Michelle Malkin’s Bogus Legal Theory
Michelle Malkin’s Bogus Legal Theory
Right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin, in a post titled “Jane Harman’s Bogus Attacks,” takes issue with Harman’s claim that briefings the Bush administration provided to Congress violated the law. Specifically, Harman argues that the administration briefings, which only included the leadership of the intelligence committees, failed to comply with the 1947 National Security Act, which requires the administration to keep the entire committee informed about intelligence activities.
Malkin cites an exception under the law [50 USC 413b(c)(2)]:
If the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.
It sounds impressive but it’s not true. That exception Malkin cites only applies to “covert action.” And, 50 USC 413b(e) — titled “‘covert action’ defined” – specifically says that “covert action” does not include “activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence” Alberto Gonzales has said repeatedly that the purpose of the program was to acquire “signals intelligence.”
Thus, the provision cited by Malkin is irrelevant. The applicable law is under section 413s, titled “Reporting of intelligence activities other than covert actions.” That provision requires the administration to:
[K]eep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, other than a covert action (as defined in section 413b (e) of this title), which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government.
That’s the law the administration violated.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin admits she was wrong:
145pm EST update and correction: As Think Progress notes, the exemption I cite applies to “covert action,” not NSA surveillance.
She’s sticking to her argument, however, and has switched to a different provision to prove her case. This time she notes that the briefings are required:
To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.
Of course, there is nothing suggesting that, in this case, briefing the committee would not show “due regard” for unauthorized disclosures. As Harman notes: “Both congressional intelligence committee are select committees, formed of Members who hold the highest security clearances and have a proven ability to safeguard classified information.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
You could wear out your keyboard responding to Michelle Malkin’s bogus attacks.
January 6th, 2006 at 12:46 pmDefinitions, schmefinitions. She only read far enough to suit her own purposes.
Yeah, what Alvord said.
January 6th, 2006 at 12:51 pmSee that’s why she’s a typist and not a lawyer.
What’s next, internment camps for an entire race of people maybe not such a great idea?
January 6th, 2006 at 12:52 pmIt is no coincidence that Bush Apologist, Psychologist, and Proctologist all rhyme. :-)
January 6th, 2006 at 1:02 pmWow, Michelle Malkin is full of crap. Who would’ve known?
January 6th, 2006 at 1:04 pmBuck Fush, oops, “Ben Franklin”
January 6th, 2006 at 1:05 pmWe have been blessed by your absence for some time.
Why start spamming again?
If you want to advertise hear, PAY UP.
Otherwise, please go away.
here, I mean
January 6th, 2006 at 1:05 pmMichelle Malkin does not speak the truth?!?
What next? Are you gonna tell me Saddam didn’t have WMDs?
Or that Iran isn’t supplying the insurgents in Iraq?
This is just crazy talk.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:07 pmMalkin is a bitter journalist wannabe.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:21 pmMichelle Malkin is just another part of the Republican Noise Machine, whose sole purpose in life is to spit out false, misleading, disingenuous crap designed to deceive people into believing things that are not true. Anyone with a desire to know the truth should steer clear of her. People like Ms. Malkin have no interest in the truth getting exposed.
The truth to conservatives is like sunlight to a vampire.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:26 pmWhat is the eunuchs next argument going to be?
“Presidental Theory of Everything”
January 6th, 2006 at 1:34 pmMalkin Haiku
Michelle Malkin wrong
January 6th, 2006 at 1:38 pmPope a catholic; death, taxes
Does bear shit in woods?
Well, you guys go ahead and attack Malkin. Call her an Asian-American version of Ann Coulter. And, yes, she does stretch the truth at times, and has a Hannity kind of knack to twist the facts bass-ackwards to fit a conservative viewpoint.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what has all that got to do with getting into her pants? I mean, sure, her knockers are a little on the small size. But what the hell, a guy like me would agree with ALL her talking points as long as I could get laid afterwards.
I wonder why rightwing gals like her and Coulter all have that thin, starved look? Think she might be bulimic?
January 6th, 2006 at 1:39 pmWhat’s next, internment camps for an entire race of people maybe not such a great idea?
Comment by cynical ex-hippie
cynical #3,
Leave out the “race” and “people” part, and put the Malkins, Limphogs, Scannity and Coulters et al as the camps’ inmates and the thought becomes much more tempting than one could imagine…
January 6th, 2006 at 1:41 pm[deleted by admin]
January 6th, 2006 at 1:42 pmMichelle Malkin is just another part of the Republican Noise Machine, whose sole purpose in life is to spit out false, misleading, disingenuous crap designed to deceive people into believing things that are not true.
