|
Posted on 04/25/2006 12:58:03 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
Poly's are very reliable. It's the untrained hack examiners who mess them up.
Condi Rice has repeatedly praised her mentor, Madelaine Albright's father! No surprise that she would accept people who worked closely with Albright in the past.
Pinz
Brit's panel will discuss Mary --- coming up right after this break.
Sure there is. If you delay there is less chance of damage to Democrats in the midterm elections. The would much rather concentrate on Plame.
UNbelievable...how does she sleep?
Waaaahhhh...still working...missed it:(
I am positive.
Nicholas Burns was in the State Dept under Clinton, left sometime after Bush elected in 2000 and before the Bush-Kerry 2004 election; worked as one of John Keery's "foreign policy" advisors in the 2004 campaign and was back at State working for Condi as Deputy Secretary for Political Affairs sometime in 2005. He is the kind of liberal who represents the permanent problem at State; the kind of elitist "expert" that breeds the mistakes at State - like not understanding Hamas would win the elections in Palestine - because the elitist experts like Burns, "advising" Condi, never know what the people on the street know, and never will.
Nicholas Burns going thru Condi's revolving door at State gives me the creeps.....State is anti-American.
McCarthy didn't hire an attorney to get her old job back, nor did she hire a lawyer as her agent in a book deal. She's concerned about being charged with unauthorized release of classified information. She presumably blew her polygraph, and spilled her guts about talking to the reporter; but the Fifth Amendment will protect her if she chooses to plead innocent. So McCarthy may actually be counting on her Pulitzer-Prize winning co-conspirator going to jail rather than giving her up to a prosecutor. Could be interesting, since (according to Andrew McCarthy) Comrade Priest is not liable for anything, but could be "punished" with jail time for contempt if she refuses to rat out her source.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 26, 2006 -- THE spinners have spun at the Washington Post. Bob Woodward, and you can't get hardly no more bigger name associated with that big newspaper, even talked the R-word. Resignation.
It's still about the Weapons of Mass Destruction - Judith Miller - Valerie Plame - Ambassador Joe Wilson - Scooter Libby - special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald problem. It's what did he know, and when did he know it, and why didn't he know he should have said what he knew.
Ostensibly, during all this uncovering of a covered CIA operative and while former N.Y. Times star Judith Miller was accused of putting out the seed for what the administration wanted planted, Bob Woodward had been allowed similar access. Of course he would.
He's a Washington Post editor. A Washington, D.C., insider. The man who, with Carl Bernstein, broke Operation Watergate. An author 35 years ago of "All the President's Men," which was a hardback, then a softcover, then a DVD with Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford. And he's recently plumped his latest book, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat."
Of course he knows everything and has super access. If not, the man wouldn't be in the position he is. But the Washington Post has suddenly decided that this isn't proper. That his knowing all about Operation Valerie Plame and never saying anything in order to protect himself and his sources has now shredded his credibility.
Anyway, he is heretofore and forthwith about to be - the words being told to me are -"kept on a short leash." What that means, I don't know. Maybe even he doesn't know and they don't know.
What we do know is that the Washington Post, tarnished in the same era as America's other liberal bastion, the New York Times, could be changing the media landscape."
Maybe Condi likes him because his specialty seems to be Russia...wasn't that her area of expertise before Bush came along?
This reminds me of the "upstanding" widow at the tiney local church. The one that is very giving from her purse, but never lets you forget it...the one that drinks a little too much, but always in private....
the one that has her nose in everyone's business, but hers is no one else's business....
what we have occuring now- is that some man that she "disdains" a little tooooooo loudly has parked his car in her driveway ALL NIGHT LONG! The town is going to talk...and the now the gossiper has become the laughing stock gossipee.....
The media is finally getting what it deserves....people are seeing them for the fakes and hypocrits that they are....
now they are starting to eat each other in a scramble to see who can possibly come out of this with ANY credibility...
My first reaction is this- Woodward has been relatively fair in his writings on GWB, even (God forbid) praising him now and then.
This will never do. After all, this is the Washington Post.
Oh man...Dana Priest could be in jail....hopefully just one of many.
Woodward has taken the Administration's point-of-view in the Plame affair. But given the whole Mark Felt/Deep Throat history, I would expect Woodward to be sympathetic with assigning "whistleblower" status to McCarthy.
The granddaddy of them all was Daniel Ellsberg. When Nixon let him "selectively declassify" the Pentagon Papers (probably because the papers incriminated Lyndon Johnson), it was "Katie bar the door".
Yea, right, and that "expertise" is getting us where; we are achieving what?, strategically? and in terms of getting Russian cooperation with us? Zip, zero, zilch.
"Expert" in foreign affairs, even in a foreign affairs specialty, is ALWAYS a term that the friends and admirers of an "expert" use to sell that "expert" to the people that they want to hire that "expert", so that the "expert" will be in a work-position to support the political-positions of those "friends and admirers" that helped them get hired.
It is not a term that has ever accurately described any such "expert", in terms of actual superior knowledge or superior "point of view", in foreign affais.
First, there are too many logical, reasonable and yet different points of view, in foreign affairs, from different political perspectives, for the advocates of any one such view to be accurately defined as "expert".
Second, the education of such "experts", even in specialized knowledge of certain countries, has always been taught in our politicized academia from predominately leftist's persepectives, in terms of world view and history of U.S. foreign affairs.
For instance, it is orthodox thought throughout academia in the U.S. that Ronald Reagan's policies did not provide the catalyst that caused the Soviet Union to implode; inspite of the fact that his policies were intentionally designed to bankrupt their economy if they tried to sustain military competition with us - which it did, and inspite of the fact that his reasons for withholding nuclear arms agreements were his demands for political reform in Russia, and in spite of now released Soviet Politburo meeting transcripts in which Gorbechev is heard informing the Politburo that he cannot get a nuclear arms agreement without offering Glasnost and Perestroika, and in spite of that fact that with Glasnost and Perestroika the Politiburo was losing its hold, tried to dump Gorbachev and it led to Yeltsin's publicly supported rebellion.
Yet "foreign affairs" students are taught that Reagan's policies made difference in the implosion of the USSR. It is from this type of education that "experts" like Nicholas Burns have been trained.
A new POTUS needs to hire a Porter Goss at State.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
