Friday, March 16, 2007

Dear Jonathan: Let me explain the word "partisan."


Jonathan having trouble with the English language:

I'm watching Valerie Plame, wife of Joe Wilson, testify before congress about her exposure as a covert CIA agent. Its already making me gag with her self righteous attitude and belief that she is non-partisan despite her blatantly partisan statements.

Because, as we all know, even though it was the Republicans who blew her cover as a covert CIA operative, it would be only proper to blame both political parties equally.

After all, it's the fair and balanced thing to do.

BONUS TRACK
: Even though Tom Tomorrow has never met Jonathan, it's eerie how well he understands his kind of thought processes.

IT'S CALLED "LOGIC," JONATHAN. It's amusing to listen to partisan hacks like Jonathan go on and on about how Plame wasn't really covert:

Something tells me you didn't watch the hearing.

Second, covert agents don't work a desk at Langley on a daily basis. It is not an established fact that her status was covert when Novak disclosed it.

One can first demolish Jonathan's silliness as follows:

Plame Wilson rejected claims that her role at the CIA not covert when her identity was leaked.

She said she had conducted secret overseas missions within the past five years, and that much information about her career remains classified. (Read how Plame Wilson said she worked on secret missions during her time as an operative)

Although she was working at CIA headquarters in the United States at the time of the leak, Plame Wilson said, "a general is a general whether he is in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan; when he comes back to the Pentagon, he's still a general. In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back for temporary assignment in Washington, they too are still covert."

But there's actually an easier way to tear Jonathan a new one.

If all of these wankers are taking the position that Plame wasn't undercover, why are they all so desperately trying to avoid being the one who takes the fall as the one who exposed her? If none of them think a crime has been committed, why the overwhelming stench of panic and all the finger-pointing?

Sorry, Jonathan, but when you can smell the fear from here, it's pretty clear that those folks know somebody broke some laws. And all of them are just trying not to be the one to go down for it.

14 comments:

Adam C said...

Perhaps it's turning out that truth itself is partisan, and it's not on the Republican side...

CC said...

And, as we all know, reality has a nasty liberal bias.

catnip said...

What a wanker. He should be asked to give examples of those so-called "partisan statements". I sure didn't hear any.

The Strong Conservative said...

Something tells me you didn't watch the hearing.

Second, covert agents don't work a desk at Langley on a daily basis. It is not an established fact that her status was covert when Novak disclosed it.

But anyway, have a great St. Patty's day.

WhattheH said...

I did watch the hearings, and it was firmly established that she was a covert agent via the CIA director despite Toensing's attempt to obfuscate the issue by quoting a law that she helped to frame many years ago. Unfortunately for Victoria, she didn't take into consideration the administrative clarifications of the law.
I found the whole obfuscation attempt to be scurrilous. How can anyone think that partisan political gain is a greater concern than the security of the agents working to ensure the country's safety? How can anyone condone this obscenity?

The Strong Conservative said...

I'll concede for the sake of argument that she was "covert" at the time of the leak. That said, I think we can agree that if anyone then deserves to be indicted and convicted, it should Mr. Armitage, not Scooter Libby. It seems troublesome that Mr. Libby is the one punished when he didn't commit the underlying crime.
That said, I think that anyone watching the statement by Plame showed her obvious disdain for the Bush Administration. That shows evidence of bias, which limits the effectiveness and importance of her testimony.
Also, your source being CNN is hardly an unbiased source. They looked forward to "Fitzmas" as much as John Murtha and Dennis Kucinich did back when the indictment was handed down.

Now what I'm looking forward to is a nice cold Guinness. Cheers.

WhattheH said...

Mr Conservative, nowhere in my note did I indicate my source was CNN, so why would you make that assumption? I do not have cable, nor do I "watch" or check CNN. I watched the hearings on the U.S. Congressional website.
In addition, I found no disdain in Valerie Plame's statements, although I found a lot of disdain, nay condescension in the statements made by Valerie Toensing.
"That said, I think we can agree that if anyone then deserves to be indicted and convicted, it should Mr. Armitage, not Scooter Libby. It seems troublesome that Mr. Libby is the one punished when he didn't commit the underlying crime." This has nothing to do with today's hearings, so why are you bringing it up? Libby was not even put on trial for outing a covert agent so what does this have to do with this posting?
Obfuscation:
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.

Enjoy your Guinness and Cheers, but next time, please do not try to obfuscate based on my comments.

CC said...

Jonathan whines about the apparent anti-conservative bias of CNN:

"Also, your source being CNN is hardly an unbiased source."

How tres amusante given this previous post by Jonathan:

""The American side has just called me and asked me to either send someone to pick up the personal effects of Saddam Hussein and his [half] brother Barzan al-Tikriti, or to give them an address to which they can send them," said lead defense attorney Khalil al-Dulaimi.(CNN)"

You know, you really should have thought a bit harder about that snappy comeback, Jonathan.

The Seer said...

Getting back to Valerie making The Strong Conservative gag with her self-righteous attitude and belief that she is non-partisan, does the fact that she is a Democrat justify burning her cover?

I understand the number about neither Valerie nor CIA filing the proper paper work to perfect Vallerie's status as a NOC, thereby making Valerie "fair game," but what about outing Brewster Jennings? What made Brewster Jennings fair game? What breach of loyalty to the president and vice-president did Brewster Jennings commit?

The Seer said...

If it's all right to out Democrats, should we revise our thinking about 9/11? Certainly the attack on the Pentagon was treachery, because the military is mostly Republican, but what about the Twin Towers? New Yorkers are mostly Democrats. Is that why Dear Leader and Rumsfled decideds to let bin Landen go when they had him cornered at Tora Bora?

I wonder, in Canada, is it a crime to assault a Liberal? Or are Liberals "fair game?" What about NDP? Do you get extra points for taking out an NDP member?

WhattheH said...

Seer, in Canada assault is assault, regardless of one's political affiliation...or at least it has been ....
It used to be that way in the U.S. as well, however, it appears that lately, perhaps, there is a problem with interpretation of the law based on political affiliation? Am I incorrect?
Btw, I don't believe that political affiliation had anything to do with the atrocity that was 9/11 - the response yes, the deed, no.

Adam C said...

What I'm trying to figure out is why does Plame Wilson hold the administration in such disdain? Is it because they wrecked her career and defamed her husband, or is she just some kind of Bush-hater?

"Your honour, I object. The witness who claims my client is the one who assaulted him is clearly biased."

thwap said...

"Try to figure out n'more!!! my son!"

She holds them in contempt because they're contemptible morons, lak yoo man!

Ti-Guy said...

Johnathan, come back to Canada. You're clearly going insane down there.