Sunday, October 22, 2006


vile behavior

So, if a republican staffer leaked portions of classifed reports to major newspapers designed to smear the democratic president... should he be prosecuted for violating his oaths and breaking federal law? Is it ever justified to harm national security because you hate a president, like say, Clinton, enough to do it?

should we hold him to account?

if yes, then read this, and if you're a democrat sit down and shut up.

The dems have made intelligence information a game of leaking half truths. Only the bits confirming their views while omitting anothing that disputes them. If you are a democrat, and a good American, you have to condemn this. If not then what is the point? Either you are an American first or you aren't.

As you'll recall, the NYT story quoted the NIE as saying that our military action in Iraq has stirred up more jihadist activity. It conspicuously failed to quote the NIE as saying, as it did, that our withdrawal from Iraq would stir up even more jihadist activity.
If the staffer leaked the NIE to the Times, he could be criminally charged. And, of course, it's outrageous on every level for a staffer to leak classified material for political purposes. Especially a selective leak like this one.

democrats should be ashamed of this.


important bloggers, and then that greewald shithead

I being a nobody blogger watch this with great amusement. Greenwald's a choad, but illustrative of the left that seems to like him. The professor provided the link. Greenwald seems utterly unable to reason with a trace of intelligence. Which doesn't say a lot for the legal profession, if not just for that pinhead Greenwald.

A guy on the left outs gay republicans, but is all about privacy.

This is more shocking than I realized, and we should all be shocked.
Really, until today I hadn't fully understood Gay Demonization To Strengthen Cultural Tribalism, but I think I now know how it works.
It's simple, really. To activate the process, you have only to disagree with Glenn Greenwald.

if you're gay, you must be outed, manacled, dragged to the rack and tortured till you reveal all about rightwing gay hatred. Then they hose you off, and put you in front of the cameras to recite your confession with the bruises still on your face and wrists. Then you must convert to liberal orthydoxy, at which point you are let loose, but watched closely to prevent any heresy's like thinking rightwing......

who's the bigot here when free will is worthless because of who you sleep with?


Did you know the sky is blue?

The BBC anti-American? Anti-christian? Anti-west? Leftwing to the core? They admit it themselves.

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

It would explain why idiots like London's mayor or that communist whore Galloway get a free ride all the time. And why Blair had to drag Britain into the fight against terror. They get daily indoctrinations in group think. Diversity is fine, but what isn't, is a rigid orthydoxy where extreme leftwing views are the only ones allowed. Only a liberal can have ten people of mixed backgrounds all together but with a single ideology and think that is diversity.

counting skin tones, but not opinions.

Why too, nonwhite conservatives in Britain have as much fun as a virgin at a rapists convention. They whine about FOX, but you get debate there, hard to do at the beeb when only one thought is allowed.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?