Toensing Doesn't Know Dick About Val
[NOTE from Larry C Johnson: I have been pressing Brent to write on this issue for several weeks and he has kindly obliged. The actual title of his article is: The CIA Leak Case And The Truth That Keeps Us Free. Much more professional and high-minded, which is typical of Brent. Hopefully this will put to bed the canard that Victoria Toensing is some kind of qualified expert on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Bullocks.]
The CIA Leak Case And The Truth That Keeps Us Free
by Brent Budowsky
The CIA Leak case embodies all that has gone wrong with American national security policy, the war in Iraq, and America's role in the world during the Presidency of George W. Bush.
I began working on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act shortly after CIA station chief Richard Welch was murdered in Greece when his identity was disclosed. The orginal sponsor was my boss Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who I worked very closely with over many years on this matter, along with representatives of CIA management, legal counsel, public affairs and representatives of clandestine services in extensive meetings to develop legislation to best protect those who serve our country covertly.
Senator Bentsen was also the original sponsor of related legislation, also enacted, to provide death benefits to families of CIA officers killed in the line of duty.
Many individuals worked on these bills that became laws. I was proud when Senator Bentsen received a letter from the Director of Central Intelligence thanking me, as well as him, for these efforts. No doubt many others received such commendations and all should be proud of having been a part of important work supporting heroic men and women.
I offer this brief summary to emphasize that the views expressed here resulted not from a day's work, or a year's work, but from work that has been, and remains, a part of my lifetime which began early and continues in various forms today. I did not come to these issues late, nor do I offer these thoughts lightly.
The CIA leak case is not about Joe Wilson, or Valerie Plame, or whether one supports or opposes the Iraq war. The CIA leak case is about integrity and truth in intelligence, which is essential in defeating terrorism, in winning wars when we must fight them, and avoiding wars when we should not fight them. The CIA leak case is about honor and patriotism, about protecting those who serve bravely and covertly, just as we should stand completely behind men and women in uniform.
The CIA leak case is about the need for strong human intelligence, a need that is urgent and has been urgent for more than three decades.
The CIA leak case is about the obsession and ideology that disrespects facts, and disrespects truth, and declares Mafia-like vendettas against those who make good faith and professional efforts to ascertain them. The CIA leak case is about using partisan and political pressure to distort and pervert the search for truth, which is what good intelligence is all about, and the CIA leak case is about what goes wrong when these cardinal principles, time honored for every intelligence service on earth, are violated.
Others worked on these laws and policies as I did and have the right to their opinion, but I would submit that my views represent the overwhelming majority of opinion among those who wrote these laws, those who devised these policies, and those who serve covertly in every clandestine service from the CIA to MI-6 and Mossad.
For anyone who offers the contrary I will debate them at any time, in any forum.
When the original Identities Law was drafted, we were sickened and disgusted that identities of American intelligence officers were revealed and at times led to their death, by some who were radical and extreme and serving the interests of America's enemies during the Cold War.
It never occurred to even one of us, working on those laws at that time, that the identity of a covert officer would ever be revealed by the highest officials in American government in leading newspapers and syndicated columns of high level Washington insiders. In those days the revealers of identities ended up taking refuge in Castro's Cuba, not Washington dinner parties or high level corridors of insider power.
It is immaterial whether the CIA Identities Act was technically violated. In my view it probably was; reasonable people can disagree; Patrick Fitzgerald said that lies threw sand in the gears of justice, so perhaps we will ultimately find out, perhaps not.
Understand the protestations of those who argue most aggresively for pardon, are those who argue most aggressively that the identity law was not broken, but support the pardon in large measure because they also fear the ultimate revelation of the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Countless people who I respect and admire have urged me to aggressively attack Victoria Toensing. I don't believe she is very important to this. She has the right to her views, though they are close to universally rejected by those who know the most of this matter, witness how few Republicans came to the Waxman hearing to offer their support.
I will make one brief point on this.
Lloyd Bentsen has left us, but I have no doubt for a second that he would have been outraged, sickened, nauseated and disgusted by this compromise of a covert officer. I have no doubt that virtually every Senator and every Member of Congress who worked on this law would be outraged, sickened, nauseated and disgusted by this compromise of a covert officer, and in my humble opinion that includes Senator Barry Goldwater, whose name Ms. Toensing invoked in making her case for her cause.
I knew Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater was a patriot. Ms. Toensing is no Barry Goldwater if she suggests he would not be sickened and disgusted by these leaks.
Regarding the various players on the Libby side of this case, certain neoconservatives who think its OK to reveal the identity of a covert officer, editorial pages such as the Washington Post that often misstate both facts and law and publish mug shot photos of prosecutors as the case goes to jury, and the partisans who argue that putting one's hand on the bible and lying to God Almighty about American national security is really OK, well.....
Valerie Plame was covert. Valerie Plame had served our country covertly within the last five year prior to the disclosure of her identity. To suggest otherwise today, when the facts are now beyond dispute, is that extraordinary combination of delusion and dishonesty that will be seen by history as the darkest side of national security disasters of the Bush years.
Valerie Plame worked with networks of people abroad helping her, and our country, in the battle against terrorism, including terrorism and WMD. Valerie Plame undoubtedly had various associations with sensitive people, companies and organizations that were almost certainly compromised by acts that lacked honor and patriotism, and hurt our country, and hurt our security, and hurt our troops, and increased dangers for our community no matter what the juridical status of those acts.
