in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Free Beacon | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Power Line | 0 | |
| B’berg | 2012 Watch: Gingrich Seeks to Ease Fundraising Woes as Las Vegas Checks Slowing Down |
0 |
| The Hill | Scandal: Pelosi might have skirted House ethics rules on campaign solicitations |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
When it’s ok to wiretap and when it’s not ok to wiretap: the apparent liberal perspective
It’s recently surfaced that Princess Diana was bugged for a time in the 1990s – by the US:
American intelligence agencies were bugging Princess Diana’s telephone over her relationship with a US billionaire, the Mail’s sister paper has learned.
Evening Standard reports that she was even forced to abandon a planned holiday with her sons in the US with tycoon Teddy Forstmann on advice from secret services, who passed on their concerns to their British counterparts.
Both US and British intelligence then forced Diana to change her plans to stay with Mr Forstmann in the summer of 1997, saying it was too “dangerous” to take her sons there.
Instead the princess took the fateful decision to take a summer break with Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed. This ultimately led to her going to Paris with his son Dodi, where they died in a car crash.
The revelation from independent inquiries by the Evening Standard comes as it emerged that Princess Diana’s phone was bugged by US intelligence agencies on the night she died without the permission of the British secret intelligence services.
Authoritative leaks say the extraordinary revelations will be published this week by Lord Stevens and is bound to raise fresh questions about conspiracy theories.
The US secret service was monitoring Diana’s friendship with the controversial financier Mr Forstmann for some weeks.
Jason at TexasRainmaker speculates as to why the US was so interested in Mr. Forstmann’s phone calls and believes that he was being monitored because he was a potential Senatorial opponent to then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. He concludes, due to the lack of outrage being expressed by the usual lefty suspects:
Intelligence agencies under Republican President monitoring communications of potential terrorists = PROBLEM
Intelligence agencies under Democrat President monitoring communications of political rivals = NO PROBLEM
Yup.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
10 Responses to “When it’s ok to wiretap and when it’s not ok to wiretap: the apparent liberal perspective”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
One has to wonder: Why Di?
Did she have documents proving Bush ordered cruise missle strikes on the WTC and Bush had her bumped off? (I know she died before 9/11, but never let mere facts get in the way of a good conspiracy)
Of course, this turned out to be entirely inaccurate, and several of the sites which spent time hyping this up have now issued mea culpas.
You won’t find me issuing one, because usually when the administration is accused of all sorts of nefarious things, libs don’t hesitate to jump on the ‘Bush did it’ bandwagon without letting the story develop, yet their reaction to this one was strangely different. Hmm. I wonder why?
Ahhh … so the bad behavior of others justifies your bad behavior. Good to know how thigns work around here.
Nope. That’s YOUR M.O., not mine.
He, he .. yes, please do link to that thread.
Given your refusal to issue a retraction, it simply makes your posts there regarding “honesty” and “morals” appear … weak, to phrase it politely.
By the way … did you happen to notice the very next post after yours essentially disproved your claim in your post you link to?
Anyhow, it’s your blog, of course, so you get to set the rules.
“Given your refusal to issue a retraction,”
I don’t need to issue a retraction. The accusation was that liberals who are always so quick to jump the gun on the president with respect to just about any alleged wrongdoing, didn’t take the same road regarding the initial reports that the US spied on Princess Diana during the Clinton administration – possibly for political purposes (as was the speculation – and it’s a known fact that the Clinton admin spied on its political enemies [the FBI files scandal comes to mind]), and they didn’t hold off on commenting because they ‘knew’ that later those reports may be erroneous – they didn’t want to acknowledge the possiblity that Bubba was doing one of the things he did best. It just goes to show yet another double standard on the part of the left – that Clinton could do no wrong, while any alleged Bush wrong doing is condemened almost from the getgo before examining the facts. I’m sorry that bothers you, but it’s the truth and truth needs no retraction.
“it simply makes your posts there regarding “honesty” and “morals” appear … weak, to phrase it politely.”
This may come as a shock to you, Scott, but I really don’t care what you think of my morals or honesty. People who read this blog regularly know who I am, know I blog honestly and from a moral standpoint, and your cheap shots towards me really don’t phase me at all.
“By the way … did you happen to notice the very next post after yours essentially disproved your claim in your post you link to?”
If I’d have thought you’d posted something that seemed to disprove something I said I would have responded to it. Perhaps it’s best you continue the discussion with the people in that thread rather than me, because yours and my conversations really aren’t getting anywhere.
“I don’t need to issue a retraction. The accusation was that liberals who are always so quick to jump the gun on the president with respect to just about any alleged wrongdoing, didn’t take the same road regarding the initial reports that the US spied on Princess Diana during the Clinton administration”
No, that’s simply not true. You posted something (Clinton spying on Diana and Forstmann) which was supposed to be substantiated by the report which came out yesterday.
Well, lo and behold, the report comes out and no substantiation.
You posted an entry which turned out to be factually erroneous. Simply, demonstrably, provably, incontrovertably false.
When pointed out, your response was to essentially say “Well, Freddie does it too” to justify your actions.
Disregarding the childishness of your response, what does the fact that you refuse to admit error even when provably wrong say? It says you are _really_ interested in facts. Rather, you have a certain story in your head you plan to tell, and if you can find facts and info which support that story, then great. In their absence, however, juicy misinformation will do just as well.
Which is fine, but it certainly calls into question anything else you have to say on any subject.
“This may come as a shock to you, Scott, but I really don’t care what you think of my morals or honesty. People who read this blog regularly know who I am, know I blog honestly and from a moral standpoint, and your cheap shots towards me really don’t phase me at all.”
Doesn’t come as a shock at all. People who can’t admit mistake when they are provably wrong generally don’t care about what others think, only about what they think
“If I’d have thought you’d posted something that seemed to disprove something I said I would have responded to it. Perhaps it’s best you continue the discussion with the people in that thread rather than me, because yours and my conversations really aren’t getting anywhere.”
I posted nothing. YOU posted something claiming the way I presented a question something wasn’t how conservatives presented things. In the VERY next post Lorfica, at the end, essentially framed things as I presented, undercutting your point and supporting mine.
I didn’t have to do a thing.
Anyhow, you are correct about the uselessness of our having a continuing conversation on the matter … have a pleasant day.
Virtually your entire post was dishonest, Scott, and you should be ashamed but, one thing you got right was this:
“Doesn’t come as a shock at all. People who can’t admit mistake when they are provably wrong generally don’t care about what others think, only about what they think”
That is you to a “t”. You have no shame. It’d be nice if we could just say we started off on the wrong foot and start over, but your continued dishonesty about my positions makes that impossible. Have a nice life, Scott.