I’m posting this without comment.
The following article appeared on Saturday April 19th in the Washington Times. (H/T to tpt/ny)
Key witness in passport fraud case fatally shot
Read the complete post here:
Yes, it happened this evening . . . Keith Olbermann, Obama lapdog & apologist extraordinaire, criticized Obama and his “Justice” Department. Seems his administration has taken steps that are more extreme than Bush 43 ‘s position on wiretapping and a citizen’s right to sue the government.
We all remember how outraged the left and the MSM media were about Bush’s tactics and the wide scale intrusion into our right for privacy? This evening in the irony of ironies it was Olbermann bringing this issue to the forefront. For the first 10 minutes of his program he was the Keith of old … performing like an actual journalist. Alas, that didn’t last very long . . . one segment that’s all!
To the point:
The Obama administration is defending, yet again, the wide ranging illegal wire tapping program of the Bush administration despite fiercely criticizing this policy during the Presidential campaign. His Justice Department is advancing the usual circular logic argument of “national security” in defending the government against a suit brought on behalf of AT&T customers who suspect that their communications were illegally intercepted by federal authorities.
Read the rest of this post here:
Keith Olbermann . . . bad actor and cartoon character is at it again! He called Senator Richard Shelby a traitor last week. Yes, a traitor, because Shelby had the temerity to answer a constituent’s question about Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of POTUS . Hat tip to a recent post on The Betrayal Blog which brought my attention to this. I stopped watching Olbermann & MSNBC months ago and would have missed this. Olbermann’s harangues and constant ravings having become so predictable, silly, and (worse still) boring! Why watch?
Which brings me to March ’08, when Olbermann & MSNBC devoted an entire hour of coverage to Obama’s passport breaches by contract workers at the State Department. Here’s a reminder of “Great Passport Firestorm” of 2008 for those who may have missed it.
At the time I thought the story was an odd one to devote so much time and attention to. If a plane slams into a building that’s “breaking news”, but this? Passport peeking? I thought the coverage at MSNBC verged on the bizarre. Someone looked at Obama’s passport information . . . really what was the big deal? Strange, indeed, to devote so much time to something, that on the surface appeared to be rather minor and of little note.
Remember, at time, the issues concerning Obama’s eligibility had not been raised. Those stories were on the horizon, months away from the initial passport story . In fact, my first post questioning Obama’s eligibility was related to Obama’s dual citizenship. This was later in the summer of ’08 when an article in the Rocky Mountain News first appeared. It mentioned BHO’s dual citizenship referenced back to 1963.
Now let’s fast forward to Olbermann and his assault on Senator Shelby.
How are these incidents ties together?
Well for starters, the answer to the question of “what’s the big deal” about looking at Obama’s passport has turned out to be a very big deal. Passport information includes date and place of birth . . . Hawaii or Kenya, for example. Passports information also details countries traveled to, travel dates and citizenship . . . US? Kenyan? Indonesian?
Suddenly the passport peeking is a very big deal if a person is perpetrating a hoax and knowingly running as an ineligible candidate for the office of President. Wanna bet Olbermann’s over the top, knee jerk reaction to the passport peeking was because Olbermann (and I would venture to say a host of others) always knew Obama was ineligible to run for POTUS.
The traitors among us do not include Senator Shelby . . . quite the contrary. Mr. Olbermann, you and everyone who has aided and assisted in bringing the faux President, the fraud Obama to the White House, you are the traitors and should be treated accordingly. Senator Clair Mc Caskill that includes you. The tip off? Olbermann’s over reaction and continued obfuscation of the truth as it relates to Obama’s citizenship. Olbermann has become a brazen liar and MSNBC is nothing less than Obama’s Pravda.
As an aside, I wonder who those two contract workers were who looked at Obama’s passport records? I sure as hell would love to talk to them and find out what was really in Obama’s records . . . the ones he continues to hide from the American people. Think there’s a way to find these two?
If you read this blog on a regular basis you know I am a political moderate, Hillary & Bill supporter, past Democrat now independent and a PUMA and proud of it.
I’m one of those white, college educated women so (newly) prized by the Donna Brazille, Howard Dean, Obama team … I’m one of the women who saw Hillary decimated by the new dirty Democratic Party who threw off the yoke of their stupidity and insane desire to win regardless of the cost of integrity, decency, and honor.
So, why quote Ann Coulter? She’s never been a friend of the Clinton’s (understatement!) or democrats or moderates, for that matter. It always seemed to me her position on everything was rigid and neo-con or else!
My opinion of her started to change last year when she along with a long list of conservatives, including FOX News defended Don Imus. Then in March, when the MSM was dumping on Hillary, Coulter was using terms like “our plucky girl Hillary” and it was clear even if she didn’t support Hillary’s politics she was in support for fair and decent treatment . . . neither of which Hillary received from most of the MSM and her own party.
Which brings me to today and a recent column of Coulter’s on John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin. There’s a deliciously snarky comment about the idiot Olbermann, Chris (who me a misogynist?) Matthews, and MSNBC. Please read it, it’s good stuff!
As for Michelle Malkin, who’d of thunk it? Hot Air, a Malkin site, is on my blogroll! On any given day, people like myself are sure to find a few points they agree with in her posts.
Who knows if I’ll still feel this way after John McCain and Sarah Palin are elected in November, but for now this seems like a good truce!
This couldn’t have happened to two finer fellows! Hear those cheers in that background? They are coming from:
The New York Times is reporting this seismic shift in programming in a new article written today. This is must read for all of us that witnessed the complete and utter downfall of MSNBC starting with the Imus firing in April of 2007. The article reads in part:
The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.
