This year l learned a new word:
To ''bloviate''. What ''bloviate'' means l believe is to pontificate self-righteously about how evil and stupid the other side is, and how exasperated you are that they don't follow the good, solid example set by who else? Your side. All the while the truth is, you don't know a damn thing about what you're ranting. Of course my stalwart examples are Michelle Malkin and Bill O'Reilly. They think they are showing me how the Left ''bloviates'', but they are the best examples of what they think they teach.
D'awright! d'awright! So O'Reilly is honestly shocked at why the "Liberals" aren't for his ''red blooded'' response to the situation in Iraq, or how the London bombings "prove" how Bush was right in fighting the enemy there, so we won't be doing so "over here''. But maybe that's because O'Reilly, and others of his ilk don't understand that terrorism and guerilla warfare are types of battle that are as much political as they are military. And so, our response should be as much political as it is military. O'Reilly always misses that point. For heaven's sake, even something as pathetic as Marines handing out toys in Saigon was far more effective than anything we've heard from Iraq. Hence O'Reilly always consistently demonstrates top-notch "bloviating". Others are Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, and of course his brother Rush.
Now Rush takes bloviating to a fine art. In the matter of the Supreme Court, he would rather that the Democrats meekly ''shut up" while their wise President makes all of their choices for them. Rush should get a look something called the CONSTITUTlON! From the phrase: "Advise and Consent of the Senate", it is in the word "Consent" that democracy is manifest. To say that Democrats don't have a say in choosing a Supreme Court, just because they lost the election, is saying that half the country hasn't got that right. That right is hardwired into the Constitution! How Rush could've missed that little detail is beyond me, and anyone else who has ever watched 25 years of CNN!.
Of course the most recent example of ''bloviating" is in the Bush gang's response to the They keep accusing him of lying about an imagined direct between him and Dick Cheney. Nowhere, in any publication has anyone implied that Cheney contacted Wilson for the
"The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."
lt was always agreed that the CIA contacted him on Cheneys behalf, but nobody ever said that either Cheney, or his office had EVER contacted Wilson.
Rush's little brother
Now, let's be clear here. President Bush's statement was true when he made it, and it remains true today. The Brits made such a claim and reiterated it emphatically (with the Butler inquiry expressly validating President Bush's SOTU claim) even after the Bush-scavenging American Left falsely accused him of inventing the story."
Ok Mr. Limbaugh, then where is that yellowcake? Such a smart man as you can find the Iraqi WMD's just by using your Frist-cam! Oh, and while you're down there, could you maybe, sniff out some of that missing 480 tons of live ordinance that we left - just lying around for anyone to pick up? And what about that missing $ 8 billion ?
According to the Wojtowycz Dictionary this is "bloviation" on steroids! Not only does Limbaugh "state a position and staunchly never budge" to quote that master bloviator, Shaw's Henry Higgins, he doesn't know a damn thing he's talking about!
And one more thing about "bloviation", you can take it to unparalleled heights! - Or depths as the case may be.
Now the Right Wingnuts wish us to think that Valerie Plame had no cover to blow!
First they wished us to think that all she did was be a desk jockey. But then we found out that she overqualified for that position by having expertise in WMD's and being a dead shot with an AK 47! No little secretary she!
In fact as I remember it, and I may be wrong, she spent many years with official cover in Europe. The secretary excuse got blown out of the water. This is beginning to look like an episode of "The Road Runner!"
Next they trot their ACME all-purpose demolition excuse: Her cover was already blown to the Russians and Castro 6 years ago!
Awrigh, awright, AWRIGHT! But let's listen CAREFULLY to the
"As the media alleged to the judges (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422 because it was evidently made by a foreign-intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires.
But neither did they mention the incident idly. For if, as he has famously suggested, President Bush has peered into the soul of Vladimir Putin, what he has no doubt seen is the thriving spirit of the KGB, of which the Russian president was a hardcore agent. The Kremlin still spies on the United States. It remains in the business of compromising U.S. intelligence operations.
Thus, the media's purpose in highlighting this incident is blatant: If Plame was outed to the former Soviet Union a decade ago, there can have been little, if anything, left of actual intelligence value in her "every operation, every relationship, every network" by the time anyone spoke with Novak (or, of course, Corn)."
But listen to what he says:
'' Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow.''
"a SPY in Moscow"! That meant that a COVERT Russian counterintell was in progress at the time, and they'd be just as interested in keeping things secret as we would!
She would NOT be automatically outed to a REPORTER! If l had a dollar for every spy who was uncovered by our side or Russia, Soviet or otherwise, that got the front-page treatment, l'd be - living in a cardboard box! In all the history of the CIA, KGB, MI6, or the Mossad, no counterespionage agent would have EVER revealed to the enemy that their agents were compromised on the home soil! To do so would have compromised the counterintelligence effort to uncover the whole network of spies, and any effort to run them as unknowing disinformation conduits, or double agents. In the humintel biz, it's "Better the devil you know, than the one you don't know". If Putin knew about Plame, the ex-KGB man would've still kept her secret.
But now to continue with my new star witness Mr. McCarthy:
"THE CIA OUTS PLAME TO FIDEL CASTRO
Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court. They don't place a precise date on this one, but inform the judges that it was "more recent" than the Russian outing but "prior to Novak's publication."
And it is priceless. The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article ó you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage ó Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."
Thus, the same media now stampeding on Rove has told a federal court that, to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her. Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove ó who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status. Yet, although the Times and its cohort have a bull's eye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment ó one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet."
And here comes some more "bloviating"!
"Gertz elaborates that '[t]he documents WERE SUPPOSED TO BE SEALED from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."'
Again the CIA still operated Plame as a covert agent this time as a NOC. And we may presume that this was so because her official cover was blown in Moscow.
But let us allow Mr. McCarthy to stick his foot further down his esophagus:
"Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove ó who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status."
First of all, l don't believe a guy like Rove wouldn't have a complete dossier on Joe Wilson and his wife on his desk after the Niger business. And certainly not after Bush had to eat the16 most embarrassing words ever spoken in a State Of The Union address.
"appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status."
Hmmm! Not only is it more plausible that Rove DID KNOW, it is no less plausible that a man of Rove's intelligence would not only know that Bob Novak would print what Rove said, but he'd probably have a full profile on Novak that would tell him so.
This leak reminds me of a scene from the movie "Absence of Malice":
An overzealous prosecutor in an attempt to trick Paul Newman to do some investigating for him, purposefully leaves Newman's file unattended on a desk beside reporter Sally Field's seat. This prosecutor knows Sally Fields is a reporter, yet he leaves the file on the desk and OPEN! She takes a peek, the prosecutor checks on her surreptitiously, and presto, changio, a Rovian leak is born!
How’s that for bloviatin’?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment