You're a disgrace, Larry. I'm betting Marc Thiessen had every kind of security clearance imaginable. What do you have, besides an inner thigh rash and skid marks in your undies?
You're a loser, Larry: a sixth-tier personality on a ninth-tier network. Ever wonder why your ratings are lower than hospital EKGs? This is why, you fish-breathed truther.Update: Drew at Ace of Spades suspects O'Donnell is auditioning for Olbermann's slot.
I'm certain that I will not receive a thoroughly considered response to the following questions (in fact, it's a safe bet my question will be deleted) but here it goes anyway.
ReplyDeleteMarc Theissen was nothing more than an assistant speechwriter. That's right, not a chief speechwriter, not a senior speechwriter, an assistant speechwriter.
The question I've always had about Theissen is his credibility. Why would an assistant speechwriter have such extensive access to what seems to be extremely classified intelligence? This is not to say he had no security clearance. Every Whitehouse staffer must have a security clearance. Even Congressional staff have security clearances. But, why would a lowly assistant speechwriter have a top-secret security clearance - one which would have exposed him to intelligence critical to national security? This position is not even, at least not ostensibly, related to national security or to any of the tangential agencies that support national security. It would seems to me, and I think a lot of those who are incredulous of Theissen, that assistant speechwriter ranks pretty low on the national security totem pole. (I could, of course, be missing some critical aspect of what speechwriters do, much less what assistant speechwriters do, aside from - you know - writing speeches).
If he did indeed have every kind of security clearance imaginable, then that begs the question, why? Why would the Bush Administration grant a lowly member of its public communications staff access to the intelligence community's most critical and top-secret intelligence - intelligence crucial to national security? Why was the Bush Administration so lax in its protection of national intelligence, so indifferent to who saw the secrets and machinations of our entire intelligence aparatus - from the CIA to Defense Intelligence to the NSA to even the goings on of the Situation Room? Why not grant the senior Whitehouse web-designer with the same priviledges? His and Theissen's position would have, after all, done essentially the same thing - express what the President wanted to say to the public; the latter in words only and the former with a mix different media. It would seem that such lax policies would have the potential to undermine the work of the various intelligence agencies and, in turn, put the nation in danger - particularly in the time around 9/11 when so much was uncertain.
I could go on about how Theissen never names his sources, about how entire articles of his - and, indeed, much of his book - are based on shadowy, unnamed sources who never dare to go on record about anything (many of which are not even active members of intelligence community - i.e. the mysterious and vague "former intelligence officials" and "former members of the intelligence community"). I could go on about how he never addresses the inconsistencies of his statements, about how he often puts forth unverifiable assertions. But, I won't. Many who have an unabiding and inflexible faith in their beliefs and their agendas - despite the facts, despite truth - are guilty of these indiscretions. They cannot bear the sting of being wrong. So they lie to themselves and, more egregiously, to the public and contort logic and verity to prevent their weak and precariously constructed edifices of artifice and mendacity from falling down around them.
Why do we continue to acknowledge the existence of moronic a**holes like O'Donnell?
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing new for O'Donnell. There was a segment on during the 04 cycle where O'Donnell interviews Swiftboat Vet John O'Neil.
ReplyDeleteThe interview consisted of O'Neil trying to address some points while O'Donnell shouted at LIAR LIAR LIAR at him the entire time.
I originally watched this on a youtube via a politicalteen blogpost, but have since tried to find it again and it appears to have been scrubbed down the MSM memory hole.
atlasmugged -
ReplyDeletesuffice it to say that no matter what clearances thiessen had -- and rest assured he had some level to operate in the white house -- he has infinitely more knowledge than one l. tourettes o'donnell.
and, if you've ever been through a clearance process (ssbi, ci poly, fs poly, etc.), you'd know that honesty is indeed the critical characteristic that is sought.
so, atlaslugged, pray tell which is the most egregious of thiessen's 'lies'?