When these dastardly deeds are done though leaks that Lloyd Bentsen and Barry Goldwater had equal contempt for and disgust towards:
* real people can die.
* real foreign sources fail to trust our honor and withdraw their cooperation.
* real intelligence networks are compromised and real intelligence is lost or corrupted.
* real front companies are exposed which only heightens the damage, danger and death for others who serve covertly or cooperate with our clandestine services.
* real damage is done to our security and real services are performed for those seeking WMD to attack us, by violating and endangering those who work covertly to kill them, before they attack us.
* real American troops are killed our wounded on the battlefield because delusion, dishonesty and deadly obsessions corrupt decision making in Washington.
Make no mistake, those compromsing identities of clandestine officers act as the enemy of brave men and women who serve our country, and act as the friend of terrorists and enemies who dream of flying more planes to bomb our buildings, and dream of exploding WMD in our great cities to kill hundreds of thousands of our people.
If someone pointed to an American Marine in Baghdad and helped a sniper kill a hero, would the ideolgogues and apologists be standing by his body smiling and waving statute books and calling for pardons of those who pointed to our troops and aided the snipers who killed them?
If an American city is attacked by terrorists using WMD, would the proud leakers of a covert identity of those who tried to stop them be waving their statute books and calling for pardons?
The sound you hear, is the fist of Lloyd Bentsen and Barry Goldwater, in heaven, pounding the table that these acts are sickening, nauseating, despicable and their names should never be used to justify, excuse or condone these acts.
What is most appalling and scandalous is that some of those who wave our flag the highest when it suits them politically, are willing to justify a betrayal of those who serve covertly, are willing to justify acts that endanger our country with sophistries and legalisms, and do not show even the slightest outrage and disgust of acts so unworthy of anyone who holds high office.
I personally believe the Identities Law was violated, but that is beside the point.
This case is about obsessions, delusions, lies, misrepresentations, breaches of security, and the deliberate and aggressive distortions of the collection, analysis and public use of intelligence.
This case is about those so hungry to frighten out country to war that they endanger the very lives of those who serve us.
This case about those who wage vendettas against the search for truth itself.
This case is about the contempt and disresepct for human intelligence itself, when those who provide it have their lives treated as the petty cash of partisan politics and the delusions of ideology that will justify anything, no matter what the harm to our country, to get what they want.
They got what they wanted in Iraq and the world now knows the result, but the delusions, the vendettas, the dishonesties, the half truths, falsehoods, deceptions and lies continue even today by those who dare to falsely claim, even today, that Valerie Plame was not covert, and those who dare to falsely state, even today, that real damage was not done by these sick and despicable leaks of classified information and covert identity.
I propose the Waxman Committee take thebroadest view with a long overdue investigation and examine the pressures on intelligence, the attacks on the intelligence community, the distortions of intelligence information, the selective and deceptive leaking of classified information, the damage to human intelligence, the petty and large corruptions of the truth and honor that lie at the heart of good intelligence, which themselves protect the heart of our national security and defend the safety of our communities, and the lives of our troops.
I expect shocking revelations to come when the Senate Intelligence Committee releases its next report on pre-war Iraq intelligence, shamefully withheld for partisan reasons, in the hope that the last election would have kept in power the party that withheld it. And I hope the Waxman Committee leads the fight for truth and honor in the collection and use of intelligence, in the broadest sense.
Lets understand, this case is not about the people involved, or the technicalities of law.
This is case is about principles and values far larger than the moment, it is about the declaration of war against truth, against honor, against facts, against our security itself by those who endangered the brave, and now seek pardon for the guilty.
In the world of intelligence it is the truth that sets us free, and the truth that keeps us safe.
It is the truth, as much as the identities, that we must always protect, at all times, at all costs, even at the risk of our lives, as those who seek the truth, to serve our country, risk theirs.
Brent Budowsky is a contributing editor to Fighting Democrats News Service. He is a former aide to ex-Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and to the House Democratic Leadership with then-Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.) as chief deputy whip.



Comments (188)
"..Much more professional and high-minded, which is typical of Brent...."
Considering your penchant for gutter mouth rants, unsourced allegations and repeated references to sodomy, you are setting the bar excruciatingly low.
March 31, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
TJ: Do you actually have any substantive criticism or or or you making strictly Ad Hominem attacks today?
-Dave Adams-
March 31, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this is all true, why doesn't the committee start by prosecuting the columnist who wrote the column and revealed the spy? Freedom of the press surely does not extend to breaking the law. Why has Novak waltzed out of this scot free? Then keep moving up the food chain.
March 31, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It didn't take long for the bad penny to show up. I think he has a secret crush on Larry.
Victoria Toensing is the worst kind of American, she's a right wing Republican first, a political assassin second, and an American third or fourth. However, she isn't unique, she's one of many.
Exactly, and the aiding, abetting and defense of this arguably treasonous behavior will be forthcoming as soon as TJKING returns.
March 31, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dave, I find it fascinating that my criticism of Larry's annoying foul mouthed and "unsubstantive" vulgarities are considered ad hominem attacks by you. I am assuming that this means any author on this site that appears to be on your side has free rein to slander, lie, cuss, use insensitive stereotypes condoning violent rape for retribution based on uncontrollable hatred.
