MSM -- drive-by media, as Rush L. calls it -- missed the true message on March 17.   Even if they had been looking for 30,000 Eagles, they wouldn't have seen them in one gathering on Saturday. 

Why?

Because the Eagles were not clustered enmass.  Instead, they were at every memorial and momument or lining the streets and sidewalks.

Michelle Malkin was among them and compiled this video.

 

Washington, DC, March 17, 2007:

First the clowns ....

While 30,000 Americans lined the streets and walk-ways or stood in silent guard at our Memorials.

.... occasionally responding to the clowns:

pfffffffffffth.

Finally -- after 40 years --  A.N.S.W.E.R. receives an "answer" they can understand.

Live Blog of the Gathering
Join the Honor the Gathering of Eagles Blogroll

 

UPDATED AS NEWS IS AVAILABLE!

Blogging the live broadcast  from DC ... (Freedom Fighter, I think is the broadcast -- I'll give live streams credit later when I can identify them.)

11:35 Email read from a female soldier thanking GOE for out-numbering protesters 3-1 ...

11:40 Live from sidewalk: Groups shouting ... presence of riot police --- chanting "USA" in background with boooos at protesters ...

11:47 Reference again about police presence .... individuals asked to speak online ... speakers can't hear ... former soldiers talking about their reasons for being there .... background noise is deafening.

11:50 Someone shouting "I'm just a man" (man sounds stoned ...) moonbat invited to speak:  argument ensues with moonbat and person with mic .... wow -- glad they closed the mic -- intense exchange of profanity. (Talkin' the talk ain't the same as walkin' the walk, bud.)

11:52 broadcasters taking break (Folks in DC need one as well.)

11:54  Reading headlines (the break continues .... this is not a peace march, btw -- based on the exchanges between Eagles and protesters.)  Eagles are winning, for those keeping score.  (In case you just clicked in, this is NOT a re-run of a past Super Bowl game.)

11:55 Foxnews notes that the Eagles have landed .... commentary from studio control that this may be the turning point in attitudes toward the war .... (Hang on to your, feathers, Fox.  You ain't seen nuttin' yet!!!)

11:56  Streamers have trouble broadcasting .... feed may be lost at noon.

11:57  Back to DC ..... guy who "was just a man" has been arrested ... for resisting arrest!  hee hee.

11:58:  Speaker: wants America to know that Eagles want peace AFTER victory.  Protesters are being humiliated by being unable to desecrate memorials .... Gooooo, Eagles!!!!!

11:59  Chanting "USA" begins again ....

12:00 first 30 newsfeeds are all pro-Eagles ....

off-air

Back online -- Kitt Jarrell audio stream (12:32)

12:33 at THE WALL with "thousands and thousands" of Eagles .... lots of security (on foot and in the air) ...people going thru metal detectors ...  has been listening to moonbat announcements: "if anyone tries to arrest you, head-butt them."   Stupid fools.  Scalp vs. riot gear:  guess who wins.

12:34  Someone called CJ now speaking  .... a sea of red, white and blue as opposed to the ANSWER side with yellow, anti-American signs, terrorist flags, etc. Cindy Sheehan has just spoken to a small group of fluffs .... full report will be made at PalTalk tonight ....

FoxNews:  reporting from the protesters' area -- not as many protesters gathered as anticipated .... Too bad, FoxNews --- keep the cameras rolling and watch for some to crawl out of the sewer before 2 pm.  Why do these newscasters sound disappointed???!!! 

BACK AT 1:12 pm

Photos are coming in at Free Republic .... Guys look cold ------- but they ARE standing shoulder-to-shoulder .....  So proud of them ALL.

Live discussion is going on at FreeRepublic .... Sign up and join in --

C-Span will be covering the protesters beginning at 2:00 ( in 45 minutes).  I'll keep blogging as it unfolds.  I watched C-Span this morning .... must have called them two dozen times --- lines busy.  Even the dimocrat line.  I wanted to say something snippy about NOT covering the Gathering of Eagles.  At least two pro-Eagles calls got thru ....

Please understand that as one who worked in Vietnam -- I may get emotional, yet I'll try to speak in socially acceptable terms ..... Be warned that I have little to no respect for jihad jane, formerly hanoi jane. 

1:17:  Going surfing ......

BACK AT 1:30 --

Just read one poster's comment that cell phone service in the DC area may have been blocked by feds (which might explain loss of live streams) due to concerns about hanky-panky and disruptions ....

If you haven't seen the photos being posted --- you need to head over to the FreeRepublic forum ..... Photos of flags and people shoulder-to-shoulder are chilling ....

I've scanned all cable channels and net streams ---- not an image at this time .... I'm disappointed in FoxNews referring to the GATHERING of EAGLES as "counter-protesters" ........... Those participating are MORE than "counter-protesters" --- they are legitimate Americans --------- not a pack of hired-protesters with their store-bought signs and international funding.  

Back later.

1:43 pm  back with cup of soup ..... which makes me think that the EAGLES must be getting cold .... bless them.

Soup reminds me of a star-lit night in 1968 on the perimeter at Tay Ninh.  We had been under attack for 8-days .... Three of us decided to "do something," so we borrowed a coffee urn and brewed a pot to take to those on guard duty.  As we crossed from PHILCAG to the TayNinh base, the rounds began to fall around us.  No -- we weren't using headlights --- we were driving a "mule."  It was just one of those "dr pepper" times when Charlie decided to lob a few mortars across the perimeter .... Anyway ---- we hopped into the closest bunker as a round pounded into the sandbags.  Frightening, to say the least. It was a while before out hands stopped shaking and we could serve coffee ....

Today would be a good day to serve coffee to the guys 'n gals who are Eagled Up! in DC.

2:00 C-Span coverage .... Opening speaker blows her lines ---- guy steps up and blabbers something I couldn't understand.  "Troops Home Now" is the chant -- I mean, A.N.S.W.E.R.  (snort snort)  Things are not beginning so good.

Speaker is rasping about the troops who have lost their lives -- reference to Bush .... he references that he is a grad of an Air Force OCS ..... Reckon?  His mummy must be proud.  Don't know his name.  He has bronchitis or something.  Cameras are scanning a yellow line of posters .... Can't read them.  He must be a singer --- he's calling for the small crowd to chant "hip hop, not war" ..... not many are responding.  Now he calls on everyone to be united in the name of all children.  Good call, bubba.  You need to be home with yours.  Rev. Lennox Yearwood is his name.

Now someone is speaking in tongues.  Muslim Mahdi Bray at the podium to introduce a whiny- voiced Muslim leader --- a woman from NC ... talking too fast.  If I can't understand her, no one there can, either.  There are so few in attendance ---- blame it on Bush, I guess.  Note to self:  check out how a woman gets to speak as a "muslim" .... Maybe she's a member of the Women's MUSLIM Auxillary or something like that ....

2:11 ..... she's still talking .... no more than a few hundred (if that many) appear present.  Now cameras are scanning folks spread out on the hill .... lots of green grass is visible.  Wonder if those standing in front of podium are paid more than those standing at the back?  Maybe they are simply standing closer to the hot air.  Brrrrrrrrr ....

Some bearded guy in granny glasses speaks .... (his shiny bald head must be releasing lots of body heat) .... Ranting about stats from the war --- all Bush's fault.  Talking about civil liberties and who is being denied such at home -- and at Walter Reed.   He says not to trust the Democrat Party.  Smart man.  But not smart enuff to wear a hat on his bald head.

He's Michael Letwin from NYC ..... sounds as if he has brought his own cheering section ----- others are simply huddled on the hillside ....

Those hillside scans make me think of JFK in Dallas ....

Now a woman is speaking ------ Cynthia McKinney!!!!!   whoopie do.  She's changed her hairstyle.  Nice earrings.  Has she gained weight?  Still a big-mouth, though.  She's just asked for some money back --- I'm not sure whether it's backpay she wants or some of that lost war $$$$.

2:18  ... Another woman introduces Michael Berg -- father of a civilian contractor executed in Iraq.  He's nice-looking .... well-spoken.  Not sure what he's saying .... (my neighbor came in -- and left quickly, fortunately.)  Polite applause for Mr. Berg .... Why would he blame Bush for his son being executed by terrorists? 

Next guy:  representing Appeal for Redress -- Jonathan Hutto, co-founder .... the Navy guy, I think .... justice to America and the working class ... and the people ... and Katrina victims ... and civil rights organizations .... and wants everyone to join to end the war.  He introduces a Marine ..... (scan to crowd shows many more leaving)

The marine Stg. Liam Madden, ret., talks about being NOT timid .... taking action .... griping about congress.  He's wearing a military shirt with beads ----- needs a shave.  He ain't no Marine!  Crowd cheers at something.  Not sure why.  He keeps talking about passion, stinging signs, how minds must grasp urgency .... how we should show sincere love for peace.  How we should show symbolic protest to tangible resistence.  Huh?  I think he's been sucking on those beads ......

Now a bearded wonder is at the mic ..... ugly beard -- Darrell Anderson leads a chant with 3 background chanters.   Dang.  Where's Tammy Faye when you need a tamborine player, eh?  Maybe that half-nekkid guy playing bongos will show up ....

Darrell's followed by a sniper (former?) Named Garett Reppenhagen --- the guy who spoke on C-Span this morning .... Scrubby beard.  Now he's reading to us (them?) .... not sure the sound-system is working .... folks are milling and talking amongst themselves .... bored?  Guys on the stage are nodding in agreement.  At least somebody can hear him.  Crowd cheers as he exits.  It's obvious the natives are becoming restless .... HURRY-HURRY-COLD-AS-HELL-OUT-HERE.  Shifting from foot to foot.  How much you think those kids are being paid to stand out there in their high school letter-jackets? 

Older man in beret tries unsuccessfully to start a chant about stoping war .... Every now and them someone waves a poster.  Elliot Adams.  Older guy.  Criticizing congress ----- "we will return" ..... oh, my!   When, pray tell ? .... Referencing butcher, baker, candlestick maker.  (I think they left earlier.)  Wants us to talk with everyone so when we return, we'll reach from here to San Francisco.  Corrects small crowd of chanters.  He needs to walk amongst his listeners and shake their hands -- do anything to get the ole blood circulating.  They're giving him cold stares.  eh. eh.

Someone's mom is now speaking .... Anita Dennis.  Who knew?  Bush killed someone who committed suicide.  PTSD victim?   Blame Bush.  Sad.

Moderator thanks the heroes (?) who have spoken up.  Not sure who he is .... talking about the coalition here today.  He rattles off the names of a few, but they must be back at the hotel.  Some coalition.

Someone with thick accent is now speaking .... something about 1968 .... war in Iraq is lost, etc., bring troops home .... names candidates who are using the war (Obama and McCain) for personal gain ..... Who is he?  War is illegal .... bring'em home.  Mounzer Sleiman is his name -- from the National Council of Arab Americans .... Hell --- let HIM go home.

Now speaking is Eric LeCompte from School of Americas Watch .... They need some canned cheers .... HA!!! He refers to the hundreds of thousands who are here today .... uhhhhh --- they're certainly not standing in front of him!  ROFL  His hand gesture is not in sync with his words .... you don't jab your hand like a knife when you're talking about peace and love  .... Well, most people don't.  Reckon he's just trying to break the ice off the podium? 

Some gal is talking about the size of the crowd ..... duh.  She's screaming into the mic .... introducing Ramsey Clark.  Horns blowing ..... (Actually, it's only cars passing behind the stage.)

Clark looks cold. He just lied.  Guess it's ok for a lawyer to lie, though .... This is NOT the place to be today, fool .... snicker.  Don't care for him.  International Action Center Founder .... former AG for Johnson.  Do-little-big-bucks attorney who represents lots of Middle Eastern folks and countries.  Now he's talking about Iran's nuke power and how they couldn't hurt us if they had them -- We're the ones with the star war programs, etc. .... Somebody hire the man to go back to the Middle East.  Send a mic with him.  Let him rally some troops in the streets of Tehran.  Now he's talking impeachment ....... quotes "miles to go before we sleep" (Interesting that he quotes Robert Frost on a cold and snowy day, eh?)  Impeachment is the first step, he says --- blah blah blah. 

Now some gal is leading an Impeach Bush/Cheney chant ..... She's hyperventilating.  I think she just spit on herself.

Man is now talking about the war machine ..... introducing someone .... muffled speech ---

Muslim American Society president Esam Omesh is speaking about the deaths ... #### of Iraqi deaths caused by Bush .... talking about voices of rationality, reason, morality, etc. .... and how Americans must join muslims .... uh huh.  Wonder if he hears these voices often?  They have meds for that, you know.