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Wayne #10,
…at least SHE get’s paid for it…
January 6th, 2006 at 1:43 pmShe just responded, feel free to respond back…
January 6th, 2006 at 1:43 pmIt does NOT say that the President is required to do this…it specifically tasks:
“…the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and other entities of the United States Government involved in intelligence activities…” wi
I can see your point, but you act as if the POTUS was just another department head instead of one of the co-equal branches of government, which gives him unique Constitutional authority.
Seems to me your beef should be with that Clinton leftover, George Tenent. He, as the DCI, was specifically tasked with this reporting.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:50 pmMichelle malkin leaver out details?
That’s unpossible!
January 6th, 2006 at 1:52 pmI wonder why rightwing gals like her and Coulter all have that thin, starved look?
January 6th, 2006 at 1:54 pmHate is drying them up, turning them into husks. Look at Greta Van Susteren. She could be pretty but hate has etched a permanent scowl on her face and caused her pretty mouth to turn downward into an ugly frown.
It’s just terrible the way hate can transform a person.
January 6th, 2006 at 1:55 pmOooops, looks like Ms. Malkin talking point is DOA. Anyone here think she was bright enough to hatch this one on her own? Will she start vetting the information given her? Or will she continue in her role as an unquestioningly faithful Beta-monkey for the Maximum Leader?
January 6th, 2006 at 1:56 pmHey everyone, look what I just got:
http://www.democrats.org/foiadelivery
These are all of the FIOA requests that were submitted regarding Bushes secret wire taps. 160,000 of them were delivered yesterday. Mine is in there somewhere, I just can’t seem to see where.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pmShe responded, but didn’t really take anything back. She makes it seem like Think Progress ignored something totally irrelevant to the point, making it seem like they did something wrong…
“What Think Progress ignores is the paragraph immediately preceding that section:”
But then the part she points out does nothing to buttress her own point or say that Think Progress is wrong to correct her.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pmSure it’s easy to say she is wrong. But why is she wrong? Are people trying to imply that somehow these so called “laws” apply to good solid patriots like GWB?
January 6th, 2006 at 2:09 pmBush wasn’t Tenet’s boss? Huh. And Bush’s “coequal” status relieves him from the responsibility to ensure that the departments under the authority of the executive branch comply with the law? What a fascinating theory.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:14 pmEsactly! Why should he care about laws? He obviously doesn’t have to follow laws. He is a law unto himself, sort of like god. Hey, maybe Congress and the Courts do think they have a role, but that’s their problem. If you can’t get his attention, you can’t stop him. His head is bent and he’s moving on (god knows where) and nobody can stop him. King George rules!
January 6th, 2006 at 2:21 pmI’ve read with pleasure. Maybe it’s offtopic, but i just wanted to say, that it’s really interesting to read everything this… You discuss here a lot of interesting things on different useful themes. Thanks for that =)
January 6th, 2006 at 2:27 pmAt what point can we stop debunking her and just say, “yeah, but we know that’s crap because Malkin said it.”
Seriously, how many times does one have to lie about things before they lose their credibility?
Why aren’t people embarrassed yet to use the arguments of a proven liar? Why aren’t they worried about sacrificing their own credibility?
January 6th, 2006 at 2:30 pmI wonder why rightwing gals like her and Coulter all have that thin, starved look?
Comment by Duane #20
They’re so stupid they forget to eat…
January 6th, 2006 at 2:31 pmI’ll spell it out for the lefties who can’t read:
Judd said:
“Specifically, Harmon argues that the administration briefings, which only included the leadership of the intelligence committees, failed to comply with…”
The code applies to the CIA Director and agency heads:
…the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and entities of the United States Government involved in a covert action—
Harmon is an idiot.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:32 pm“…Look at Greta Van Susteren. She could be pretty…”
Comment by Duane #21
WHAT?
January 6th, 2006 at 2:33 pmDude, stop smoking…whatever it is you’re smoking
29- It would appear that expiration date on Malkin’s credibility expired long ago. But they keep buying it. If you can justify corruption, treason, domestic spying, torture, illegal wars, etc., embarrassment and credibility are just meaningless words.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pmTom, you are looking at the wrong part of the statute.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:35 pmAs Malkin points out — how come you left this little part out of your post?
a) In general
To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and other entities of the United States Government involved in intelligence activities shall?
Maybe because it didn’t help your case?
January 6th, 2006 at 2:42 pmHey TMW, it’s OK for the WH to out a CIA agent, but it’s not OK for a wistleblower to tell of wrong doing?
You guys have a real double standard don’t you?
