![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)
« Round three of Jewcy snipefest | Home | "Liberal" jumps the shark, part II »
March 08, 2007
Straining at gnats
Bill Bennett:
Now that we have established that no rock and no expense will be left unturned and unspent, that no reporter involved will be left unsubpoenaed for leaking or even purportedly leaking a classified agent's name, when we have some suspicion that a person who works at the CIA might be covert (but turns out not to be): Can we please begin the investigation and subpoenaing of journalists—also known as witnesses to a crime—for leaking classified national-security information in a time of war?!
. . . I'm not talking about disgruntled spouses with political differences with the president, I'm talking about the disclosure of the most serious war-time planning and procedures to keep our country safe. I'm talking about disclosing the secret detention facilities of high-value terrorists, I'm talking about the disclosure of terrorist surveillance programs, I'm talking about the disclosure of the Treasury Department's SWIFT program that tracked terrorist financing—all of which are now caput because insiders leaked to the press and the press willingly published these classified secrets—-NONE of the programs that were leaked were illegal, all of them were of great value, all of them are over or changed as a result of the disclosure.
And let's revisit the slap on the wrist to Sandy Burglar while we're at it.
UPDATE: The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wants to follow up with Fitzgerald on the disclosure of Valerie Plame's status. Byron York says:
If Valerie Plame Wilson testifies before Congress, she will likely be asked detailed questions about her job status. Judge Reggie Walton tried, unsuccessfully, to keep the issue out of the Libby trial. But as Henry Waxman pointed out, that was a narrow legal proceeding, and a congressional hearing would have a broader scope.So Mrs. Wilson will likely be asked what years she operated under non-official cover. She will likely be asked about her return to the United States, about her maternity leave, and about her job description when she returned to work. She will likely be asked whether that job description could accurately be called covert. She will likely be asked whether her area of work had changed, or was changing, at the time of Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column that mentioned her name. And she will likely be asked what, if any, damage to national security resulted from the publication of her name.
These questions have never been answered publicly — even Judge Walton said he didn't know the answers — and Mrs. Wilson's appearance before the House committee will finally give us an opportunity to learn the answers.
That would be a good thing.
Judith | 03/08/07 at 09:57 PM | Categories: - From Sea to Shining Sea
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/6293