Announcement:  child is missing.  Run, Forrest, Run ....

2:49 .... Katrina Orgainzer (speaking in tongues again -- must go to the same church as that woman from NC) .... elderly black man named Malik Rahim .... now in English speaking about Bush's lies and challenging Bush to find the truth about what happened in New Orleans .... This guy is an idiot.  A hurricane happened and the mayor sat on his butt while buses flooded.  Wants to know why Bush didn't get the people out when he knew storm was coming ... In next breath, he's inviting troops down to Nawlins for beer .... Man's gotta be on something -- his thin jacket is open!!!  He introduces the woman with him.  She waves a gloved hand at the 25 people standing in front of her.

Cindy will be next .... first, they pass the $$$$ buckets to pay for the event.  Dang.  I thought Soros paid for this!!!  What about all those international donations?  The online campaigns????  Watch it ------ somebody will steal one of those buckets!  Or set one on fire to get warm.

Cindy Sheehan is greeted with minimal fan-fare .... Ugly cuss.  Freezing here or what, she asks?!!!  Idiot.  Of course it's freezing.  It's cold as beejezzus.  Even the brass monkeys went home.  When is it going to stop, she asks.  She doesn't want to be marching in her wheelchair.  Wants to stop the bullshit NOW.  (She can start with herself.)  She's naming off something .... not sure what ------ but it's all Bush's fault.  America is not the universe.  It is part of the universe.  (Good point, Cindy.  You come up with that one all by yourself?)  Strangers keep walking across the stage and looking at her funny-like.  Now talking about her son dying for the war machine.  Wants to shut it down.  Wants to stop paying taxes to fund the war .... If congress won't stop the war, we must stop giving them money. .... remind congress they work for us .... and we want GB and RC impeached .... she's having breathing problems or something related to coughing away from the mic .... she's going to be in PA on July 4th and Camp David (?) on Easter .... hummm .... strange lady.  Reckon she'll be in a bunny suit on Easter?  Maybe she can borrow John Kerry's.

2:59 .... hyperventilating woman is back at the mic .... introducing someone who drove 14 hrs to get to DC .... appeals for donation into the buckets that they are passing around ...... Camera flashes to kids running across the parking lot with a red bucket.  (Joking)

Next up is someone from the National Committee to Release the Cuban Five (huh?) .... her name is Gloria La Riva .... These guys were incarcerated during the Clinton Administration, but it's still Bush's fault ....

back shortly ....

3:03 ... La Riva is still telling us about the Cuban Five.  Surely she can see that her audience does not care!  Now she's chastizing the Bush administration for not freeing or not defending or not doing something .... Danged if I know.  Danged if I care.  She should have gotten Clinton to pardon them if they were all that innocent.

Are these folks fillers, or what????  I really think they're folks who came onstage to get warm and were pushed out on the stage to speak .... Where are the hippy headliners?  Where are all the big-name activists?  Too cold for Jane?  I miss Tim and his life-time soul-mate S-square.  Barbra?  Harry?  What a duet they could slaughter, eh?   

Heck -- I was expecting some good old-fashioned war protesting --------- all we have thus far are fly-by special interest groups..... Where are the Singing Fat Ladies in Pink?  Where are the poster-girls?  Buffy boys?  Meanwhile .... La Riva is unsuccessfully shouting a chant ...

Here comes someone named Guiliana Sgrena .... Italian journalist .... Can't understand her .... saying something about Iraq and no electricity or fuel or water.  And being shot or someone being shot (wasn't it her driver?) by US troops.   Not sure what she is telling an unimpressed crowd.  Didn't they hire cheerleaders for their protest?  This is a poor excuse for a rally.  I've seen better protests in the school yard. 

Wonder what's happening back at the memorials? 

More folks are walking away from the area .... talking amongst themselves .....

Eugene Puryear at the mic .... I think he's one of the bus drivers.  (Joke)

Rocky Anderson at the mic .... Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah ..... Calling for the impeachment of the Prez.  Utah?  Reckon he's Mormon?  Reckon he paid his own way to DC?  I hope the good folks of SL didn't foot the bill for him .... His speech is slurred .... too many hot toddies?  Using lots of 25-cent words .... Folks just standing in frozen silence.  Literally.  Now he's reading behind a chant of "no war" (or is it, "no more?")  No more is more appropriate.  Sit down, Rocky. 

3:14 ..... Getting down to the meat of things now .... An anti-war spokeswoman is at the mic ...... someone's step-mother ..... Melida Arredondo .... Gold Star Families .... no jacket.  Layered in sweaters, though.  Nice earrings.  Wasn't Cynthia Mc wearing the same pair earlier?  ...Talking about citizenship for soldiers ... how flag represents the blood of gold star families .... now talking about breast-feeding .... Breast feeding??? These folks are nutso.  Now the topic is undocumented immigrants.  Uh huh.  Invites everyone to walk the halls of congress Monday ----- (You guys walking those halls better stay clear of Rep. Obey -- he can get testy).

Carlos Arrendondo is now speaking for Gold Star Families ... lost his son in Iraq ... cameras cut to hillside -- it's empty.  Protesters have left the area ... a few remain in front of podium  .... he's referring to the Constitution -- not sure what he is saying .... Don't think anyone else is, either.  I'm sincerely sorry for his loss ....

World Can't Wait! rep rattles off a list of topics .... war, katrina, peace, etc., with call for impeachment .... condemns all Democrat candidates (even Hillary!) .... calls for more protests and resistence .... warns we ain't seen nothin' yet (don't delay our disappointment) ... calls for time when troops refuse to fight blah blah blah .... crowd is getting weak .... One kid's head keeps listing to the right .... signs can't be THAT heavy, can they?  What a bunch of wimps.

Older lady at the mic .... demanding apology from Bush for something .... offers a list of other demands .... Efia Nwangaza from "Not in Our Name" --- where the hell do they find these people?????

A.N.S.W.E.R. coord ..... thanks those who remain in the cold .... Brian Becker.  Camera is scanning the crowd .... some weirdos left .... Their claim to fame: they're being broadcast live on C-Span and Arabian TV.  Ahbejeezus (hee hee).

Mahdi Bray is back at the mic -- must have been more cancellations.  Boring.  Quotes words from an old song .... "I don't wanna be right" .... Guess what?  You ain't right, brother.  Somebody turn the mic off, pleeeeze.

Gonna surf and find out what is going on in the real world.

