GOP's Sad Attempt, Wanting CIA Leak Investigated

So, some CIA leaks are good (this one) but some are bad (Plame). Hmm.

It has always struck me as ironic how the left fell in love with protecting the CIA & its agents when the Wilson flap came up, after having made a career of compromising the CIA in any way possible.

And I have a suspicion that the appropriate Congressional committees have been quite aware of the "secret" prisons.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Ah yes, typical liberal hypocrisy at it's best.

It must be investigated that a CIA agent (who wasn't covert) name was "leaked" to the press.

Now we have someone leaked the fact that there are secret prisons for terrorists. This is obviously part of the war on terror and must be stopped.

Liberal, sad and pathetic.

Why would they wanted to investigate an on going Black Operation.  That would be a violation of the law.  While you may find the idea of foreign prisons morally repugnant, the simple truth is they are not illegal.  Why should congress investigate a non-crime?

Or perhaps you are just embarrassed, because unlike Plame, this is a clear case of an illegal leak.  And no one yet knows if it is a democrat or republican, or a sour apple who did it.  But I would put money on the democrat.  Leaky Leahy has already shown he cant keep his fat trap shut  when told a secret.

Well, according to Mr. Trent Lott...at least some of the information came from a GOP only lunch with Cheney. No staffers were present, just Senators.

Another Republican, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, said that senators from his party might have given information to the Post. Lott told reporters that the existence of the prison system was discussed last week at the Republican policy luncheon on Capitol Hill, which was attended by Vice President Dick Cheney and held the day before the Post published its report. "Information that was said in there, given out in there, did get into the newspaper," Lott said. "I don't know where else it came from…. It looked to me that at least one of those reports came right out of that room."

Link

And no one yet knows if it is a democrat or republican, or a sour apple who did it. But I would put money on the democrat. Leaky Leahy has already shown he cant keep his fat trap shut when told a secret.

So, is Leahy now a Republican?

Nice try, Dr. Guy.....but this one's pointing pretty clearly back on the righties. I have new respect for Frist and Hastert now....for a day or so at least.

So, is Leahy now a Republican? Nice try, Dr. Guy.....but this one's pointing pretty clearly back on the righties. I have new respect for Frist and Hastert now....for a day or so at least.

Please show me where I said it was Leahy.  I would like to see where I said that.  It is a matter of public record that the Democrats kicked Leahy off the Senate Intelligence committee back in the 80s for leaking classified information.  Now if you want to try again and put words into my mouth, be my guest.

But you will be wrong.

Note that there is no mention of them wanting to know any information about the fact that there ARE secret prisons.

Since holding Terrorist in covert prisons is not illegal, why investigate it and cause more clasified info to become public?

While leaking the info on hidden prisons, that could result in prison breaks and risking the lives of CIA personnel /allied guards manning those prisons, is major problem.

I don't care if it is a Republican Senator or staffer that is the leaker; nail his/her hide to the wall.

PS: I also believe Plame was not covert, but Libby should be punished for lying in a serious investigation.

Where exactly did I put words in your mouth? I quoted you. As you can clearly see above, I merely asked you if Leahy was now a republican. You are the one who introduced Leahy into the conversation, when he clearly has nothing to do with this. You righties like to accuse the left/liberals/democrats of "smearing". That's exactly what you were trying to do here. What Leahy did or did not do "back in the 80's" has no bearing on this. There is not indication that anyone other than a republican was responsible for this leak, therefore you have no basis for blaming this on democrats. Who knows, maybe at some point there will be evidence implicating democrats, but right now the facts point towards republicans.

when he clearly has nothing to do with this.

Your proof of that? 

And I never said Leaky Leahy was a Republican.

What Leahy did or did not do "back in the 80's" has no bearing on this. There is not indication that anyone other than a republican was responsible for this leak,

First, yes it does.  It demonstrates a tendency for leaking.  When police go looking for a rapist, they do not round up all the guys never convicted of rape.  They first look at known rapists.

Second, there is no indication that anyone did it, much less a Republican.  There is a story by one person saying it was discussed.  No indication that any of them leaked it, nor that they were not over heard and it was leaked by another.  All that is assumptions on your part that may or may not turn out to be true.  However, there are no facts that indicate anyone's guilt now, so therefore your acclimation that it was a republican is just false.  It may turn out to be true, but at this time, there is no evidence to support the allegation.

Try differentiating between your opinion and facts.

Releasing classified information is releasing classified information. What's good for the goose...

Second, there is no indication that anyone did it, much less a Republican. There is a story by one person saying it was discussed. No indication that any of them leaked it, nor that they were not over heard and it was leaked by another. All that is assumptions on your part that may or may not turn out to be true. However, there are no facts that indicate anyone's guilt now, so therefore your acclimation that it was a republican is just false. It may turn out to be true, but at this time, there is no evidence to support the allegation. Try differentiating between your opinion and facts.

I wasn't reporting my opinion, I reported quotes from Trent Lott, on where he thinks the leak came from.

What Leahy did or did not do "back in the 80's" has no bearing on this. There is not indication that anyone other than a republican was responsible for this leak, First, yes it does. It demonstrates a tendency for leaking. When police go looking for a rapist, they do not round up all the guys never convicted of rape. They first look at known rapists.

There is no indication that Leahy was even aware of this information. However, it is a fact that several republicans had this information. Unless you think Lott is making up the whole story. I'm sure you know much better than he does as far as what he was told about by Cheney.

There is a story by one person saying it was discussed. No indication that any of them leaked it, nor that they were not over heard and it was leaked by another.

If you dig a little deeper, and look at the clips of statements by Lott, you will see that he indicated that a good portion of what was in the paper was word for word what they discussed.

Be so kind as to point me to somewhere in my comments in this thread that offer my opinion.

Releasing classified information is releasing classified information. What's good for the goose...

Nobody here said that these guys were the only politicians in history who have ever released classified information. It's just not relevant what Leahy did or didn't do 20 years ago because he's not involved in this case.

Just like in another thread where people brought up Sandy Berger. Yes, Sandy Berger stole classified documents and destroyed them. He pled guilty and was sentenced. The fact that he did that, or whatever Leahy did doesn't mean that republicans can't be called out for doing it.

Just like in another thread where people brought up Sandy Berger. Yes, Sandy Berger stole classified documents and destroyed them. He pled guilty and was sentenced. The fact that he did that, or whatever Leahy did doesn't mean that republicans can't be called out for doing it.

With this I agree. The implication is clearly that one or more of those Republicans in attendance discussed the substance of the meeting with someone who was not in attendance. That someone could easily have been a staffer with loose lips rather than a reporter, so we should be circumspect about who we accuse until we know more. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that someone on some Senator's staff is intentionally divulging information - happens all the time in that snakepit.

Cheers,
Daiwa