January 6th, 2006 at 2:47 pmwhy bother wasting time on malkin. it has reached the point of self demeaning behavior to even react to her spewl. Remember, if nobody responds then soon enough she will find herself without a platform. Forget her and refocus on the goals. A dem house, a dem senate, or both BUT at least one!
January 6th, 2006 at 2:48 pmThat is where all the eneergy should be going!
billjpa@aol.com
Gosh TWM, how exactly does that hurt the case? The President has a duty to keep congress informed; leaving them out of the lop is NOT “…consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure…”
It is, however, consistent with hiding a criminal act…
January 6th, 2006 at 2:51 pm35 – TWM – What does that change? It doesn’t seem it changes anything.
It must be exhausting to be a Malkin defender.
January 6th, 2006 at 2:54 pmMichelle Malkin is a waste of time to watch or read. Shall we call it, … “diversionary PR”?
REMEMBER NEW ORLEANS!
January 6th, 2006 at 2:55 pmI wonder why rightwing gals like her and Coulter all have that thin, starved look? Think she might be bulimic?
Comment by Joe Sixpack — January 6, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
Because the Bible tells women that they should please their men, and we all know that straight Republican men go for that skinny teenage girl look (’cause they can’t handle grown women).
January 6th, 2006 at 3:03 pmMalkin wrote a book on her support of the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII.
Enough said.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:07 pmThe final move into the totality of 1984 requires only a bit of philosophical drift, as exemplified by J. Edgar Hoover’s directive to spy on the Rev. Martin Luther King because he was a subversive. If Bush’s latest acts are left unchallenged, the government will become bolder at spying on whomever it wants and secretly jailing those it deems a threat to national security — all with no troublesome warrants or messy public trials.
In this environment, acts other than terrorism will certainly be put on the subversive activities list, all in the name of protecting our freedom.
Why should law-abiding citizens fear these trends? Because the government cannot be trusted. I don’t trust President Bush to honor my rights, nor did I trust President Clinton, who was caught with secret FBI files on his political enemies.
It’s not that I’m unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government — either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government — by demanding, for example, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech.”
January 6th, 2006 at 3:09 pm#41, you are not far off the point there. SOmewhere I read a conservative lawmaker or opinionist or religious leader (ok I can’t exactly remember who) said that conservatives are attracted to the beauty that women have from a couple years before and after puberty, or something to that effect. So essentiall he was saying that they like 10 – 18 year old girls.
Does anyone remember this? It was within the last two months.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:26 pmMalkin needs a truth injection via the meat rod.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:30 pmSo tired of the cute republican whore schtick.
January 6th, 2006 at 3:32 pmIt’s not that I’m unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government — either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government — by demanding, for example, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech.’’
This applies to “human rights also” and the abolition of Death Penalties in Europe
To protect us from evil goverments
January 6th, 2006 at 3:36 pmIt’s not that I’m unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government — either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government — by demanding, for example, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech.’’
This applies to “human rights also” and the abolition of Death Penalties in Europe
To protect us from evil goverments..
January 6th, 2006 at 3:36 pmConsidering that Republicans control the legislative agenda, don’t you agree that we should pressure Republican campaign contributors with consumer boycotts in order to force them to go to the Republicans to get legislation that we want?
If you agree then browse http://www.boycott-republicans.com
Thank you.
Where Republicans tread, innocent people end up dead.
Comment by Ben Franklin
The real Ben Franklin would kick your ass for being such a loser.
January 6th, 2006 at 4:48 pmLeave it to I-RIGHT-I to cut to the heart of the matter. His incisive and inspired response shows in stark outline the difference between left thinking and right thinking. Thank you so much I-ster!!
January 6th, 2006 at 5:00 pmAnd of course I-Right-I shows an absolute understanding of Franklin. If IRI were alive back then he would have been a Tory. Hating those pesky liberals like franklin, Jeffeson, Madison and defenign the imperial government of the times. Of course he probably would not fight himself, but he would advacate hiring others to do so, people such as the Hessians. The more times change the more they seem to be workign in retrograde which plays right into the hands of IRI and his ilk.
January 6th, 2006 at 5:08 pmStill Hilariously Stupid……
Michelle Malkin, a proud graduate of the Oberlin School of Clarinet and Skin Flute Repair, once again displays for the world just how dumb she really is. She can’t even come up with decent lies. It probably took Judd at thinkprogress all of ten …
January 6th, 2006 at 5:10 pmI-RIGHT-I are you sure you grew up with human parents? I’m not sensing any sort of civility that one would expect, other than if perhaps you’d been raised by a pack of wolves. It would explain your disdain for civilization and civilized discourse. Are you just incapable of civilized opinions, or are you just unaware that they exist?
