Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Plame leak = no smear (so says dingus in my local paper)

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
carrowsboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:01 PM
Original message
Plame leak = no smear (so says dingus in my local paper)
http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename...

"The Plame Leak Wasn't a Smear

Editor, Times-Dispatch: Paul Krugman writes, "And now we know just how far was willing to go with these smear tactics: As part of the effort to discredit Joseph Wilson, Rove leaked the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."

Could someone please tell me what the smear is? What is wrong with working for the CIA? It does not exist by accident. Congress votes money for the CIA every year. The agency takes orders from the President. If it is disgraceful to work for the CIA, then shouldn't it be equally shameful to work at the Capitol or the White House -- or fraternize with people who do?

I know some people would object that the CIA practices employment discrimination. Narcotics addiction, alcoholism, adultery, gambling, and conflicts of loyalities do not bar a person from elected office or other positions of political leadership. The security-clearance system keeps most applicants with these problems out of the CIA.

Democrats -- not CIA employees -- are the ones who should be embarrassed. The moral climate that gave us Tyco and Enron in the private sector must have fostered some juicy public-sector fiascoes. Democrats should be ashamed if they can't find a scandal with a bit of substance and entertainment value. Charles J. Gambill, III. richmond."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. She was COVERT... not a known CIA agent. Duhhh
People are so thick sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-28-05 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. You gotta work hard to be that stupid
Astonishing to me that the Gambill family had enough collective marbles to produce any offspring, let alone a Charles III. I'm going to have guess inbreeding was a factor.
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 Dec 15th 2017, 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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