3:32:  announcement ... someone lost his wallet .... I bet.  Check that bucket they're passing around.

A very loud woman is shouting into the mic .... something about imperialists .... denouncing the war .... wearing a headband .... ears have to be frozen.  Wearing gold loops.  Leah Obias of JusticeNotWar in Philippines .... It has to be warmer in the Philippines.  Why is she on that podium freezing her buns?  No one can understand her.  The crowd is down to zilch .... Talk about getting a cold shoulder.  (snicker)

I bet I'm the only one in the world blogging this flop.

Good.  Someone needs to document it.  C-SPAN thought it important enough to broadcast live.  I bet those air-heads lose the tape .... Bet they're regretting not covering the Eagle Gathering ..... 

How embarrassing for ANSWER et al.  Wonder how much $$$ Soros will give them next time?  They can always blame Bush ....

Now someone from Haiti.  Bet he hates being in this cold weather .... just said it was 80 degrees when he left home this morning.   Ben Depuy.  Former Ambassador .... not sure to what or whom.  He's not wearing shorts, so he's probably not an actor or a good-will ambassador from one of those tourism commercials.  And he's having trouble with his words.  White scraggley beard .... shades .... ball cap ... talking about money Bush pledged to his country -- now quoting Chavez.  So let Chavez fund his country.  Bastard.

Chuck Kauffman ... Nicaragua Network Co-Cordinator.  What the heck --- did they have more cancellations?  No wonder the crowd is leaving. 

So am I. 

Hell, I've stayed this long.  Might as well finish it out.

3:45 .... Maria Magallanes ... Mexico Solidarity Network ..... why do women think they have to scream into the mic????  Voices go up three octaves and words are spattered ....

Larry Holmes .... Troops Out Now ---- suit jacket .... no heavy coat ... immigration -- blah blah blah  How can you trust or believe a man who walks around in a suit jacket in THIS weather? 

Protesters aren't chanting now --- lips aren't even moving .... Eyes are glazed over.  Staring ahead. 

Youth For Truth (put stickers all over Arlington, VA) .... bet the city clean up crews are happy to know who did it.  Maybe they'll dump the debris on the CC campus from which it originated.   Jihan Hafiz is speaking about redressing greivances .... stopping the war .... confronting recruiters .... this is not going well.  And it ain't just the weather.

OK, JIhan --- your 15 minutes of fame are up.  Power to the hand-warmers and fuzzy hats.  Move on, orgie.

Carina Garcia .... proud person who claims to have run the Minute Men off her campus .... right.  Babbling without notes --- not a good sign.  Made a few glitches, but no one noticed.  No one even cared.

Final speaker (there IS a God) .....

3:56 .... from Partnership from Civil Justice .... Mara Verheyden-Hilliard.  Whoever.  Speaking for all of humanity (count me in) .... peace, no violence, no hostilities.  No hot water bottles.  No leg-warmers.  (I made those last two up.)

Right on.  Race you back to the hotel!  What a rally.  Wow.  oohrah.  Damn, it's cold.

And not one word about global warming ....

 

LOTS OF LINKS, ETC. back at GATHERINGOFEAGLES.ORG!

 

 

Fly with pride, Eagles.

 

So shoot me.  I'm a Victoria Toensing fan. 

Here is her testimony before the Waxman Oversight Bar and Grill Government Reform Committee.  Not sure what Waxman is trying to reform.  Even his sight (over and hind) is questionable.

Chairman Waxman and Members of the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform, thank you for inviting me to speak this morning. I am informed

that this hearing concerns "White House procedures for safeguarding classified

information," and that Valerie Plame has been invited to testify. Special Counsel Patrick

Fitzgerald has characterized Plame's employment status as "classified," but conducted a

three-year criminal investigation under the auspices of the 1982 Intelligence Identities

Protection Act, which criminalizes only the disclosure of a "covert" intelligence officer

or agent. Therefore, I must assume that one specific goal of this hearing is to understand

the difference between the two terms – classified and covert – and the importance of our

intelligence community protecting the identities of covert agents under the 1982 law. In

that regard I would like to discuss the Congressional intent and clear mandates and

prohibitions of that Act, and how it played a role in the investigation and indictment of

Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

INTELLIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT

In late 1981, when I became Chairman Barry Goldwater's chief counsel for the

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, my first assignment was to get the Intelligence

Identities Protection Act passed. Chr. Goldwater was the ultimate manager, meaning that

I was to come to him if there was a problem only he could resolve. Other than that

situation, I was to negotiate whatever issues arose. Thus, I had hands-on everyday

involvement with those for and against the bill.

Although there had been hearings and drafts prior to my coming to the

Intelligence Committee, there remained throughout my months of negotiations a major

concern that had to be addressed. Opponents of the legislation considered the

criminalization of publishing covert names to be unconstitutional. The media hired

highly respected counsel, including the late Dick Schmidt, American Society of

Newspapers Editors (ASNE), and Bruce Sanford, Baker & Hostetler, who represented a

coalition of news organizations. They vigorously voiced the press' specific concern:

specifically, that passing a bill that prohibits identifying an employee or agent of the CIA

(or some other intelligence gathering agency) would have a "chilling effect" on

criticizing the intelligence community. We were then in the wake of Watergate. The

ability to criticize intelligence gathering and conduct of intelligence officers and agents

was paramount to the media. I assume and hope it remains important.

Those who supported the concept of the law wanted the statute to pass

constitutional muster. If a prosecution violated the First Amendment, it was useless as a

deterrent to those who had the specific intent to "out" truly secret officers and agents. In

reaction to both the strong lobbying by the media and ACLU, and Congressional concern

for the First Amendment, two basic categories of persons subject to prosecution were

created: 1) journalists and 2) those having authorized access to classified information, the

latter being government personnel with clearances.

Congress wanted to make it nearly impossible to prosecute a journalist for

criticizing the CIA because it wanted to "exclude the possibility that casual discussion,

political debate, the journalistic pursuit of a story on intelligence, or the disclosure of

illegality or impropriety in government will be chilled" by the law. S. Rep. 97-201, at 12.

Therefore, any publication identifying a covert agent had to be done "in the course of a

pattern of activities" with the specific intent to expose that agent, and "with reason to

believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of

the United States." Additionally, the journalist had to know the information so identified

the covert agent and that "the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal

that individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States…." Under this

definition, Robert Novak's July 13, 2003, column does not come close to triggering the

Act as to him.

The second category is government employees. In addition to a government

employee having authorized access to classified information and disclosing it to a person

without clearances (like a journalist), the following factors must be present for a

government employee to violate the Act:

• The United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal a covert

agent's intelligence relationship to the United States;

• The person disclosing the identity knows that the government is taking

affirmative measures to conceal the relationship;

• The person disclosing the identity knows that the information so identifies

the covert agent;

• The covert agent whose identity was disclosed is an employee of an

intelligence agency;

• The covert agent whose identity was disclosed has a relationship with such

agency that is classified;

• At the time of the disclosure, the covert agent whose identity was

disclosed was serving outside the United States or had done so within five

years of the disclosure; and

• The disclosure is intentional.

In a prosecution, all these factors, which are called elements of the offense, must

be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Two of these factors were particularly important

in drafting the law: 1) the definition of "covert agent," including the requirement of

serving outside the country, and 2) the law's requirement that the government take

"affirmative measures" to conceal the agent's intelligence relationship to the United

States.

Covert Agent

Under the term "covert agent," two types of individuals are covered: an officer

and an agent. A person working for the CIA is an "officer." A person who is an

informant or source for the CIA is an "agent." The media often err in this distinction. To

make the legislation simpler, the term "covert agent" was used by the drafters to refer to

both officers and agents. The Senate Report, when relevant, distinguishes how the law

applies to each.

Although a "'covert agent' is specifically limited to an individual whose identity

as an intelligence agency employee 'is classified information,'" criminality does not turn

on whether the information disclosed is classified. Id. at 15. There should only be

prosecution "when the defendant has knowingly disclosed information that, in terms of

its specificity, its sensitivity, and the effort expended to maintain its secrecy, is virtually

the equivalent of classified information." Id. In other words, the definition of a covert

agent is more than classified and less than classified. It clearly is not synonymous with

classified. As the Committee stated, "The mere fact that an intelligence relationship

appears in a document which is classified does not constitute evidence that the United

States is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship." Id. at 19.

Significantly, the Senate Report makes clear Congressional desire to limit

application of the criminal law to disclosure of selected intelligence officers:

[T]he Committee has carefully considered the definition of "covert agent" and has

included only those identities which it has determined to be absolutely necessary to

protect for reasons of imminent danger to life or significant interference with vital

intelligence activities. Undercover officers and employees overseas may be in special

danger when their identities are revealed…. (Emphasis added).

Id. at 15.

Notably, the legislation limited coverage of U.S. citizen informants or sources

(agents) also to situations where they "reside and act outside the United States." Id. at

16.

This foreign assignment requirement developed from the impetus for the

legislation: attacks on CIA personnel serving abroad. Renegade former CIA officer,

Philip Agee, exposed over 1000 CIA officers, which was followed by the December 1975

assassination of CIA Athens Station Chief, Richard S. Welch. In 1980, Louis Wolf, coeditor

of the Covert Action Information Bulletin, publicly claimed 15 U.S. officials in

Jamaica were CIA. He provided addresses and telephone numbers, information not

considered "classified." Within a week two of those named were attacked. Id. at 8.

Early drafts of the legislation covered only those individuals stationed abroad.

During my participation in the negotiations, the CIA brought up the issue that it was not

unusual for CIA officers to be rotated back to the United States. Such period of time was

for about two to three years. So we agreed to extend coverage for three years after a

covert person left a foreign assignment. Then the issue arose that the protection of the

Act was not intended just for the CIA officers, but also for their sources. "How long," we

asked, "would be a reasonable time to protect sources?" The CIA replied that five years

would be sufficient. As a result of that round of negotiation, the criterion of the foreign

assignment requirement for an employee to be a "covert agent" was drafted as follows:

[A] present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency…who is

serving outside the United States or has within the last five years outside the United

States.

§ 426 (4)(A).

In other words, the compromise language of "within five years" is intended to

prohibit disclosure of the intelligence officer for five years for the purpose of protecting

former sources, not protecting the person assigned back to this country.

There is a most recent example of a former covert officer bring named as such in

the Washington Post. In John Kelly's March 1, 2007 column, he described Clare Lopez

having lost a class ring in the mid-1980's while scuba diving off Mauritius. It was

recovered recently by a German diver who returned it to her. Nice story.

However, Kelly also described Lopez as "stationed at the U.S. Embassy in

Mauritius" and as a "former CIA officer who is now a private consultant on issues related

to the Middle East, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction." [App. A]. That story

tells the public not only that Lopez was once covert but also that we have CIA presence

in Mauritius. No one made a peep at such revelations. For Lopez, it is clear five years

had passed.

In his own words, in an autobiography titled, "Politics of Truth," Joseph Wilson,

husband of Plame, reveals the timing of her return from foreign assignment as June 1997,

some six years prior to Novak's July 2003 column:

"In June of 1997, I arrived back in Washington to take my new job directing the

African Affairs desk at the National Security Council. *** My move back to Washington

coincided with the return to D.C. of a woman named Valerie Plame. I had first met her

several months earlier at a reception in Washington…." pp.239-40 [App. B. pp1-2]

Affirmative Measures

There was great displeasure by certain Senators, especially Chr. Goldwater, that

the CIA had been sloppy protecting its own. Indeed, one of the legislation's seven

findings states:

(7) The policies, arrangements and procedures used by the Executive branch to

provide for U.S. intelligence officers, agents and sources must be strengthened and fully

supported.

S.Rep at 11.

Such concern was the reason the Act required the government to be "taking

affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the

United States" before there could be a prosecution.

Throughout the Senate Report, disappointment is expressed about the Executive

branch's failure to provide adequate cover. As the Committee noted, "[P]art of the bill is

designed to improve cover." "Without effective cover for U.S. intelligence officers

abroad…the United States cannot collect the human intelligence" it needs. Id. at 10.

(Emphasis added). In this regard, Section 423 of the Act requires the President, "after

receiving information from the Director of Central Intelligence," to submit an annual

report to both Intelligence Committees on "measures to protect the identities of covert

agents, and on any other matter relevant to the protection of the identities of covert

agents." Has the CIA done so?

Given this concern and mandate, additional basic managerial questions of good

intelligence tradecraft come immediately to mind. I am aware that this Committee does

not have oversight of the intelligence community so others, perhaps, must ask these

questions:

• Could the CIA produce immediately a list of all foreign assigned

personnel it has designated covert under the Act?

