More Treason From The Bush Regime

Isn't it funny how Bush apologists never hesitate to accuse anti-war folks of being traitors when the Bush Regime itself has committed several acts of outright treason in the past seven years? Here is the latest one (from the Washington Post via AmericaBlog):

A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.

The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network. * * *

This latest act of treason, however, is different from all the other traitorous acts of the Bush Regime because this time the Democrats control Congress and I have no doubt that they'll get right on it and expose the wrongdoers.

I'm kidding, of course.

And on a somewhat unrelated topic, I found this interesting:

Two months before the 2004 election, when she was still at NBC's "Today" show, [Katie] Couric had asked Condoleezza Rice whether she agreed with Vice President Cheney's declaration that the country would be at greater risk for terrorist attacks if John Kerry won the White House. Rice sidestepped the question, saying that any president had to fight aggressively against terrorism.

Couric interrupted and asked the question again. Would a Kerry victory put America at greater risk? Rice ducked again, saying that the issue should not be personalized.

Soon afterward, Couric got an e-mail from Robert Wright, the NBC president. He was forwarding a note from an Atlanta woman who complained that Couric had been too confrontational with Rice.

What was the message here? Couric felt that Wright must be telling her to back off. She wrote him a note, saying that she tried to be persistent and elicit good answers in all her interviews, regardless of the political views of her guests. If Wright had a problem with that, she would like to discuss it with him personally. Wright wrote back that such protest letters usually came in batches, but that he had passed along this one because it seemed different.

Couric felt there was a subtle, insidious pressure to toe the party line, and you bucked that at your peril. She wanted to believe that her NBC colleagues were partners in the search for truth, and no longer felt that was the case. She knew that the corporate management viewed her as an out-and-out liberal. When she ran into Jack Welch, the General Electric chairman, he would sometimes say that they had never seen eye to eye politically. If you weren't rah rah rah for the Bush administration, and the war, you were considered unpatriotic, even treasonous.

The reason this stuff still angers me really has nothing to do with the fact that BushCo lied this country into a war -- and then repeatedly committed acts of outright treason -- and neither he nor anyone else in his corrupt administration has really been called on any of it.

What troubles me is how much the Corporate Media assisted the Bush Regime in launching the illegal invasion, and then continued to help our Deserter-In-Chief "propel the propaganda" with regard to Iraq and the "War on Terror" long after the stated reason for the invasion (i.e., Iraqi WMD) turned out to be complete bullshit. The question Katie Couric was asking Condi Rice was a legitimate one that should have been answered.

And since when does a single Bush-supporting, e-mail-sending moron from Georgia get to dictate what kind of questions a network news interviewer can ask Condi Rice?

And speaking of extremists, I find this to be hysterically funny (from the Oregonian):

Opponents of a new domestic partnership law for same-sex couples failed to gather enough signatures to put a referendum on the November 2008 ballot.

The secretary of state's office said Monday that volunteers who spent the summer collecting signatures to allow voters to weigh in on domestic partnerships fell 116 signatures short of the 55,179 needed to qualify for the ballot. * * *

Am I understanding this right? These right wing religious extremists worked all through the summer getting signatures and actually got over 55,000 legitimate ones, but fell short of their goal by a mere 116 signatures?

That may be the funniest thing I've ever heard.