An ad hominem attack would be an attack on the messenger unrelated to his credibility, the means of his communication or the point he is trying to make.
I think his form of communication is unproductive and offensive,
"...Toensing Doesn't Know Dick About Val..."
The fact that MOST of his articles are laced with more hatred and vulgarities, than what you call "substantive" criticism, is worthy of mention in a forum that claims to promote reasoned debate.
I hope that Larry responds to my remark in his typical "cuckoo's nest" fashion to prove my point.
Dave, Am I correct in assuming that you would like to see others emulate Larry's Drunk tank style of scream and curse discourse?
P.S. I think my use of the phrase "cuckoo's nest" is not ad hominem, it is an appropriate description of the obscenity laced responses that he is typical of.
March 31, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
On the contrary, madison idea, how about starting at the TOP of the food chain and work in descending order. And, this time lets have a prosecutor chosen from the left side of the Democratic party.
What we've had, though great care was taken to portray Fitzgerald as a thorough, not-easily-intimidated, gung-ho prosecutor, is the work-over of one second-tier criminal who awaits a pardon and the real culprits (Cheney, Rove, and, yes, especially 'W') hope the dastardly affair is forgotten.
Shame!
March 31, 2007 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ,
The only obscenity is your continued lame failure to offer any coherent and cogent critiques of the substance of my various posts. Offending you brings me great joy in life. I guess whining is all that is left to you because you have nothing relevant to add to Mr. Budowsky's first hand account of having actually crafted the IIPA, unlike the shrill Miss Vicky.
March 31, 2007 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
John, in the last few weeks, you have increased your use of the theme that I or some other Republican is "Unamerican" or "treasonous". Then you turn around and falsely claim that George Bush or some other Republican has called a democrat unpatriotic or unamerican.
Each time I ask you for an example of George Bush or even some other Republican in the party leadership that has used those phrases, you run and hide out. Then you pop your head up out of your hole a few days later and repeat the lie again.
Since you are the worst, and I do mean the worst, on this board as far as making claims and then not backing them up, if I am aiding, abetting and defending "treason", that means I am guilty of a crime. If you claim Toensing is putting her personal interests before her support for her country, I think that is your own guilt and projection slithering out.
Please describe what proof you have that I will or have ever committed any crime especially treason. Your lies and slander are obnoxious and always make a clear demonstration of how little intelligence you bring to the discussion.
I fully expect you to fail to back up your blatherings and lies as usual. Give my regards to your hole.
March 31, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, you miss the point, TJ. Which is worse, Larry's language that offends only you (and others like you) or the acts by senior officials that first betrayed the nation and then lied to it to cover them up?
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
March 31, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for bringing us the words of Brent Budowsky.
I am incapable of understanding how an act of high treason by this administration has been treated so lightly. As ugly as the prosecutor purge was, it pales in significance in comparison to the outing of Valerie Plame in my opinion.
Best, Terry
March 31, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Novak committed no crime. He had no clearance to receive classified information and was not bound to keep it secret.
It wasn't exactly an act of patriotism to reveal the identity of a spy, but those who revealed the identity to the press are the ones guilty of a treasonous act.
Best, Terry
March 31, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ, this is easily resolved.
I agree with everything Bendt Budowsky says in his column here, what about you?
March 31, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, right wingnuts; Bush, the Repug Congress and their supporters, who have had control for 6 years can't escape what the results of their control has brought the country. The more they babble excuses the more ridiculous they seem; they're like McCain telling how safe it is in Baghdad.
They're being dragged kicking and screaming into the reality based world and its making them angrier and angrier.
March 31, 2007 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. As to Novak, like Toensing, he has proven to be in that class of political hack who are the lowest of the low, the "anything goes" gang.
In the Plame case, Novak reprised his role as a Rove flunky, one he originated in Bush 41's '92 campaign.
March 31, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you turn around and falsely claim that George Bush or some other Republican has called a democrat unpatriotic or unamerican.
Bush and Cheney are too smart to actually say the words "treason" or "unAmerican." But they will say things like this:
Stating you believe the Democrats' plan is to allow our country to be attacked by terrorists is essentially accusing them of treason.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 31, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"....Valerie Plame was covert. Valerie Plame had served our country covertly within the last five year prior to the disclosure of her identity. To suggest otherwise today, when the facts are now beyond dispute, is that extraordinary combination of delusion and dishonesty that will be seen by history as the darkest side of national security disasters of the Bush years...."
How hard is it to have the Intelligence committee, formally request that the CIA release a statement that says, "..Regarding the legal term covert as it is used in the IIPA, Plame was covert, and furthermore CIA counsel believes the IIPA was violated...", so we can charge the person who broke this crime. If you are so insistant on the leaker being bad or whatever, let's get him and charge him. If you don't believe it is Armitage, which Fitz clearly believes, then let's find him and charge him.
"...It is immaterial whether the CIA Identities Act was technically violated. In my view it probably was; reasonable people can disagree; Patrick Fitzgerald said that lies threw sand in the gears of justice, so perhaps we will ultimately find out, perhaps not...."
OK, reasonable people, gather round. Some believe it was violated and others do not. Why can't we have the truth? Not from polling Budowsky's friends or OP-EDs or Waxman's sermonizing, but Why can't they compel Fitz to explain why he won't indict? Why not compel CIA counsel to state unequivocally? How hard is it to take a stroll down to accounting at Foggy Bottom and pull her file and have the appropriate government employees lay it out? My guess is the above two quoted paragraphs by Budowsky demonstrate why the truth won't come out. Either the IIPA would not have held up in this case, so Fitz dropped it or if it was applicable, the fact that it didn't point to the "usual suspects" or the desired suspects in the White House they "turned" the others in order to get someone at the white house. Either one of these possibilities are too embarrassing to the left to let the truth come out.
I don't remember Fitz saying "threw sand in the gears". If he said that in some super secret covert meeting that we aren't allowed to know about, well, OK. I remember him saying "threw sand in the eyes." But using your cute metaphor, if anybody threw sand in any gears, the fact that the leaker had been found (Armitage) that would be like throwing sand into the gears of the no longer necessary engines of the Titanic as it rested on the sea floor. The point would be moot if it weren't laughable.
So that leaves a lot of self righteous chest thumping that because a criminal case was circumvented in order to achieve a political end, then Republicans must not want to protect CIA agents through the IIPA because it wasn't broken and we won't claim that it was. Goofy logic.
Its not new to hide behind classified information to attack Republicans. Usually it goes, We know the Republican did it but we can't supply the proof or we'd have to kill you. Mr. Budowsky mentions the case of Richard Welch which for what its worth, after a quarter of a century his family has seen his Marxist murderers brought to justice. In the past, Democrats accused GHW Bush (41) of being involved in his murder in Greece because he was incoming CIA chief.
There is a long history of ex-CIA operatives writing articles and books that criticize Republicans (but we can't tell you cause its classified).
Here is a description of the leftist magazine that outed Welch. Phillip Agee, Timothy Butz and Norman Mailer were vocal critics of the CIA.
I find it hilarious that after a generation of leftists endangering the life of soldiers, agents, officers, etc. they parade around sermonizing that the left is the only ones that care about agents.
Without going into detail I know people that were close to Welch, William Buckley and many of the assets in Beirut and Athens and I find it offensive when people use this political hatchet job as sanitization of the fact that they have been and to this day continue to undercut our ability to exercise our Intelligence functions. The IIPA was created to counter the fact that many leftwingers considered it their duty to endanger soldiers, agents, and officers.
As I have noted before, Hezbollah killed William Buckley in Lebanon. Your organization, VIPS works with anti-war groups that support Hezbollah. I find that offensive as well. You might get joy out of offending me, but the Marxists that killed Welch, Hezbollah that killed Buckley, and the Ex-CIA critics like Phillip Agee at Counterspy are all pariahs. If you would come down from your high horse for a minute, maybe you would agree to distance yourself from VIPS and their penchant for partnering with Marxists at UFPJ, ANSWER, CodePink, and Global Exchange.
If you don't like the fact that as it says above the left has had plenty of blood on its hands over the years regarding leaking, trying to claim that the right does it too, is no defense. Because the right does not do anything remotely close to what Norman Mailer, Timothy Butz and Phil Agee did.
"....And I hope the Waxman Committee leads the fight for truth and honor in the collection and use of intelligence, in the broadest sense...."
Does he really want the investigation to dig deep enough to uncover the truth? or does he like you, Larry want them to dig just deep enough for you to try to make political points and then dig no further. The exploitation by the left of the Intelligence community continues and in the mean time more Pearl Harbors and more 911s await us on the horizon. The left fiddles while the Intelligence community burns.
I am quite proud of you, Larry. This is one of your first reponses in some time that did not have some reference to sex with elephants or your midnight prayers that someone that hurt your feelings would be sodomized in a jail cell.
Your medication must be working and your progress is encouraging. I hope the subtraction of your anger will result in an addition of some lucidity to your articles.
March 31, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is my last comment re anything you write. You really are thick as mule shit. You ask:
"How hard is it to have the Intelligence committee, formally request that the CIA release a statement that says, "..Regarding the legal term covert as it is used in the IIPA, Plame was covert, and furthermore CIA counsel believes the IIPA was violated...", so we can charge the person who broke this crime."
Well TJ that is why the CIA's General Counsel sent the referral to the Department of Justice way back in 2003. I know obstructing justic and perjury make no sense to you unless they involve a Democrat and a blow jow and a blue dress, but in this case the obstruction prevented getting access to truth of who was ultimately responsible.
Unlike you, I not only complained about the outing of Valerie but thought the exposure of Welch and the blabbing of others like Agee was wrong. I've been consistent on this point. Another woman who trained with Valerie and me, another friend, worked with Buckley and subsequently spent time hunting for him. But once again you don't know what you are talking about, having never held a clearance and never served.
March 31, 2007 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...Bush and Cheney are too smart to actually say the words "treason" or "unAmerican." ..."
Oh, Bush and Cheney, those evil geniuses. Curse them!!
With every decision there is a cost and benefit. Bush is asking a very important question. The administration has a program that it can prove to the congressmen saved lives by stopping attacks. The congressmen want it to stop and claim it was wrong that it had existed. Bush is clearly expressing that the congressmen need to defend their contention not just with the "benefits" of their decision, but the "costs". Pretending like it didn't save lives as a reason to not respond to Bush's question is evasion. If they are uncomfortable with the implication of sacrificing American lives, then take responsibility for the decision.
If it makes you feel "treasonous", when Bush points out the consequences of your policies, then that is your problem. Either counter his assertion of the consequences or take responsibility but running and hiding from them and then weeping that he is calling you a name that he is not is slanderous and weak.
March 31, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't agree with everything he said...and no this does not resolve this.
You still accuse me of the crime of treason and you run and hide from your own words like a coward.
March 31, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Why don't they charge Armitage with breaking the IIPA and put him in Jail? What is the reason for this, Larry?
March 31, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that MOST of his articles are laced with more hatred and vulgarities
Who gives a fuck if LJ uses obscenities? Is it really all that offensive to your sensibilities? What's the big deal?
Larry is Larry. Not every[one] here does it -- he does. That's his style. If you don't like it, don't click on the little fucking link that says "Read More."
It's really a very, very simple solution to your problem.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 31, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The congressmen want it to stop and claim it was wrong that it had existed. Bush is clearly expressing that the congressmen need to defend their contention...
No one wants to stop the program. Just require warrants and oversight.
Your comment just shows how much critical thinking you put behind what's going on and what you say. Much easier to parrot, isn't it?
Critical thinking and judgment is "hard work," I know.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 31, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It also never occurred to anyone that Bush would attack Iraq,
that they would lie with impunity for 6 years,
that they would turn the regulatory agencies over to those regulated,
that they would bankrupt the country,
that they would blur the line between church and state
that their obsession with secrecy was only surpassed by their obsession with lying
that they would alienate most of the rest of the world,
that they would show disdain for the Constitution, the "Rule of Law" and tradition,
that they would institute the Imperial Presidency
that they would turn the United States into the infamous "rougue nation"
that Bush would nominate Michael Baroody, executive vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, to head the commission charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products.
that Bush would appoint Edwin G Folke Jr. to head OSHA, who is a South Carolina Lawyer who specialized in defending Corporations facing OSHA Citations for safety violations.
that Bush would nominate former coal company executive Richard Stickler, (who's mines, according ot the Charleston Gazette, had accident rates twice that of national average), as head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) but who would not be confirmed by the Senate yet receive a Bush recess appointment to the post.
that Bush and his gang of right wing Christians would fight the marketing of a vaccine that is almost 100% effective in preventing cervical cancer in women, because according to them, it would encourage promiscuity.
No...."it never occured to even one of us"
March 31, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who defend the treasonous are treasonus themselves.
Now critique' Budowsky's column, don't run and hide as you are doing.
March 31, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ,
Simple solution -- if you think the language of Larry's commentaries is offensive, don't frickin' read them.
If you choose to read them, knowing he uses "obscenities" then don't complain about it.
Take some responsibility for your own actions.
Sheesh!
March 31, 2007 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Keep up the good work. I for one enjoy your columns very much. Don't change a fuckin' damned thing!
March 31, 2007 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "proof" does Bush have for the consequences he's predicting?
March 31, 2007 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you been smoking four way acid again, you imbecile? Just because I don't agree with "everything" Budowsky said does not make me treasonous.
Example: He claims Fitzgerald used the phrase "Threw sand in the gears of the justice system", when in fact I believe the phrase was "threw sand in the eyes". You contend that since I do not agree with his non-factual representation regardless of the significance of the statement, makes me treasonous? Are you implying that your blind submission to "agree with everything" he wrote makes you a Patriot?
Everytime you get close to a keyboard you expose your self as a dunce and a liar. I can see why you constantly fail to back up your blathering non sequiturs.
March 31, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...Critical thinking and judgment is "hard work," I know."
Don't strain yourself.
March 31, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I made no such contention.
I implied no such thing.
Now critique the column and stop hiding.
March 31, 2007 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...don't frickin' read them...."
I guess I got your dander up, Helen. Well, I guess if you don't like what I write you can not read my posts too. And I guess if we go down that path, I could tell you to not read them and tell you to keep your ideas to yourself,...and I guess everybody here that disagreed could just not interact at all.
I guess its too much to ask that when He posts an accusation and I ask him to provide a link or some kind of proof and he comes back and does nothing but cuss and call names, that is your idea of a reasoned debate. None of us here is perfect but you seem to be of the mind of many in the echo chamber that is not interested in an exchange of factual information and logical debate, you only want censorship and a reaffirmation of the misinformation that you arrived here with.
If you don't like my pointing out Larry's inaccuracies and his poor credibility regarding his ability to defend his statements then I guess I am accomplishing something.
If you read this far Helen, I will assume that you are taking responsibility for your actions as well.
March 31, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...The fact that MOST of his articles are laced with more hatred and vulgarities, than what you call "substantive" criticism, is worthy of mention in a forum that claims to promote reasoned debate...."
You say what is the big deal? As I said, I consider it unproductive and offensive. You obviously think a failure to address reasoned debate with logic is a step in the right direction because you have adopted two of his favorites, first to cuss some one out and then second to tell them to go away. Make the mean, bad man go away mommy!
Well, I've made my self clear, reasoned debate is preferable, You disagree. I am guessing you are basing your position on your poor qualifications to function in that kind of an enviroment.
March 31, 2007 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it occured to me because of all the sleazy stuff G.H.W. Bush was involved in - Iran Contra being the tip of the iceberg. See Kevin Phillips' book about the Bush and Walker families.
Tom
March 31, 2007 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ is wasting people's time and energy again.
Tom
March 31, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your bumper sticker statements about treason, etc. must be providing you with some form of titillation, but without providing any specifics, It makes you appear to be hiding behind a smoke screen of vagueness. If you are referring to the "lies" as the 16 words, I think we have covered that quite thoroughly. One, Bush told the truth. Two, Joe Wilson with the support of his wife lied about the 16 words. Three, You and your friends supported him and his lying. Four, Wilson was exposed as a perennial liar. Five, You continue to pretend like he wasn't a liar.
Although your bumper sticker musings might get you excited, I hope I have been specific enough to bring you back to earth.
For the record, Larry's statements are always worse than anything this administration has ever done.
March 31, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Let TJ write his 48 paragraph rebuttals. It keeps him busy while the rest of us figure out how to save the country from Cheney/Bush.
Tom
March 31, 2007 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...Well TJ that is why the CIA's General Counsel sent the referral to the Department of Justice way back in 2003...."
I know obstructing justic and perjury make no sense to you unless they involve a Democrat and a blow jow and a blue dress, but in this case the obstruction prevented getting access to truth of who was ultimately responsible...."
So are you finally agreeing to release the text of the Referral?
Those that have seen it have alleged that it discusses "unauthorized release of classified information", not the IIPA. Not everybody here knows, but you know Larry, that is really quite different than a referral that clearly states there was a violation of IIPA. In fact that is such a catch all referral they could even round up Joe and Valerie in that investigation and run them through the ringer to see if they made any "unauthorized release" of classified information. What you call "technicalities", the Justice system calls the law.
"...I know obstructing justic and perjury make no sense to you unless they involve a Democrat and a blow jow and a blue dress, but in this case the obstruction prevented getting access to truth of who was ultimately responsible...."
How can you not tell the difference between a staffer in the OVP being accused of those two crimes and the most powerful man on the face of the earth (whose power is constitutionally protected) being charged and later confessing to the court of what he was accused of and paying the fines.
In one case there is doubt, but in the case of the Blow jow[sic] with witness intimidation and influence peddling and subourning perjury and character assasintaion, there is "no doubt" he admitted it.
"... but in this case the obstruction prevented getting access to truth of who was ultimately responsible...."
Prevented access to what? Everyone agrees that Armitage was the leaker! There is an audio tape, a smoking gun, he confessed. Fitz, Ashcroft, and Comey have all said they knew about Armitage before handing the case to Fitz and when it was handed to him on day one he knew who the culprit was. How did any of his remarks get in the way of finding Armitage? You are just making this up. Your remark referring to the thickness of the product of a Mule's grazing is a perfect description of your attempts to mislead your loyal followers here. I will continue to point out your discrepancies.
March 31, 2007 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you clearly did. You asked if I agreed with everything and then based on that said I was guilty of treason. You are a buffoon.
March 31, 2007 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's that workin' out for you , Tom?
Gettin' a lot accomplished over there? Any new strategies that really change the course of the government anytime soon?
OK, when you find somethin' let me know.
March 31, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
JohnW 1141:
"angrier and angrier" is probably an apt description with some of them, but it is more nearly akin to witnessing what was once a brilliant mind suddenly beginning to know that madness is over-taking it.
It is as though six years of being wrong, badly wrong, on EVERY single issue is finally catching up with the TJKings, making them flail and curse and nit-pick....sometimes even at their friends.
March 31, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most, if not all, observers agree that Armitage was ONE leaker. There is no information indicating that Armitage was the ONLY leaker, and quite a bit of indirect evidence that he was not the only one. Which would indicate that there was a higher-level leaker coordinating the entire process. Either Libby was that person, or he obstructed the investigation into who it was.
Should Gonzales resign, meaning his successor will undergo Senate confirmation hearings, it will be interesting to consider what Libby's lawyer and his wife will advise him before he goes into that hearing.
sPh
March 31, 2007 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
No doubt about it, TJK, you have demonstrated your willingness to aid and abet treason by your endless twist and spin of the truths RE Bush's use of the '16 words' knowing full well that they were based on faulty intelligence..
The actions of the Bush administration RE participating in a charade to fool Congress (not a tough job, these past six years), involving the U.S. in an aggressive war against a nation that had not attacked us, attempting to abrogate the freedoms protected by the Constitution for the past 150 years, lying to the American public on the Energy conference of Feb. '01, the Medicare Prescription drug bill, and on and on
Almost any of those actions based on deliberate lies, concealment, and subterfuge (like the testimony before the 9/11 Commission...only with Dick Cheney present, not under oath, no record...what a joke!), rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The deliberate outing of a secret agent by the President, or by ANY OF HIS close advisors, is treason...and you are equally guilty of the same treasonous conduct when you attempt to defend it or refute the truth.
What the hell difference does it make whether Armitage was charged or not? We ALL know what occurred and no expansive b/s from you will change the truth.
March 31, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
Thanks for a summary of the Bush/Right-wingnut agenda.
Even TJK should keep silent in the face of the FACTS you have presented, JohnW1141.
Wanna bet?
March 31, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
I dunno, Terry, I tend to agree with you on the sheer dastardliness of the deliberate 'covert agent' outing, but, in the long run, the politicalization of the USA offices could be more damaging to the 'equal justice under law' that is a cornerstone of our democracy..
JohnW1141 made a pretty good case showing the attempt of the present cabal of crooks in the White House to dis-mantle our system of democracy and replace it with 'permanent rule' by the right-wing ideologues.
March 31, 2007 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Pied Piper played his flute and the rats all came out of hiding to trail after him. Larry posts one of his extremely effective "rants" about the perversity that is the Bush administration and the trolls come out of hiding to follow him around. I'm not sure just what happened to the rats, but I have some good ideas about what should happen to the trolls.
Hoppy in Sacramento
March 31, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
On another note, Tom, I think that Toensing Doesn't Know Dick About Val should get the title of the year award. I love it!!
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell
March 31, 2007 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
let me mention some real patriots....
frank snepp. john stockwell. phil agee. frank church. bill colby.
enemies of the gangsters that have seized the usa.
March 31, 2007 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You will get no argument from me on the harm that was apparently intended by the firing of the prosecutors but the outing of Valerie Plame struck at the heart of our national defense.
Treason consists of subverting the national defense rather than attempts to subvert the Constitution. The first is a criminal offense of the highest order. The second may even be allowable in extremis.
Best, Terry
March 31, 2007 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
On March 31, 2007 - 7:42pm JohnW1141 said:
I made no such contention.
I implied no such thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please supply evidence of my asking you if you agreed with everything (in Budowsky's column) and then "based on that" said you were gulity of treason.
March 31, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless the Congress impeaches the entire adminstration and all those involved with it, then they win and America losses. In the near future there will be another GOP like-Bush bastard that will make the shit Bush has done look like a joke.
Demand the Truth for America
March 31, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless the Congress impeaches the entire adminstration and all those involved with it, then they win and America losses. In the near future there will be another GOP like-Bush bastard that will make the shit Bush has done look like a joke.
Demand the Truth for America
March 31, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ,
Take the GOP responsibility and turn off the TV or change the channel.
Demand the Truth for America
March 31, 2007 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJK,
Are you really this fucking stupid?
Forrest Gump is smarter and wiser than you.
You are a fucking joke.
Demand the Truth for America
March 31, 2007 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting Budowsky's essay.
A couple of thoughts in response to TJ's witless comments:
It seems to me that the CIA, by not explicitly stating that Plame was a 'covert' agent or allowing Plame to do so, is trying to salvage and protect what little remains of any network of agents associated with Plame. What these agents don't need is major US headlines reporting
the CIA's confirmation that Plame was a covert agent. As it stands now, it's possible that a fast-talking CIA agent could concoct a story that an 'enemy' contact just might believe, like 'Oh, this is all just politics in the US, etc., etc.' I wouldn't want to be in that agent's shoes but it seems quite plausible to me that the CIA at least wants to afford its agents a chance to play that game, assuming they haven't all been withdrawn from the field by now.
Secondly, on TJ's comments about the left being anti-CIA. Certainly this is true to a large extent, particularly concerning the 'dirty tricks' department. During the Cold War the CIA carried out despicable and immoral political assasinations, supported fascist governments, etc., etc. The CIA can only be as intelligent and enlightened as the US government is itself. The anti-Communist hysteria for the 50 years after WWII led to many stupid and utterly paranoid policies. But most leftists would fully support covert intelligence that provides information concerning security threats that present a real 'physical' threat to the American people. Let the 'dirty tricks' department become the very last resort to an imminent threat, not just an easy kneejerk response to ideological differences. But given the fact that the CIA, by its secretive nature, might be prone to 'extreme' acts, every sensible leftist will agree that many, if not most, covert agents are info gatherers only, not assassins, and should be protected at all costs for the valuable security info they provide.
March 31, 2007 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvAOfJUwEJo
Victoria Toensing, Tom Davis, and TJK are GOP assholes first and never Americans.
Demand the Truth for America
March 31, 2007 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has become the honeypot for the tinfoil hats. So you also want to join in and accuse me of committing the crime of treason?
This is priceless.
They must have slipped something in your coffee guys.
If I have committed a crime, See Dee...
... Call a cop!
Maybe you will get lucky and find a like minded Judge that will say, as you did:
What the hell difference does it make whether Armitage[TJK] was charged or not? We ALL know what occurred and no expansive b/s from you will change the truth.
Why let justice get in the way when your on a witch hunt, right?
You and JohnW deserve each other. Save a few bongloads for the rest of the tinfoil hats.
March 31, 2007 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thread speaks for itself. You are a chronic liar.
March 31, 2007 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Treason: : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
New definition:
3. GOP, Bush and all GOP supporters very existance and involvement in Politics and Government.
4. America has been "Bushed" by the GOP only Americans can save America.
Demand the Truth for America
March 31, 2007 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
US Constitution
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Demand the Truth for America
March 31, 2007 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Easy Rider, I can safely put you in the category of people on this board that consider me unamerican, I will assume you join SeeDee and JohnW in thinking I have committed treason and am unpatriotic as well.
Great link, by the way.
March 31, 2007 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO.
Your first paragraph demonstrates to what bizarre lengths your mental gymnastics and pretzel logic will allow you to go to find a reason to explain why the left doesn't want the truth to come out. Nice try, ..lol,...I'm sure there is a good reason to live the lie. Sheesh!
