Archive for the ‘CIA’ Category

I’ve read these stories before regarding John McCain’s time as a POW. I’ve never alluded to them since there’s so many other issues to confront McCain about.
 
But a good point has been raised by Lonewacko, the details can be read here and here.

There’s just enough substance here for the Clinton’s to use this against McCain in their drive to take back the White House.

Technorati Tags: John McCain, POW, collaborator, Vietnam, 2008 Election, GOP

John McCain’s greatest concern is stoking his ego and looking good in the eyes of media. He also has a volatile temper which was exhibited especially back in the 2000 Presidential race.  Once I saw a display of his bad temper I started to pay attention to him realizing this was a man I could never support for the Presidency.  Since then, I’ve realized how unsuited the man is for any elected office.  

J. Peter Mulhern writing in the American Thinker gives us a historical perspective to the perfidities of McCain because with John McCain it IS all about HIM afterall. Mulhern starts with McCain’s original deal with the Media Devil detailing McCain’s “Moral Exhibitionism” through the years.

Time and again McCain has cheerfully traded virtue for the appearance of it. There doesn’t seem to be any depth of foolishness he won’t plumb if it gets him a kind word from the New York Times. This is chronic moral exhibitionism and it would be disabling for a President.

It is also disqualifying for a Republican presidential candidate. Moral exhibitionism is a characteristic disease of the left. Conservatives are accustomed to ridiculing leftists for their hollow self-congratulation in connection with issues as diverse as minimum wage laws and hate crimes legislation. They associate moral exhibitionism with their political enemies and they won’t accept it in a presidential candidate.

The American Thinker

To read the dominent media or watch the talking bobbleheads you’d think there wasn’t a miraculous 3rd extremely successful election in Iraq. All I’ve heard or read is how there was an election BUT the Iraqi’s have to do this or do that or get this or get that. Hearing Harry Reid this morning I wish I could have played out a Twighlight Zone act where I was able to reach my hand through the television screen and choke Harry til he recanted all of his negativity.

One of the more aggregious points from Reid was said with a straight face that there had been 700 US Soldiers killed since the last election in Iraq(ahhh, Harry, you forgot about the election in October huh). Yes, that’s the level of attention Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate Democrats, has with the events regarding Iraq. Must be that Attention Deficit Disorder which seems to affect every Democrat politician in Washington (ok, I’ll give Joe Lieberman a pass on this one).

When are the Democrats and even some Republicans (Lindsay Graham are you listening?) going to wake up to the more serious problem with our intelligence community. That is the leaking of national security secrets to the media. How many leaks have there been just this year alone? And I’m not talking about the pseudo Plamegate fantasy. How about some genuine outrage and serious effort to stop this at once from our legislators. How about uncovering one of these leakers and going after them like the media has trampled Scooter Libby.

From Powerline we get a lesson on “Presidential Power and the Surveillance of Foreign Powers Conspiring with United States Citizens” which Hugh Hewitt wrote about:

Overlooked in most of the commentary on the New York Times article is the simple, undeniable fact that the president has the power to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign powers conspiring to kill Americans or attack the government. The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures, has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to restrict this inherent presidential power. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (an introduction from a critic of the Act is here) cannot be read as a limit on a constitutional authority even if the Act purported to do so.

“Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.” That is from the 1972 decision in United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al, (407 U.S. 297) which is where the debate over the president’s executive order ought to begin and end. The FISA statute can have no impact on a constitutional authority, any more than an Act of Congress could diminish the First Amendment protection provided newspapers. Statutes cannot add to or detract from constitutional authority.

Now I have to learn about the Presidential powers relating to surveillance of foreign powers and remember it for Christmas at home with the family. I’m sure that I’ll need it considering I can bank on this topic coming up at the most inopportune moment.

And just in case you didn’t catch Powerline’s commentary: Do you believe in magic? You don’t want to miss this satire on the current Democrat strategy.

Scott at Powerline phoned the CIA and as a followup sent the CIA some pertinent questions regarding Joseph Wilson and Michael Scheuer (who was allowed by the CIA to publish a book while still an analyst at the CIA).

Questions about Wilson:

(1) Why wasn’t Wilson’s February 2002 trip to Niger made subject to a confidentiality agreement?
(2) Did the Agency contemplate that Wilson would publicly discuss the trip at will upon his return?
(3) Did the agency anticipate that if he did so, it would attract attention to the employment of his wife by the agency?
(4) Why did the Agency select Wilson for the mission to Niger to check out such an important and sensitive matter given his lack of experience in intelligence or investigation?
(5) Was the Agency aware when it selected him for the mission of his hostility to the Bush administration?

Questions about Scheuer:

(1) Has the Agency ever before in its history authorized the publication of a book by a current Agency employee attacking the incumbent administration?
(2) Was Scheuer’s employment status classified at any time between 1999 and the time he resigned from the Agency? If so, over what period?
(3) Can you cite any previous instances in the history of the Agency of currently employed Agency analysts attacking the incumbent administration?

Go read the responses to these very pertinent questions by the CIA.
Power Line: Three years of the Condor