Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Toensing's Latest Lie: She Did NOT write the IIAP, she lobbied for passage of it

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:43 PM
Original message
Toensing's Latest Lie: She Did NOT write the IIAP, she lobbied for passage of it
Background: I did a little poking around on the net and found her resume on her website http://www.digenovatoensing.com/attorneybiosvt.htm

Her resume states:

"While Chief Counsel for Senator Barry Goldwater, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1981-1984, Toensing was instrumental in winning passage of two important bills:
(1) to protect the identities of intelligence agents and
(2) to protect certain classified information from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act."

Thus on her professional resume she claims to have been instrumental in winning passage of the IIAP, and at Waxman's Oversight Hearing she claims to have WRITTEN THE LAW...

(Excerpt from the oversight transcript)
Waxman: How could you say that? How could you say she wasn't covert?

Toensing: Well, because she wasn't. I wrote the statute.

Waxman: I'm not asking for your credentials.

Toensing: Well, my credentials are how I know. I wrote the law. She was not covered by the law.

As a layperson, it seems to me that "writing the law" versus "lobbying for passage of a law" are two very different activities analogous to the difference between "designing a house" and "selling a house" and that even a bottom-rung law student would not make the mistake of using the terms interchangeably.

Further, I believe that the ever boastful and lime-light seeking moth VT would have used the more prestigious role of author over lobbyist on her public resume if it were true...I think little Ms.LieFactory just got caught up in her own web of deceit during the heat of the hearing.

For added amusement read the whole resume. Sheesh ... one is lead to believe that she had single-handedly sought out and captured every wannabe terrorist of the 1990's with her own bare hands.
Also, Henry Champ of CBC also had a bit of 1980's VT trivia to share on his blog today.see Enter the Secretive Victoria
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madame defarge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. As Waxman said at the end of her testimony...
"I understand that some of the things you've stated here today with great authority may not be accurate, so we will hold the record open...."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. And he snarked at her when he said "You helped write the law more than 30 years ago..."
She with laughter .."Oh, it was only 25..." and Waxman replied: "Well we will check that, too!" :rofl:

She was trying to be so cutesy like trying to say "I'm not that old" and Waxman slammed her!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Polemicist Donating Member (299 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
39. I heard that differently...
There was some cross talk happening, so it was hard to hear. I had it TIVOed and backed it up and listened twice. What I heard her say, in response to Waxman's comment about "30 years ago", was "please don't "date me", I'm only 25", which then Waxman said "we will check that as well".

It was a poor attempt at a joke by VT at the end of the testimony and I'm not sure Waxman was really up for joking after listening to her dissemble for 40 minutes or so. But Waxman did smile at her when he said "we will check that as well".

I thought it was a bit inappropriate and much too "familiar" for Congressional testimony under oath. But Waxman had already fairly well "waxed her", as did other Demo Congressmen and women. I kept thinking, I bet she doesn't get treated this way when she dissembles live on FoxNews. This is a bit of a new experience for her.

I enjoyed watching them tell her to shut up, and seeing her do so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. She said "Please dont date me it was only 25".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. That's how I heard it too, though others heard it the other way.
I kept asking myself, how could such important law be placed on the shoulders of one 25 year old? It didn't add up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Thank you.
K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. and another thing
how would writing the law make her an authority on Plame's status..

That's like saying so-and-so was speeding 'cause I wrote the law setting the speed limit. One simply does not follow from the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:58 PM
Original message
that's exactly what I was thinking, too.
According to the DU threads during the hearing, it sounds as if Waxman et al. destroyed VT on that point also. They asked her whether the CIA had told her Plame wasn't covert, etc., and she had to admit she had no first hand knowledge of anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
42. Thank you. That sums it up quite neatly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Venus Dog Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. Waxman was really bending over to give her an out
but these people are such brazen, outlandish liars and have gotten away with so much criminality for so long...they just don't know when to shut their mouth. SHEEESHHH! :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. Thank you for the research. K&R
I was going to look this up and see...and how nice to see you had done this and posted the info!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. She's been claiming for years she wrote it with Barry Goldwater and repeating the Lie
for these Repugs always made it the truth...until someone finally comes up with the facts. We'd have to check through Goldwater's records to find out if she "really helped him write the law" or "wrote it" or if she was the one who operated the Copy Machine that printed it.

Thanks for posting about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. "Kinko" Toensing.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. Happy To K&R This To Greatest!
Thanks for the good work...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Babel_17 Donating Member (948 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hmm, so is "I invented the statute" an applicable paraphrasing? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwerlain Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. How about,
"I invented covert agents?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #20
56. the world according to Victoria
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K8-EEE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. I never understood how she could know Val P's activities
by virtue of "writing the statute" or whatever....what a nonsense arguement!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
52. that is exactly right - she may have written the law, but that doesn't mean she has facts of case to
apply the law to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. is it really a surprise that a lobbyist might have written a law ?
Edited on Sat Mar-17-07 02:58 PM by unblock
i don't claim to know the facts in this particular case, but i imagine lobbyists are actually the ones who pen the laws they lobby for, just as law clerks are the ones who actually pen the opinions credited to their justices....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #11
38. Not in Tennessee. The lobbyists write most of our laws here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. The repugs don't care what they did
Edited on Sat Mar-17-07 03:07 PM by Turbineguy
they just want to get away with it.

So it may turn out that the outing was not illegal. They don't care about the damage, they just don't want to go to jail.

What this Toensing woman has accomplished it to elicit a deeper inquiry. It was a mistake to send her. Davis and Westmoreland should have quizzed Bill Leonard who (I believe Waxman called him the nation's greatest authority on security issues) would have certainly known about the law that Toensing was talking about.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
13. Here's some more on her from RJ Eskow at Huffington Post
What Toensing fails to mention in this part of her rambling diatribe is that Libby isn't being tried for disclosing Plame's name, but for lying under oath. That makes this entire line of "defense" irrelevant.

Toensing also attackes the CIA. The former agents I've talked to are enraged about this leak, but according to Toensing the Agency's just trying to "cover its derriere." Needless to say, she uses stale accusations against Joe Wilson to characterize him as a liar - a "coy" one, in her words.

("Coy"? "Derriere"? Is this a national security breach or a debutantes' ball?)

And the media? Let's just say they're also in Toensing's "personal bill of indictment" - because, you know, they've been so aggressive all along in challenging the Administration's assertions about this war.

So, who is Victoria Toensing? She's a former Barry Goldwater staffer and Reagan Justice Department antiterrorism official who filed an amicus brief in favor of Judith Miller (something she fails to mention in her article).

Toensing also failed to disclose her personal friendship with Robert Novak when she wrote an editorial for the Post on the same subject two years ago, and makes the same omission today. In fact, today's piece is virtually the same editorial as the one she wrote in January 2005, with the same misleading statements.

Why is the Post giving her this platform again? You'll have to ask them.

Toensing has a long history of writing highly partisan pro-Administration and anti-Democratic editorials. That's certainly her right. But using her legal credentials to distort the law and the facts in this case, as part of her ongoing partisan attacks on behalf of her political allies? That's less defensible.

Hmm. Maybe I need to prepare a "personal bill of indictment," too.

more at.........

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:L3DYMt7BUXsJ:www.h...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ebayfool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
14. Henry Champ has her 'job description' nailed! Rec'd ...
snip/
Still, the debate played for days. Toensing knew what she was doing. The NBC debate overshadowed the stories about American failures in the Mideast or screw-ups chasing terrorists.

The truth was any tinpot government security service would have been able to track a four-person television crew leaving Heathrow Airport for the Middle East. I met Victoria Toensing years later at a Washington function and she told me exactly where we had met with Abbas and who his henchmen were.

Now Victoria is testifying at the Valerie Plame hearing. Her job is still the same to change the nature of the way the story is perceived.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
32. so her job today is to ''change history''.
to use orwellian techniques EVEN IN FRONT of those who witnessed events as they were.

i.e. plame tells the story as it was/is -- toensing tells the story for the ''history books''.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ebayfool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Yup ... well, she can try. I think The Red One isn't keeping up w/the times.
Information moves faster & wider in now than when she was in her 'heyday'. All it's accomplishing now is making her look incompetent & stupid, as well as a willing abettor/participant to crimes. Harder to 'change history' when there's an army of fact-checkers on her arse. Betcha the repubs that invited her to testify are kicking themselves right about now.

Mama be obsolete & don't even know it!
:rofl:



2 things:

1.somebody needs to put 'arse' in speelchucker - it's a legit word!

2.The Red One is NOT intended as a slur - I was impregnated by a Red One ... they be tasty!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
15. better capture that bio from their web site...
...before it disappears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Good point!! /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. Something REAL fishy here....
So VT was counsel to BG starting in 1981, right? And she was an ASUA before that, right? Fast learner ~~ IF her story is true and the dates match up. But...better yet:

Soooooo....she WROTE this bill? I find that hard to belive looking at the history of the bill:

It was INTRODUCED on January 5, 1981.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d097:4:./temp/~... ::

How the heck did she work on that bill? OK....it COULD be....but I doubt it that in 5 days she got together with BG and wrote that thing...particularly since he was NOT the sponsor of the bill BECAUSE IT WAS INTRODUCED IN THE HOUSE and NOT the SENATE.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d097:4:./temp/~...

Here's the full report on the bill...and I don't even see BG mentioned:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d097:4:./temp/~...

Someone tell me if I am off on this ~~ but looking at the leg history of this law, if I am correct, VT is a MEGA liar!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Good work & LOL... and I up the ante by a power of 10 ... she's a GIGA LIAR
/nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. LOL!
Anything bigger than a GIG???

Btw: BG was a co-sponsor on the Senate version of the bill...but so was about EVERYONE else. Not introduced by him in the Senate. Introduced by John Chafee, sponsor, the beginning of Feb. 1981. So....if VT wrote the bill for BG...ummmmm...why did another senator introduce BG's bill?

IMO, Toensing is totally full of crap on this. Maybe she has told this lie so many times, she believes it by now?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. yes ... tera, peta, exa, zetta, yotta! That's it -- Yotta Liar!!
Edited on Sat Mar-17-07 03:44 PM by Iceburg
Thanks for the bill details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. that link doesn't work for me
we need to follow up on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. Hepburn ... I am having a problem with the links in the above post
can you please repair, or provide the search terms.
Many thanks.
Iceburg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Wow....sorry I did not get back on this.
It's from LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ~~ THOMAS. I don't know why the links don't work. I searched on Public bill 97-200.

My friend and I have been out delivering fliers to pet owners about the pet food recall and all the brand names ~~ so I have been gone for a few hours. At least you guys waited for a good reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
29. Why are all these links missing?. . . . . eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #29
43. Good question. If they worked for the OP until posted here, maybe
somebody trying to cover things up has pulled them?????

I put absolutely nothing past these people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Thomas CACHES its search results and the link is to the temporary cache.
When the cache expires, the links stop working. So, there's NO CONSPIRACY here ... just the way the software works.

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Ah, ok. I just always assume the worst now with the RW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
36. Interesting. The bill that passed was the House bill, not the Senate bill.
H.R.4
Title: A bill to amend the National Security Act of 1947 to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of information identifying certain United States intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources.
Sponsor: Rep Boland, Edward P. (introduced 1/5/1981) Cosponsors (52)
Latest Major Action: 6/23/1982 Became Public Law No: 97-200.

SUMMARY AS OF:
5/20/1982--Conference report filed in House. (There are 4 other summaries)

(Conference report filed in House, H. Rept. 97-580)

Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 - Amends the National Security Act of 1947 to establish criminal penalties for any person who knowingly discloses information which identifies a U.S. covert intelligence agent.

Establishes a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment and/or a $50,000 fine for any person who, having had authorized access to classified information which identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses such information.

Establishes a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and/or a $25,000 fine for any person who, having had authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses such information.

Establishes a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment and/or a $15,000 fine for any person who, in the course of a "pattern of activities intended to identify" covert agents and with "reason to believe" that such activities would impair U.S. foreign intelligence activities, discloses information identifying an agent.

Directs the President to report annually to the congressional intelligence committees on measures to protect the identities of covert agents.

As staff to Goldwater in the Senate, Vicky the Liar wouldn't have shit to do with writing a House bill.

Goldwater wasn't even on the Conference Committee (Thurmond; Denton; East; Biden; Leahy; Chafee; Lugar; Jackson; Bentsen.)

9/23/1981:
Passed House (Amended) by Yea-Nay Vote: 354 - 56 (Record Vote No: 219).
10/6/1981:
Received in the Senate.
10/6/1981:
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Regular Orders. Calendar No. 294.
3/18/1982:
Considered by Senate.
3/18/1982:
Passed Senate in lieu of S. 391 with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 90-6. Record Vote No: 55.
3/18/1982:
Senate insists on its amendments, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Thurmond; Denton; East; Biden; Leahy; Chafee; Lugar; Jackson; Bentsen.
3/23/1982:
House Disagreed to Senate Amendments by Unanimous Consent.
3/23/1982:
House Agreed to Request for Conference and Speaker Appointed Conferees: Boland, Mazzoli, Fowler, Hamilton, Mineta, Rodino, Edwards (CA), Robinson, Ashbrook, McClory, Hyde.
5/19/1982:
Conferees agreed to file conference report.
5/20/1982:
Conference Report 97-580 Filed in House.
6/2/1982:
Considered by House Vote on Conference Report Postponed Until June 3 1982.
6/3/1982:
House Agreed to Conference Report by Yea-Nay Vote: 315 - 32 (Record Vote No: 131).
6/10/1982:
Conference report considered in Senate.
6/10/1982:
Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 81-4. Record Vote No: 170.
6/10/1982:
Cleared for White House.
6/14/1982:
Measure Signed in Senate.
6/15/1982:
Presented to President.
6/23/1982:
Signed by President.
6/23/1982:
Became Public Law No: 97-200.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. VT has some splainin' to do before federal officers /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dancingme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #36
51. time to send this to all the blogs
Josh Marshall, Americablog, Atrios, Fire Dog Lake, ect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #36
54. actually, the final bill, as enacted, was largely the senate version, not the house
Per the Congressional Research Service: "The Congress passed H.R. 4 in lieu of the Senate bill, after amending the House bill to encompass much of the language of the Senate bill."