"...
The anti-Communist hysteria for the 50 years after WWII led to many stupid and utterly paranoid policies. But most leftists would fully support covert intelligence that provides information concerning security threats that present a real 'physical' threat to the American people...."
Stupid policies, ...ahem, OK. Have you ever heard of the cold war or an evil empire called the Soviet Union. I guess "stupid" policies that caused their destruction so you could live free were all make believe. And the Soviet never presented "a real physical threat to the american people".
Anti-Communist hysteria? Are you aware that Richard Welch of the CIA was killed by leftist marxists in Greece when he was outed by Norman Mailer and Timothy Butz and a bunch of leftists in New York which lead to the IIPA?
Witless? Oh, man, A comedy team couldn't come up with this stuff, right over the plate,...NEXT!
March 31, 2007 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a jerk-off.
March 31, 2007 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because, PeeWee, Armitage did not know she was covert, and no one can prove, or even suggests AFAIK, otherwise.
Here is the reading you are too goddamn lazy to do for yourself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701781.html
March 31, 2007 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. King,
May I ask a question? Who are you? Your rhetoric makes you out to be someone with bonafides enough to question Mr. Johnson's veracity, patriotism and legitimacy. I know who Mr. Johnson is, I am aware (as many others are) of his background and service to the nation, but I don't know anything about you or who you are or how you figure you have the right to criticize anything Mr. Johnson writes in the way that you do. You make it appear as though you have inside information as a result of your professional experience and you show nothing but contempt for those you do not agree with. Perhaps you have the experience and knowledge for this to be so but if you do I am not aware of it because I don't even know who you are. If you are what you imply you are then make yourself known so that readers like me will have some basis to judge whether or not your disrespectful and smarmy writings are justified in any way. Otherwise, I'll count you as just another pathetic right wing troll who is angered by having to face facts from a reliable source.
Thank you. I'll be looking forward to finding out who you are.
March 31, 2007 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is obvious that as the Bush curdles and his WH tumbles to the ground, your worshipful investment there has you decompensating as well.
You have completely lost any claim to my respect, my attention, my time, or even my notice.
Go read The Naked Lunch. There's a character in there whose tour-de-force of skilled and inventive teaching you seem to have equalled.
March 31, 2007 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phillip Agee?
Albert, you have lost your mind. Even Larry just explained a few hours ago how screwed up Phil Agee was and how much damage he did.
I will go further. The IIPA which is the crime that we have been talking about here for 5 years was created in reaction to the activities of Phil Agee who made it his hobby of outting anyone he could. When CIA operative Richard Welch was outed, he was murdered in Greece by Marxists.
He's your hero, Albert?
Wait, your hero is much more multidimensional than that.
Phil Agee is a communist spy who upon leaving the CIA went straight to the KGB. Declassified KGB documents show that he approached the KGB offered them everything and then went to Castro in Cuba and became a spy for Fidel.
He was there at the same time as the founders of Code Pink were working with the KGB.
With Cubans occupying Grenada Agee moved there. Reagan captured the island nation and ran the cubans out, so he went to work for the Communists in Nicauragua. When they were run out of town Agee left too. He now lives in Cuba and continues to be an enthusiastic communist supporter of Fidel Castro.
He is your ideal Patriot?
The other day, someone on this board joked that every american is a patriot.
You said:
Is this man who clearly betrayed his country your ideal patriot? Really?
I suppose the joke was true in the fact that with people like you Albert, the word has lost all meaning.
March 31, 2007 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the metaphor of Larry being a mercernary pied piper with a bunch of rats following him off the cliff is apt one. Way to go, hoppy.
March 31, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
To minimize GOP complicity in leaking a covert agent's identity for political purposes, Victoria Toensing repeatedly asserts that Plame was not covert under the terms of the IIPA and therefore the entire Libby prosecution is meritless. Toensing hinges her argument on an assertion that in order to be considered covert under the IIPA, the agent must be, or must have been, stationed abroad, whereas the language of the IIPA refers only to "serving" abroad. Plame was apparently stationed in the U.S. but travelled on covert missions abroad during the time period relevant to the IIPA.
Given that Toensing claims to have drafted the IIPA, the precision of her legal writing can be inferred from the fact that the statute simply does not say what she says it is supposed to say. She goes on to assure us that Congressional intent was that service abroad reqired being stationed abroad. She cites to no evidence from the Congressional record for this contention, and only a fool would accept her say-so on this.
Why in the world is this harridan given so many opportunities in the media to spew her nonsense minimizing the Bush regime's high crimes?
March 31, 2007 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still laughing too hard from you two claiming I committed a crime. Your idea of FACTS, is a knee slapper.
March 31, 2007 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Did it occur to you I was asking a question, not making a statement of fact? (And no Novak did not commit a crime, we all know that).Apparently you were not aware that Armitage showed the document to Woodward. The document is classified. Make sense?
The CIA referral did not tell DOJ to investigate IIPA, it discussed unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Listen to the smoking gun tape. Armitage is showing the actual document to Bob Woodward. Judith Miller might have Security clearance but Woodward did not. A crime was commited, CIA asked DOJ to look into it, Fitz ignored it. Armitage was given a mulligan by Fitz! Why?
March 31, 2007 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink