Politicians scour hundreds of people in a category until they scrape up one or two that are willing to be paraded around and bark on command like trained seals. The Democrats have somebody like this in most categories: Iraq war veterans. People who lost someone on 9/11. You name it.
One sign of "hack" is that it's always the same one or two names, appearing in many press conferences and many, many news stories. These two agents have been doing this tour for over two years. Look it up.
Another sign of "hack" is that when something happens that SHOULD get them upset, but there isn't any political advantage to it, they stay quiet. I used the example of the NYT exposing a CIA operation to show this aspect.
As for the "subject," there isn't one. Valerie Plame's "outing," if there even was one, had little or no effect on the safety of sources and people overseas, and the Democrats know that. They also know that if they could throw a dozen overseas agents to the wolves and nail Bush by doing it, they'd do in a minute. I'm not sure who they think they're fooling with all this newfound "concern" for the CIA.
For a good perspective on dealing with the information instead of battering the source, check out how the Left treated the Swift Boat Veterans when they told their story.
Current Events » in reply to There you go ahead
Okay, shorter version: they're political hacks.
The whole thread (45 posts)
- Former agents criticize Bush over CIA leak
- re: Former agents
- Typical
- Donald, the "breaking" story is 2 years old. Wake up. (n/t)
- Oh, please.
- There you go ahead
- Ouch!
- re: Former agents
- re: Former agents
- Question for you on the NYT outing
- Bush's dad fire Rove for being a leak before. How things change! (n/t)
- re: Former agents
- Your second sentence reveals the motivations.
- re: Nope! You're wrong it does matter and you don't get.
- Your second sentence reveals the motivations.
- re: Former agents
- Typical
- re: Former agents