• Does the CIA make any such list available to selected few individuals who

need to check whether to confirm or deny that person's "intelligence

relationship to the United States," as required by the Act? (Think CIA

spokesman who often confirms or denies to reporters whether certain

people work at the Agency.)

• Has the CIA established guidelines for briefers of its Executive branch

clients so they do not reveal names of "covert agents" without a caveat not

to repeat the name or relationship?

• Has the CIA devised a tracking plan so that five years after a formerly

covert employee returns to the United States, he or she knows the Act no

longer applies and, just as importantly, other persons have notice, e.g. a

briefer?

No White House can prudently safeguard classified or otherwise non-disclosable

intelligence information (such as covert status) unless its own intelligence agency follows

the proper procedures to inform it and its Executive branch clients of that classification or

status. If Plame was really covert in July 2003 (or within five years of covert), the CIA

was required under the statue to take "affirmative measures" to conceal her relationship

to the United States, particularly because the criminal law comes into play. If Plame was

really covered by the Act in July 2003, why did:

• The CIA briefer who said he discussed the fact of Wilson's wife working

at the CIA with Libby and the Vice-president, not tell them Plame's

identity was covert or classified;

• Richard Armitage, (who, having seen Plame's name in a State Department

memo from which he gave the gossip to Robert Novak and later asserted,

"I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo…in 28 years of

government") not know Plame's identity was not to be revealed;

• State Department Undersecretary, Marc Grossman, not know Plame's

identity was not to be revealed;

• CIA spokesman Bill Harlow tell Vice-president staffer, Cathie Martin, that

Wilson's wife worked at the Agency but not warn her Plame's identity

was not to be revealed;

• CIA spokesman Bill Harlow (who, according to Wilson's autobiography,

had been "alerted" by Plame about Novak's sniffing around, p. 346 [App.

B, p3] ) confirm for Novak that Plame worked at the CIA;

• The CIA not send its top personnel, like the Director, to Novak and ask

the identity of Plame not be published just as the government does any

time it really, really, really does not want something public, e.g. in

December 2005 when the New York Times was about to publish the top

secret NSA surveillance program;

• The CIA not ask Joe Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement about his

mission to Niger (a document all the rest of us have to sign when

performing any task with the CIA) and then permit him to write an OpEd

in the NYT about the trip, an act certain to bring press attention, when his

Who's Who biography includes his wife's name;

• The CIA allow Plame to attend in May 2003 a Democratic breakfast

meeting where Wilson was talking to New York Times columnist

Nicholas Kristoff about his trip to Niger;

• The CIA allow Plame to contribute $1000 to Al Gore's campaign and list

her CIA cover business, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, as her

employer;

• The CIA give Plame a job at its headquarters in Langley when it is

mandated by statute "to conceal [a] covert agent's intelligence

relationship to the United States";

• The CIA send to the Justice Department a boilerplate 11 questions

criminal referral for a classified information violation when its lawyers

had to know that merely being classified did not fulfill the required

elements for exposing a "covert agent"?

Such questions reveal slip-shod tradecraft, casting doubt on whether Plame's

identity was even classified, much less covert.

In fact, in a curious twist, while the CIA was turning a blind eye to Wilson writing

about his mission to Niger (Did he go through the pre-publication review process like the

rest of us have to do?), it was sending to the Vice-president's office documents about that

same trip and these documents were marked classified. So the very subject Wilson could

opine about in the New York Times was off-bounds for the Vice-president to discuss

unless the person had a clearance.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS UNDER THE ACT

Criminal statutes are interpreted precisely. The rationale is that if a person is to

be deprived of liberty, he or she should have sufficiently clear notice that specific

conduct violates the law. For example, if the law protects a former covert officer for five

years after leaving a foreign assignment, a person can be prosecuted for revealing the

name within four years, eleven months and 30 days, but not five years and one day later.

For public policy reasons, it is important for the CIA to take "affirmative

measures" to protect the identity of a covert agent because it appears that even the

accidental mention of a name or relationship is sufficient to trigger a full-scale years long

criminal investigation. (Two other statutes, 18 USC § 793 and 18 USC § 798,

criminalize disclosing classified information, but not the names of employees or agents

else we would not have needed the 1982 law.) Although Libby suffered the most

severely, numerous other persons were negatively affected. They had to hire lawyers.

Several had to endure the angst of being threatened with indictment or jail. Judith Miller,

New York Times reporter, did go to jail. If Plame was covert and the CIA had been

fulfilling its obligations, all involved would have had sufficient notice from the CIA. If

she was not covert, there should not have been a CIA referral for Novak's column

because publishing a merely "classified" employee's name is not covered by the 1982

Act or the other two criminal statutes.

More to follow on The Waxman Show.  Start here.

 

Just wondering ..... Here's one reaction to her presentation. 

Now wouldn't that be something.
Ahhhhhh the thwap slickens ....

 

Oh, they can still blame Bush for everything from cold sores to global warming, but if MSM is any indicator -- the left is certainly losing the Get-Bush gamut.

1,  They're piling on Cheney.  Even more than before.  Must have something to do with his gimpy leg. They've learned not to mess with Lynn.  Whispering about the Chaney's pending grandchild is so old-news.  Kick'em with your good leg, Cheney!

2.  Valerie Plame (wasn't that issue settled already?) is now a headliner on the Congressional hearing circuit.  Is that woman retarded?  On meds?  She's a little slow on the uptake for me to feel good about her as a covert operative.  Skeery.

3.  NCAA basketball scores are more relevant than the results of recent House votes.  Go figure.

4.  Most talking heads are more interested in what Hillary and Obama are saying about each other.  So is the public.

5.  Hillary is now saying she (when elected prez) will leave "some" troops in Iraq.  I have a suggestion:  why doesn't she just relocate her campaign to Iraq.  And take Bill with her.  Let them run the Iraqi government. 

6.  Howard Dean is holding "secret" meetings with other nations to "reassure" them that Dims will be in control in '08???  God help us.  On both accounts.

7.  C-Span will cover the anti-war march this weekend, but not the Gathering of Eagles.  Don't delay our disappointment in watching clowns, profanity-laced posters, hired-hooligans and has-been hippies frolicking through the streets of DC.  Whatever sells.  Remind me when C-Span does another appeal for funding, k?

8.  The firing of 8 serve-at-the-pleasure-of-the-President attorneys is soooo critical, the Attorney General (who also serves at the same pleasure) and these firings have become the source of yet another Congressional inquiry.

8.5. Dims want to subpoena Carl Rove and Harriett Meirs to testify?  B.O.R.I.N.G.

9.  The Rosie and Donald Show has surged again.  Especially since the other Surge seems to be moving along quite well .... They oughta charge admission.  America should have to pay to watch a over-weight big-mouth spar with a heavy-weight gig-souse.

10.  Britney Spears has fallen in love again.  I've never known sex therapy to be part of drug rehab, but then, if the dairyman has enough money -- there's always a willing supply of cows.  If you know what I mean. 

11. Anna Nicole Smith is now more popular dead than she ever was alive. How can that be???  There needs to be a Congressional Hearing on the misappropriation of air-time.  Swab the kid and close this media circus.  Please.

12.  Imus in the Morning should be moved to primetime.  He's a cantankerous ole cuss, but he has the habit of making politicos look like the idiots (i.e., Chuckie Schumer) most of they are.  Of course -- as my daddy used to say: "It's hard to BS a BS'er."   If you know what I mean.

More later .... Feel free to add your own observations .....

13. If dims don't want to debate on FoxNews, let loose the Republican candidates! Why not?  A debate will give the other media outlets something to write about.  But don't expect too many Republican candidates to show up, either .... Nobody wants to take on Mitt Romney just yet. 

14.  Ahhmydinnerjacket will be stage-center at the U.N. again.  Too bad he isn't here this weekend.  He could share the stage with Jane and Cindy and Harry and Richard and a passle of anti-war moonbats.  If the idiot had any sense, he'd ask for asylum rather than returning to Iran.  Things aren't going to well there right now .....

 

Pelosi and the democrat defeat caucus have another plan to pull troops out of Iraq.  Let's see how many pubbies sign up for this one. 

Credit: Editorial from the National Review.

Say at least this for House Democrats: They are beginning to find the courage of their profoundly mistaken convictions. They have moved on from pretending that a nonbinding resolution against sending additional troops into Baghdad and Anbar Province is a serious blow against the war in Iraq to more strenuous attempts to handicap our prosecution of the fight there.

The House Appropriations Committee will take up a bill this week that would authorize $120 billion in additional spending to cover — among other things — the Iraq surge. Pelosi has known all along that refusing to fund the surge would be a political mistake, since it would open her Democrats to charges of defunding troops already in the field. At the same time, Pelosi’s liberal base — and much of her House majority — wants the war stopped, now. The bill tries to keep them happy by setting deadlines for troop withdrawals. President Bush would be told to certify in July, and then again in October, that the Iraqi government had met certain political and military benchmarks. The bill calls for withdrawing U.S. troops within 180 days if these benchmarks aren’t met (although Bush could waive them), and by September of 2008 no matter what. Democrats may also insert language “forbidding” the president to undertake military operations against Iran without congressional approval.

Although this doesn’t go as far as John Murtha’s proposal for readiness requirements that would have kept troops from deploying to Iraq, it is still a brazen attempt by the legislature to occupy executive territory. Congress hasn’t the power — and was not intended — to supervise the execution of military objectives, nor is its approval necessary for the commander-in-chief to use the armed forces as he sees fit. Congress can cut off funding from the military, and Pelosi has inched in that direction with this bill. Yet the bill does not actually exercise Congress’s power of the purse. It would expire at the end of September, and any actual defunding of Iraq operations — whether this year or next spring — would require the passage of additional legislation.

The bill does succeed in showing the emptiness of Pelosi’s claim that her Democrats support U.S. troops even as they oppose the war. The message is: We don’t believe you should be there; we don’t believe you can win (even as the surge shows early signs of progress); so be warned that we mean to pull the rug out from under you as soon as we can get away with it. Trying to avoid giving this impression, Pelosi has filled the bill with billions of dollars for veterans’ health care, new armored vehicles, and military operations in Afghanistan. But these gestures should — and probably will — ring hollow. They are on the order of buying a man a nice dinner after you have burned down his house.

Pelosi’s leftward lurch might backfire. Moderate House Democrats — many of whom won election in conservative districts — are not ready to declare Iraq a failure and give up. Pelosi may not be able to bring them together with the House’s unreformed liberals. If so, the spending bill will be defeated, and Pelosi will have succeeded only in alienating the moderate voters who delivered her speakership last fall. President Bush has promised to veto the bill if it reaches his desk. This would be a risk, since doing so might leave him without funds to fight the war; but the “let’s lose now” caucus — particularly in the Senate — is probably not big enough to force that choice upon him.

Regardless of the outcome, what cannot be doubted now is that the Democrats are the party of defeat in Iraq. They think the war is lost and are determined to block any effort to prove otherwise on the ground. We believe that the war is still worth trying to win, and that defeat would have long-lasting and dire strategic consequences for the U.S. But we’re glad the public is getting to see the Pelosi majority’s true colors.

True colors?  HA!! 

When are these lying scoundrels gonna learn that TRUE colors don't run?

Michelle Malkin has an update on the Obey-goes-postal encounter posted through-out the net this week. 

Seems Code Pink will be camping on Nancy Pelosi's doorstep until the super-speaker rounds up enough votes to get our troops out of Iraq.  STAT.

Wonder if Cindy will show up with her porta-potty and join them in camp songs?

Almost forgot this one ....... if you missed Maxine Waters on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, here's the transcript: 

"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: This week, the House Democratic leadership announced a timetable to bring U.S. combat troops home from Iraq by September 2008. But many of the 75 members of the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus say that's not soon enough.

Joining us now from her home state of California, the chair of that caucus, Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

Congresswoman, the bill being offered by House Democratic leaders continues funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it sets some conditions.

If the president doesn't certify that the Iraqi politicians are making progress, they can start to bring the troops home and, in any case, all combat troops would be out by September of 2008. Why isn't that soon enough for you?

REP. MAXINE WATERS: Well, there are a lot of bells and whistles in this bill. And they ask the president to not only certify, but begin in July by telling us whether or not progress has been made.

We have been listening to this president tell us about what he's doing and what's going on. We've been misled.

We were told that there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. We were told that we would be welcome with open arms. That's not the case.

We were told that we would get revenues from the oil fields that would help to repair the bombings that we had done in Iraq and in Baghdad in particular. That's not true.

So first of all, there's not a lot of trust. Secondly, we just voted a non-binding resolution that said we do not support the surge or the expansion, and now we're going to fund it?

We believe that we should use funding to safely exit our soldiers from Iraq with a well-thought-out exit plan. We believe that that can be done. We are not talking about doing it overnight.

We think a reasonable timetable would perhaps be by the end of the year, and we want to see a clean, straightforward bill.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, is the Democratic leadership — Speaker Pelosi and the other Democratic leaders — are they being too timid?

WATERS: Oh, I don't know if that's the way to describe it. You know, this is the kind of process where you have a lot of people who think differently about the issues.

And for those of us who feel that we should be out of Iraq, we have a responsibility to the people, and particularly since we know that the people want us out of Iraq. Not only do all the polls show it, this last election in November was an election to send people to Washington to help get us out of Iraq.

So those of us who feel strongly about it — we have to be good advocates. We have to speak for the people, and that's what we're doing.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, this week the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David Obey, was confronted by an antiwar protester who wanted him to vote against this spending bill that we're talking about here, which led to this exchange. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAVID R. OBEY, D-WIS.: It's time these idiot liberals understand that there's a hell of a difference between defunding the troops and ending the war. I'm not going to deny body armor. I'm not going to deny funding for veterans hospitals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Respectfully, Congresswoman, are you one of those — what Congresswoman Obey would call idiot liberals who would vote against this spending bill and thereby deny our troops body armor and medical care?

WATERS: I don't know. I think his language was quite unfortunate. That was a mother whose son has done two tours of duty in Iraq. He's apologized for having used that kind of language, and I would hope that he does not do that again.

I don't know what he thinks about my position and whether he would characterize me that way, but I would hope not.

WALLACE: But by voting against the spending bill, you would be voting against giving the troops body armor, against more funding for veterans and military hospitals.

WATERS: That's not true. That's absolutely not true. What you have in this bill is a requirement that the soldiers would be properly trained, they would have the proper equipment, and it basically backs the president up against the wall, and it dares him to use his waiver authority they give him.

Even though the bill says that's what we need, that's what we should have, then they say but, Mr. President, you can waive all of that if you want to. And of course, if he waives that, he has to go before the American people. It will make him look bad. That's one of the bells or the whistles in the bill.

I think we need a straight bill, vote up or down on the supplemental, and the only thing that I would say is use money in that supplemental to safely exit the soldiers out of Iraq.

WALLACE: Congresswoman — and I want to make it clear that you want to get all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, but you also make it clear you want to fund it, as you say, to make it safe, to make it thoughtful.

But let's talk about your policy and what would happen if all U.S. troops are out of Iraq by the end of 2007. Don't you worry about a possible — it's been called genocidal blood bath between the Sunnis and the Shia once we're out of there?

WATERS: Well, let me just say this. And I don't think there's any problem with leaving some of our soldiers what we call over the horizon, in Kuwait someplace, to help respond to a major catastrophe of some kind.

But don't forget, the Sunnis and the Shiites were getting along before we went in with our occupation, and I don't think that we can use the argument that if we're not there, it's going to be a bloodbath, or they can't manage to do what they were doing prior to our being there.

Much of what is happening ...

WALLACE: Well, but, Congresswoman, prior to our being there, Saddam Hussein was in charge. So that was what was keeping the Sunnis and Shia away from each other.

I mean, once we're out, we're not going to come back if the Sunni and the Shia start fighting with each other.

WATERS: Well, I don't think we can say the only way that Iraq can be stabilized is if Saddam Hussein was there. I think that they're developing new leadership. We have given support to new leadership.

And they have to find a way to get along. I don't think that we can say that in order for us to leave, we've got to somehow make sure that history — years of history of not getting along all of a sudden is changed and that we're going to have to stay there until it happens.

They are going to have to figure that out. We can support them, but we cannot stay there forever in the middle of this civil war.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, let's talk about another issue if we pull out by the end of this year. What about the danger that Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups will set up terrorist havens in western Iraq?

WATERS: Well, the first place, we should have been more focused on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We took our eye off the ball.

And we went after Saddam Hussein, a convenient target, because this president wanted to make sure that people understood he was fighting a war on terrorism and that was the best way to do it.

They knew that Saddam Hussein had a reputation for being a villain because he had invaded Kuwait before.

WALLACE: But Congresswoman, forgive me...

WATERS: But we should have been concentrating on Afghanistan.

WALLACE: Congresswoman, forgive me, though. I don't think you're — I understand that and that's a legitimate criticism, but it doesn't answer my question, which is we pull all our troops out of Iraq, as you would have under your measure, by December 2007 — what happens to Al Qaeda setting up terrorist safe havens in Anbar province?

WATERS: What happens if Al Qaeda decides to set up safe havens anywhere? Don't forget, there are cells in different places in the world. We have not done the job that we should be doing to find Usama bin Laden and to deal with Al Qaeda.

If we concentrate first on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, up around Tora Bora, where we know that we have a big concentration of activity of Al Qaeda, I think we'd do a much better job than concentrating all of our energy and our resources in Iraq.

WALLACE: Finally, we've got about — actually, less than a minute left.

What message do you think it would send to the terrorists around the world, to Iran, with its expansionist policies, if the U.S. showed that after a certain amount of time, a certain amount of loss of troops, that we were going to cut and run, that we were going to leave?

WATERS: Well, I think cut and run is a kind of language that has been used by this administration and others to intimidate those of us who are responding to the American people's desire to get our soldiers out of Iraq.

Our soldiers are dying every day. Civilians are dying by the thousands in Iraq. I just don't want to wake up one morning and find that they have bombed one of our compounds and hundreds of our soldiers had been killed.

We just saw a few weeks ago where they had a convoy that went past several checkpoints and went in to one of our areas and killed our soldiers. We don't have the cooperation there from the Iraqis.

Sunnis and Shiites alike that are in the military are all against us. They undermine us. They are not sticking with us during times of confrontation.

We don't need to have our soldiers in the middle of this civil war. It can't get any worse than this. And we need to get out before we have something of a major catastrophe happen to our soldiers.

WALLACE: Congresswoman Waters, we're going to have to leave it there. We want to thank you so much for coming in early today out on the west coast to talk with us. We appreciate it.

WATERS: Well, you're certainly welcome. Thank you.

How in hoopla are these idiots elected year after year after year?

 

The word is editing. 
And Salon (of all the high-brow critics) caught it.

Hat tip to the Sacred Cow crew for sharing the video link!

Wonder if Ann has seen it?