“The most disappointing shift is to see the partisan attitude move from prime time into what’s supposed to be straight news programming,” said Davidson Goldin, formerly the editorial director of MSNBC and a co-founder of the reputation management firm DolceGoldin.
Executives at the channel’s parent company, NBC Universal, had high hopes for MSNBC’s coverage of the political conventions. Instead, the coverage frequently descended into on-air squabbles between the anchors, embarrassing some workers at NBC’s news division, and quite possibly alienating viewers. Although MSNBC nearly doubled its total audience compared with the 2004 conventions, its competitive position did not improve, as it remained in last place among the broadcast and cable news networks. (surprise, surprise, surprise… and they wonder why!) In prime time, the channel averaged 2.2 million viewers during the Democratic convention and 1.7 million viewers during the Republican convention.
The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.
“In a rapidly changing media environment, this is the great philosophical debate,” Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC, said in a telephone interview Saturday. Fighting the ratings game, he added, “the bottom line is that we’re experiencing incredible success.”
But as the past two weeks have shown, that success has a downside. When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted “NBC.”
After you have read this, please visit my new blog on the impact of plastics on our environment! This is a political issue that effects everyone on the planet.
I’ve said this before, Olbermann has long since stopped being a man principle, a man whose words one could trust, a beacon of enlightened intellect and humor in the usually dull and vapid cable media spectrum.
Any pretext of objectively as it relates to Obama has long since dissipated into the night. Olbermann’s nightly pimping and whoring for Obama’s candidacy has reached a point of insufferability. Lately, it has been great watching MSNBC self-destruct . . . couldn’t happen to a nicer group!
Demonstrating once again, that’s there’s no A-hole like a flying A-hole, we have this video curteosy of the beltway snark, one of my daily must reads.
As a companion piece for those who might have missed it, this remains one of my favorite Olbermann videos.
Imagine my surprise last week when I heard Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe discussing the New York Times outing a CIA agent!
I know I’ve been wrapped up in the election, Obama, HRC, the DNC, PUMA’s and the like but I didn’t think I was that far removed to have missed this story. Well, better late to the game than never.
Well, it turns out the MSM has no stomach for reporting on this. Apparently, Valeria Plame being outed by Robert (Darth Vader) Novak is one thing, but when the Times exposes an agent it is justified!?! Guess not, right? Wrong! My God, how is this possible? Keith Olbermann missed an opportunity to be synthetically outraged . . . you mean no “Special Comment” on this outing?
Can we state this once and for all, the outing of any CIA agent by any source should be punishable in some fashion. It was wrong to out Valeria Plame and it was wrong of the Times to out Mr. Martinez.
There are many, many, people who view these politically motivated outings (which in my estimation they were) as treason. If a man or woman has the grit to become a CIA agent they should have a reasonable expectation they will not be outed by people in the country they are trying to protect.
Since it is possible an outing could, in fact, happen accidentally, this type of outing should be viewed as a 2nd degree offense punishable by (at the very least) losing one’s top security clearance, a fine or forfeiture of a significant sum of money, demotion, and a police record.
If in fact the outing was not accidental, like the recent Times action, that should be viewed as a felonious act and fines beginning at $250,000.00 and going upwards seem perfectly fine to me. If the lives of agents, their families, and contacts established over the years are placed at risk because of this kind of foolishness, jail time also seems appropriate.
AND, while I’m at it, I’m sick and tired of hearing talking heads and other assorted political hacks making statements like, “they weren’t really undercover!” Oh, really, and just how do you know that? SO to all lame brained media morons and other assorted fools who pretend to know, listen up. The truth is, the only people who know whether an agent is undercover reside at the agency, and that’s not you fella!
I don’t care if you consider yourself a liberal, conservative, moderate, right wing nut, or left wing nut, outing CIA agents is WRONG and Congress (such as it is) should move to end this once and for all!
In an astonishing stroke of irony, the New York Times has outed the name of the CIA operative who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, over the objections of CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and a lawyer representing the operative.
Agency officials and legal counsel told the Times that publishing the agent’s name would “invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.”
In an Editor’s Note linked from the story on KSM’s interrogation, the Times defended its decision by stating that “other government employees” had been “named publicly in books and published articles” or had chosen to go public themselves, by explaining that its policy “is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely,” and by arguing the operative’s name “was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article.”
Times reporter Scott Shane describes his scoop as “the closest look to date beneath the blanket of secrecy that hides the program from terrorists and from critics who accuse the agency of torture.”
The CIA apparently believes that by publishing the operative’s name, the Times put the agent at risk for retaliatory strikes from such “critics” and terrorists, despite his here-described lack of participation in the agency’s “harsh interrogation methods.”
Of course, this is just the latest in a long string of Times articles that have leaked classified and guarded information critical to America’s security and that of its people and public servants. Alert readers have long since stopped expecting any level of consistency from the same liberal media that was obsessed with the naming of Valerie Plame (though they’ve been considerably less obsessed with the actual source of Robert Novak’s column, Richard Armitage).
The Central Intelligence Agency asked The New York Times not to publish the name of Deuce Martinez, an interrogator who questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda prisoners, saying that to identify Mr. Martinez would invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.
After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for Mr. Martinez, the newspaper declined the request, noting that Mr. Martinez had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article.
The Times’s policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover.
Mr. Martinez, a career analyst at the agency until his retirement a few years ago, did not directly participate in waterboarding or other harsh interrogation methods that critics describe as torture and, in fact, turned down an offer to be trained in such tactics.
The newspaper seriously considered the requests from Mr. Martinez and the agency. But in view of the experience of other government employees who have been named publicly in books and published articles or who have themselves chosen to go public, the newspaper made the decision to print the name.
—Mick Wright is a freelance journalist who lives in Memphis, Tennessee. His personal blog is at mickwright.net.