Bush Caught Leaking

The Left seems fairly irate over recent news regarding Bush, Libby and the properly and legally disclosed NIE.

So to recap: Libby has revealed that Bush authorized a leak of classified info for political purposes. End of story.

Unfortunately, yet once again they are left spouting nonsense and untruths to try and extract that precious pound of Bush flesh they all seem to crave. All of their points were debunked in the time it takes for their web posts to load.

To those not paying attention, however, I'm sure this is a big story.

Yes, such a huge story. Just like the non-stories that never surrounded all of Clinton's illegal and genuine leaks. See bottom of post for text.

But along with dismissing their empty charges, let's think about where the Left really is.

None of this has to do with the Plame affair. That silliness doesn't seem to be taking hold. Bush legitimately allowed some previously classified information, not Plame's name, to be passed to The New York Times. And what has all this gotten them and the Left?

They are facing a trial, Libby's, which has the potential to wash the shine off of the liberal media as Libby's lawyers get busy subpoenaing witnesses.

Immigration is and will be the Nation's and the News networks primary concern for some time to come, all but reducing the screeching of hapless and out of touch Liberals to a soft drone. They have no real position to offer on immigration, at least not one anybody wants to seriously entertain.

And, to date, they still haven't laid a hand on Bush in any significant manner outside of popularity polls, which don't matter a bit as he isn't ever running for anything, again.

Yes, I'd say Bush has leaked, alright. All over the Left and The New York Times. Perhaps that's the real reason they seem to be screaming so loud. No doubt this is all the manufacture of Karl Rove.

via NewsMax

While it's nice to see that Democrats have finally recovered their outrage over White House violations of privacy, they have a lot of catching up to do before we take up the issue of whether Mrs. Wilson was the target of an illegal political attack.

Perhaps they can start with Paula Jones, whose tax returns were illegally leaked in Sept. 1997 to New York Daily News columnist Lar Erik Nelson. Nelson promptly detailed the material in his column, arguing that Jones deserved to be audited by the IRS because of the way she reported contributions to her defense fund.

Nelson, who has since died, insisted at the time that Jones' returns were given to him, not by the Clinton White House, but by one of her friends. Some friend.

Democrat interest in getting to the bottom of the illegal IRS leak: Zip.

Then there was Linda Tripp, whose Pentagon personnel file was illegally leaked in 1998 by a Clinton Defense Department flak to New Yorker Magazine writer Jane Mayer, who promptly splashed details of Tripp's shoplifting arrest as a teenager across its pages.

The Clinton Justice Department investigated the charge, and came up, not surprisingly, completely empty. Democrat outrage over the obvious cover-up: Bubkiss.

And where were our self-appointed guardians of privacy when the White House decided that the best way to discredit Clinton sexual assault accuser Kathleen Willey was to release her personal correspondence to the press.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth later ruled that the shabby manuever(sic) was a criminal violation of the Privacy Act. Democrats, however, stayed mum.

And what about the mother of all White House privacy violations, Filegate. Over 1100 FBI files on Republicans were dispatched into the custody of bar bouncer-turned-White House security chief Craig Livingstone.

The request for the files came on memos from the office of then-White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, a Hillary Clinton appointee. Nussbaum told FBI agent Dennis Sculimbrene that Livingstone had been hired on Hillary's recommendation.

And according to Linda Tripp, the office of Mrs. Clinton's former law partner, William Kennedy, who served as Associate White House Counsel, was crammed with stacks of the illegally obtained files.

When President Clinton proclaimed that the largest invasion of privacy in White House history was merely "a bureaucratic snafu," Democrats agreed nearly unanimously.

Comments

[passing_through]

Leaking? Guess it all DEPENDS don't it?

[COLUMBO]

Zell Miller's piece:

http://gopsecretary.house.gov/morning.murmer/11.4.05.shtml#one

excerpt:

But the rules on agents are clear. They can't purposely distort gathered intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking their job or jail.

But their spouse can!