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21636.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
18. OK, that's the sixth count of perjury
and I sincerely hope Congress pursues it. She's one of the main players in the "Git Clinton!" frenzy of the last decade and she's evil to the bone. Any way she can be removed from the legal profession and (with luck) tossed into jail to think it over is a good way.

A conviction would be a slam dunk. She looks exactly like what she is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Maybe Rush Limbaugh
will now want to marry her instead...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
31. No, see my post below -- and the others were equally
poorly based, IMO. I didn't bother to post in the thread I saw, but there just wasn't much "there" there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cynthia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
21. good research
thanks for digging this up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:31 PM
Response to Original message
23. amazing how many repukes have made fortunes
from the "war" on "terror"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
26. That would be just one more lie added on to the many she already told.
And just think, her freeper friends have been calling her today and last night telling her how nice she looked on TV, and what a great job she did.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morgana LaFey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
30. NOT proof she lied -- not at all
Now, she MAY have, but I don't think she'd be that foolish, frankly, to lie quite so boldly and baldly. She's a very clever woman.

Thus on her professional resume she claims to have been instrumental in winning passage of the IIAP, and at Waxman's Oversight Hearing she claims to have WRITTEN THE LAW...

She claimed both. She said it was her job to get it passed, and she also said she worked on the draft.

I can very well imagine that lowly staffers do NOT typically take credit on their resumes for writing legislation when it's their bosses -- not them -- who introduce it, co-sponsor, etc. I'll bet she had that staff experience on her resume, and people "in the know" would clearly understand it could mean drafting legislation for the Congressperson or Senator.

Victoria Toensing is NOT one of my favorite people, but you've not proven lying in the least.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
37. IIPA origins date back to the Ford Administration when Bush Sr was at CIA.
It never not got through Congress due to 1st Amendment concerns. It was resurrected, amended to address those concerns & passed when Reagan was President.

To hear Vicki tell it, the IIPA sprang full blown out of her head and into law. She may claim she wrote it, but I rather doubt she can be credited as the sole or original author of what would become the IIPA.

For example, in Brent Budowsky's response to Toensing's notorious February WaPo op ed, Budowsky notes that he "spent six years at the core of the group writing the CIA Identities Law with its original sponsor, Senator Lloyd Bentsen." http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/brent_bu...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 03:08 AM
Response to Original message
40. What a difference between the calm, collected Plame and crazy-making Toensing
It really did make me crazy to listen to VT's sarcasm, lies, and innuendos. It was refreshing to hear Waxman reign her in by saying he was "not yielding his time to her"!

VP, by sharp contrast, was highly focused and coolly polite to even the stupidest line of questioning/innuendo from the two Repubs. She kept her wits about her at all times -- imagine what an asset that kind of personality and intelligence used to be for the CIA. What an incredible waste.

Hekate

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
45. Point of Order
Only our elected legislators "write laws".

She may have assisted in crafting the law, but she definitely did not "write" the law. Having an unelected laypeerson "write" a law usurps the power of Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #45
53. not really
Having an unelected layperson enact a law would usurp the power of Congress. Writing (i.e. drafting) laws is exactly what staffers do (when its not done by lobbyists who aren't even congressional staff). Of course, her opinion as to what the law means isn't part of the legislative history and is utterly without legal significance.

In short, the fact that she was a senior staffer who may have participated in the drafting of the law really is irrelevant to its meaning. On the other hand, the premise of the OP -- that she lied because whe was a lobbyist not the drafter of the law -- is kinda silly. She was a senior congressional staffer, not a lobbyist, and it would be anything but surprising that, given her position, she played a significant role in the drafting of the bill.

But so fucking what. Hell, I've drafted sections of bills enacted into law too. But ultimately the courts, not me, are going to decide what it means, and my opinion counts for absolutely nada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-18-07 08:04 PM
Response to Original message
49. She wrote the law, yeah
And she invented Tang, and she is the father of Anna Nicole's baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-19-07 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
50. Firedoglake pups chew on VT's bones of betrayal
Don't miss the discussion at Firedoglake.com:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/19/how-to-betray-ame...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-20-07 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
55. kcik
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 31st 2014, 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC