the suspicion that Bush Administration officials were using such claims as justification for attacking Iran. Thus, any slight hint that Iran either had nukes or was intending to develop such weapons had to be dismissed.
For example, as recently as June, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that Iran was absolutely no threat to the U.S. or the world, and that there was no credible evidence that Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group in Iran was sending insurgents into Iraq.
And this leads us to the following question. Where did the materials for Iran's nuclear program come from?
We know that loosely connected terrorist organizations and rogue nations have a vested interest in Iranian nukes.
The bottom line is that if what Plame is saying is true, then the preconceived notions concerning Iran on the part of the mainstream media and the Left have been totally wrong.
The other alternative is the possibility that Plame is making the whole thing up. While this alternative is highly unlikely, such a possibility raises the stakes in the charges made against Scooter Libby. If Plame is no more trustworthy a witness than to fabricate or exaggerate her work with the CIA, then how can she be believed when giving testimony concerning her supposed 'outing' by the Bush Administration?
Her credibility at that point goes out the window.
Yet we already know there is at least some credibility to Plame's claims. We know that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons, and we have a good idea who is helping them do it. But we knew this anyway, without any information provided by Plame.
The problem is we cannot know for sure if Plame is being totally candid concerning the role she played, if any, in the Iranian nuke intelligence gathering process. But we do know enough to totally debunk the Left's contention that Iran is no serious threat.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Bill Clinton Avoided Jail, Why Not Scooter Libby?
Washington, DC (TLS). President Bush late Monday did the right thing and commuted the sentence of the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby.
Libby had been sentenced to a jail term of two and a half years after a jury found him guilty of perjury and obstruction in the investigation of the leak of the identity of former covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.
U.S. Prosecuting Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald never charged anyone with a crime in 'outing' Plame.
The charges against Libby had nothing to do with the original 'crime' but were connected to the after-the-fact activity that ensued during the ongoing investigation of the 'crime' of disclosing Plame's identity--which was already known by everyone in the Beltway to begin with.
This sham of an investigation is one that never should have been launched in the first place. It was entirely political and aimed at Vice President Dick Cheney.
The sentence of Scooter Libby was just one more example of a political witch-hunt and the search of a scapegoat. After all, former President Bill Clinton lied to a GRAND jury. He was impeached by the Congress. Yet he never faced jail time. He never received a fine or faced any consequences of his actions other than being disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar.
If Bill Clinton avoided jail, why not Scooter Libby?
Not surprisingly, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama stated that, 'This is the kind of politics we want to avoid in Washington.'
You mean, like, a Congress that is full of Democrats who are corrupt, such as William Jefferson, Dianne Feinstein, John Conyers, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Keith Ellison, Patrick Leahy, oh, and, uhhh, HILLARY CLINTON, just to name a few?
Until your cronies in the Congress clean house, Senator, you have very little moral and ethical authority to stand on in lashing out at the President's actions in commuting the sentence of a man who did nothing more than BILL CLINTON did in court.
And by the way, Hillary Clinton weighed in on Bush's action today, condemning the commuting of the sentence. This is in spite of the convicted felons her own husband pardoned precisely because of their close relationship to the Clintons.
Thus, Hillary's words can be dismissed outright for the hypocrisy on display.
The fact that B. Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton are part of the most corrupt, inept, and unpopular Congress in history should be ample evidence that their opinions about the matter should be dismissed along with the rest of the imbeciles who run the place.
As for Scooter Libby, we all can be grateful that he will not have to endure a politically-motivated sentence that was the result of a witch-hunt.
Libby had been sentenced to a jail term of two and a half years after a jury found him guilty of perjury and obstruction in the investigation of the leak of the identity of former covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.
U.S. Prosecuting Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald never charged anyone with a crime in 'outing' Plame.
The charges against Libby had nothing to do with the original 'crime' but were connected to the after-the-fact activity that ensued during the ongoing investigation of the 'crime' of disclosing Plame's identity--which was already known by everyone in the Beltway to begin with.
This sham of an investigation is one that never should have been launched in the first place. It was entirely political and aimed at Vice President Dick Cheney.
The sentence of Scooter Libby was just one more example of a political witch-hunt and the search of a scapegoat. After all, former President Bill Clinton lied to a GRAND jury. He was impeached by the Congress. Yet he never faced jail time. He never received a fine or faced any consequences of his actions other than being disbarred by the Arkansas State Bar.
If Bill Clinton avoided jail, why not Scooter Libby?
Not surprisingly, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama stated that, 'This is the kind of politics we want to avoid in Washington.'
You mean, like, a Congress that is full of Democrats who are corrupt, such as William Jefferson, Dianne Feinstein, John Conyers, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Keith Ellison, Patrick Leahy, oh, and, uhhh, HILLARY CLINTON, just to name a few?
Until your cronies in the Congress clean house, Senator, you have very little moral and ethical authority to stand on in lashing out at the President's actions in commuting the sentence of a man who did nothing more than BILL CLINTON did in court.
And by the way, Hillary Clinton weighed in on Bush's action today, condemning the commuting of the sentence. This is in spite of the convicted felons her own husband pardoned precisely because of their close relationship to the Clintons.
Thus, Hillary's words can be dismissed outright for the hypocrisy on display.
The fact that B. Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton are part of the most corrupt, inept, and unpopular Congress in history should be ample evidence that their opinions about the matter should be dismissed along with the rest of the imbeciles who run the place.
As for Scooter Libby, we all can be grateful that he will not have to endure a politically-motivated sentence that was the result of a witch-hunt.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
JUDGE GOES NEANDERTHAL AT LIBBY SENTENCING
Washington, DC (TLS). First, Scooter Libby committed no crime whatsoever. If you can prove me wrong, have at it. But it simply isn't there. The perpetrator in the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage. Yet Armitage was never prosecuted.
Why?
Because this is a political trial and imprisonment, pure and simple. The prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, should face charges by the BAR for prosecutorial misconduct in pursuing a trial against an innocent man.
Second, Valerie Plame's claims are contradictory, confusing, and filled with misinformation. Everyone in town knew who she was and who she worked for. Neither Libby nor Armitage committed a crime because she was not actively engaged in any covert activity for the CIA when Armitage let the cat out of the bag.
This is why Armitage was never charged. So then, why was Libby?
Third, the Judge who handed down this shockingly severe sentence for something that is not even a crime went neanderthal in court today by giving Libby two-and-a-half years in jail. Perhaps the Judge should face criminal charges. I am sure it is against the law to sentence someone to prison for something that is not even a crime.
They say, 'Well, Libby lied.' So? PRESIDENT Bill Clinton lied under oath and never went to jail.
As long as that one fact remains in the annals of American jurisprudence, give me one good reason why I or any other American should give a damn about Libby lying.
The simple fact is that this entire trial was a charade from start to finish--a sham designed for political gain. Scooter Libby was nifonged every bit as thoroughly as the Duke lacrosse students in Durham. But they finally got justice. Who is going to get justice for Scooter Libby?
Why?
Because this is a political trial and imprisonment, pure and simple. The prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, should face charges by the BAR for prosecutorial misconduct in pursuing a trial against an innocent man.
Second, Valerie Plame's claims are contradictory, confusing, and filled with misinformation. Everyone in town knew who she was and who she worked for. Neither Libby nor Armitage committed a crime because she was not actively engaged in any covert activity for the CIA when Armitage let the cat out of the bag.
This is why Armitage was never charged. So then, why was Libby?
Third, the Judge who handed down this shockingly severe sentence for something that is not even a crime went neanderthal in court today by giving Libby two-and-a-half years in jail. Perhaps the Judge should face criminal charges. I am sure it is against the law to sentence someone to prison for something that is not even a crime.
They say, 'Well, Libby lied.' So? PRESIDENT Bill Clinton lied under oath and never went to jail.
As long as that one fact remains in the annals of American jurisprudence, give me one good reason why I or any other American should give a damn about Libby lying.
The simple fact is that this entire trial was a charade from start to finish--a sham designed for political gain. Scooter Libby was nifonged every bit as thoroughly as the Duke lacrosse students in Durham. But they finally got justice. Who is going to get justice for Scooter Libby?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Valerie Plame's Sour Grapes
Charlotte, NC (TLS). In a melodramatic display suitable for a daytime Oscar, Congressional Democrats staged quite a show on Friday as they provided Valerie Plame with a platform from which to exhibit a bad case of sour grapes. Plame essentially accused everyone in the Bush Administration of deliberately blowing her 'cover,' accusing officials of 'outing' her in retaliation for her husband's opposition to the Iraq War.
The obvious problem with Plame's performance today, apart from the obvious overkill and melodramatic exaggeration, is that she is pointing the finger at the wrong persons.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's sham of a case against Scooter Libby revealed the real source of the leak--one Richard Armitage, who so far has not only escaped any blame for the 'outing' of Plame but who is never mentioned as one who may have broken federal law (this is because Fitzgerald knows Armitage broke no law in naming Plame as a CIA agent).
This begs the question, then, if the original source of the leak broke no law, then why was Scooter Libby prosecuted? Why are Democrats claiming the Bush Administration broke the law? Why are they after Cheney's head?
Plame's accusations are incredible given that everyone in Washington knew who she was and what she did, meaning of course that there was nothing inherently 'covert' about her work, although she has a penchant for touting it as such. But if one is looking for an original smoking gun--the first one to 'leak' information that everyone knew anyway--then that smoking gun is Richard Armitage.
It is curious that Armitage's name was never mentioned in Plame's lengthy soliloquy and subsequent questioning by the Congressional panel on Friday.
What is NOT surprising is that Plame was forced to admit, under heavy questioning, that she had absolutely no evidence to support her charge that Administration officials were aware that her work in the CIA was considered 'classified' information.
That Administration officials would NOT know that Plame's work was considered classified is certainly credible, given that Armitage knew all about it, along with Scooter Libby, and members of the mainstream media, such as Tim Russert, and columnist Robert Novak.
So, the question becomes, if it was common knowledge all over Washington that Plame worked for the CIA, then how could anyone be guilty of 'outing' her in retaliation? Officials within the Administration were merely repeating what they had heard others talk about openly, and thus assumed that the nature of Plame's work was NOT classified.
Let me put it this way. If Plame's work for the CIA was considered top secret and classified, then it was the most poorly-kept secret in the history of covert operations.
Merely repeating what everyone else in the Beltway already knew is not 'outing' someone.
Thus, as far as we can tell, Plame is merely verbalizing her sour grapes and cannot be considered a credible witness. And Congressional Democrats are playing this up for all it's worth in hopes of scoring some political points at the President's expense.
The obvious problem with Plame's performance today, apart from the obvious overkill and melodramatic exaggeration, is that she is pointing the finger at the wrong persons.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's sham of a case against Scooter Libby revealed the real source of the leak--one Richard Armitage, who so far has not only escaped any blame for the 'outing' of Plame but who is never mentioned as one who may have broken federal law (this is because Fitzgerald knows Armitage broke no law in naming Plame as a CIA agent).
This begs the question, then, if the original source of the leak broke no law, then why was Scooter Libby prosecuted? Why are Democrats claiming the Bush Administration broke the law? Why are they after Cheney's head?
Plame's accusations are incredible given that everyone in Washington knew who she was and what she did, meaning of course that there was nothing inherently 'covert' about her work, although she has a penchant for touting it as such. But if one is looking for an original smoking gun--the first one to 'leak' information that everyone knew anyway--then that smoking gun is Richard Armitage.
It is curious that Armitage's name was never mentioned in Plame's lengthy soliloquy and subsequent questioning by the Congressional panel on Friday.
What is NOT surprising is that Plame was forced to admit, under heavy questioning, that she had absolutely no evidence to support her charge that Administration officials were aware that her work in the CIA was considered 'classified' information.
That Administration officials would NOT know that Plame's work was considered classified is certainly credible, given that Armitage knew all about it, along with Scooter Libby, and members of the mainstream media, such as Tim Russert, and columnist Robert Novak.
So, the question becomes, if it was common knowledge all over Washington that Plame worked for the CIA, then how could anyone be guilty of 'outing' her in retaliation? Officials within the Administration were merely repeating what they had heard others talk about openly, and thus assumed that the nature of Plame's work was NOT classified.
Let me put it this way. If Plame's work for the CIA was considered top secret and classified, then it was the most poorly-kept secret in the history of covert operations.
Merely repeating what everyone else in the Beltway already knew is not 'outing' someone.
Thus, as far as we can tell, Plame is merely verbalizing her sour grapes and cannot be considered a credible witness. And Congressional Democrats are playing this up for all it's worth in hopes of scoring some political points at the President's expense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)