January 6th, 2006 at 5:42 pmThe more times change the more they seem to be workign in retrograde which plays right into the hands of IRI and his ilk.
Comment by Mark
I would have been a Federalist and you would no doubt not have been allowed to vote.
January 6th, 2006 at 6:20 pmAre you just incapable of civilized opinions, or are you just unaware that they exist?
Comment by RightPunch
Progressives are all about hating civilization and do everything in their power to destroy it. I interact accordingly.
January 6th, 2006 at 6:22 pmDubya has loads of paid Bushites defending him, in the press, on news shows, pimping on Internet chats, and posting on forums like this one too!
January 6th, 2006 at 6:33 pm“I would have been a Federalist and you would no doubt not have been allowed to vote. I-RIGHT-I ”
I’m unclear how you can so easily contradict yourself. The book you quoted from as representing your values 2 days ago specifically said that conservatism is pro-aristocracy, and anti-democracy (eg. anti-leveling).
“Progressives are all about hating civilization and do everything in their power to destroy it. I interact accordingly. I-RIGHT-I”
Most consider democracy more civilized than aristocracy, yet you’ve made it clear that you are pro-aristocracy, anti-democracy conservative. This means you wish to destroy our democracy (or at least that’s what the book you quoted from believes) and replace it with a class system. This comment of yours contradicts your previous posting, and frankly your entire line of ‘reasoning’ if you could every call it that makes no sense.
You call people names, you post racist, homophobic and misogynistic statements, and you rant on about dominionism and other theories of aristocracy and rightwing lunacy, and then you claim to be preserving civilizations. So far I’m not seeing enough civilized behavior on your part to even believe you know what ‘civilization’ is. Are you sure you weren’t raised by wolves? I’m not getting any parenting coming across here.
Do you feel you represent ‘mainstream’ republican values, or do you think you’re ahead of the curve? I’m curious how you believe you fit in this world of ‘conservatism’ you so talk about.
January 6th, 2006 at 6:33 pm“Progressives are all about hating civilization and do everything in their power to destroy it. I interact accordingly. I-RIGHT-I”
I’m guessing we have an education and literacy problem, lets see if a definition of the word helps you any to realize that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Main Entry: civ·i·lize
Pronunciation: ’si-v&-”lIz
1 : to cause to develop out of a primitive state; especially : to bring to a technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of cultural development
2 a : EDUCATE, REFINE b : SOCIALIZE 1
intransitive senses : to acquire the customs and amenities of a civil community
The definition for a civil community is:
a : CIVILIZED b : adequate in courtesy and politeness : MANNERLY
of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (as military or religious) affairs
See they even distinguish the separation of civilization from military and religion in the dictionary. I don’t think you actually know what civilization means, and that explains your eagerness to destroy it. While this is not surprising based on your postings, it is very sad.
You unfortunately don’t seem to exhibit either courtesy or politeness in your postings, as is defined as civilized actions. Are you sure you grew up in a civilized society, because I’m just not getting any proof of it over here.
And just to help you out, the custom of this american civilization is to protect the rights of the individual, and develop along a liberal, scientific, reasoned and rational path that protects the individual over the state. This is codified both in our constitution and our history.
January 6th, 2006 at 6:43 pmOn topic – I guess when you know who the traitorous big mouths are, you’re a bit disinclined to tell them much in the way of national security.
Off topic – “I wonder why rightwing gals like her and Coulter all have that thin, starved look?
Comment by Duane #20
They’re so stupid they forget to eat…”
Comment by big papa — January 6, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
****Dear Fat Papa – No, Pops, they’re just not hanging around waiting for their share of government cheese. Nor are they filling their faces with the empty calories of fried and fast food, soda, chips and pork rinds or that cheap pi$$y beer favoured by SixPack Joe – (we know he’s not referring to his abs!!)
January 6th, 2006 at 7:14 pmDear RightSlap – You sound like a darling neighbor of mine. She has the most wonderful intentions and is as dumb as a rock. The best part – she’s a public school teacher – her poor students!!! Your reference to “this american civilization” leads me to believe you might be a gullible college student – or more gullible college professor.
January 6th, 2006 at 7:20 pmI’m sorry but I find it pretty difficult to believe that anyone would pay any attention to Michelle’s “legal” opinions.
January 6th, 2006 at 11:35 pmI Right I ’s best talking points seemingly go back to reminding people that Republicans have the most seats in congress. Most of which were taken illegally.
Also, life must be lonely for Malkin and Coulter, not fitting into what is expected of Republican women. No wonder they are not married and have no children, conservative men expect their women to work on recipes, and be subserviant to the men. They could be carpet munchers.
January 7th, 2006 at 12:29 amDear RightSlap – You sound like a darling neighbor of mine. She has the most wonderful intentions and is as dumb as a rock. The best part – she’s a public school teacher – her poor students!!! Your reference to “this american civilization†leads me to believe you might be a gullible college student – or more gullible college professor. mighty aphrodite”
Why do so many republicans feel the need to put people in little boxes with easy to categories. Does it make you feel more powerful, or just less engaged with the people around you? And they way you criticized people for being both over educated and stupid at the same time really was quite strange. I can’t tell whether you hate people who are smarter than you, more stupid than you, or both. Has anyone in your family ever been diagnosed with schizoprhenia, because you’re just a little freaky there dearie.
And I truly appreciate your concern for my intelligence (or lack of it as you imply), but I’m not sure how anything you wrote was actually related to the thread? Is that because it wasn’t, and instead just showed another republican desperate enough to make a personal attack instead of sticking to republican failures. I feel much pity for you and the tiny world you seem to have created for yourself. You know some of us actually live in a civilized society. When you’d like to join us, you’re more than welcome to participate.
January 7th, 2006 at 1:04 amTP you have brought balance to the force. I haven’t been able to post over at Huff Po since i made a positive comment about Ms. Malkin. She is incredibly sharp and yes inflamatory , but she usually gets her facts straight and apparently willing to correct them.She covers a lot of side stories that others don’t. She is on my list to read everyday. Well informed opposition should at least be respected. Sorry posters had to resort to the knuckle dragger motif comments.. She is no AnnCoulter.
January 7th, 2006 at 7:17 amOpen Fly Man
January 7th, 2006 at 9:40 amZip it up. Anyone who thinks Michelle Malkin “usually gets her facts straight” is standing in line for the Kool-Aid.
****Dear Fat Papa – No, Pops, they’re just not hanging around waiting for their share of government cheese. Nor are they filling their faces with the empty calories of fried and fast food, soda, chips and pork rinds or that cheap pi$$y beer favoured by SixPack Joe – (we know he’s not referring to his abs!!)
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Puny Hermaphrodite #60,
BREAKING NEWS!!!!:
Dumb DeLay just officially announced that he will NOT seek to become Majority Leader EVER AGAIN!
BAM! you inbred beeotches…
I’m going to “create” myself a five decker HERO sandwich, with as much fattening crap as I can find to pile on it. Then, I’m gonna wash it down with several fine 2005 vintage beverages made from the finest barley and hops of my choice.
And I’ll still look, smell and THINK better than you, Ann’drew Couldnt’(er), AND Michelle “Al cracker wannabe” Malcontent!
Next time you work up the nerve to address me have the decency to wipe your chin. You’ve got Bushiva and L’il Dick’s “fool juice” dripping from it!
January 7th, 2006 at 12:33 pmI would have been a Federalist and you would no doubt not have been allowed to vote.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I #55
I-Treasonousbushitea**licker-I,
You would’ve been hung as a “Loyalist” traitor…
You (like all Bushite inbreds) hate democracy, and want to serve a king…
On the hanging part though there’s still hope!
January 7th, 2006 at 12:40 pmDear Fat Papa – I always knew the “humanitarian” side of progressivism was a facade – “Can you spell Stalin, Comrade?”
January 7th, 2006 at 3:14 pmMichelle Malkin took note of Think Pessimism’s “correction” and then de-bunked Thunk Progress, noting the paragraph before TP assertion – which TP neglected to include.. Who would of thought???
January 7th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#52 – “And of course I-Right-I shows an absolute understanding of Franklin. If IRI were alive back then he would have been a Tory. Hating those pesky liberals like franklin, Jeffeson, Madison…” – Mark
January 7th, 2006 at 4:11 pm****Once again, liberals try to co-opt the Founding Fathers. Sorry, Mark, with the majority of the left’s aversion to guns most likely many of you would have been left on the sidelines. (come to think of it, that a GREAT place for the majority of progs.) Besides, the “co-operative and communal” spirit of progs allows the ignorant progs to denounce the individualism valued by conservatives. (Unless, of course, the prog in question is guarding the individual rights of terrorists, illegal border jumpers, drug dealers, pornographers, pedophiles and prostitutes.)
individualism valued by conservatives.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 7, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
I think you meant ‘homogenization’ valued by conservatives… oh, no, that’s right the word has ‘homo’ in it, and you’re not for that kind of individualism. Just the kind of individualism that entails being a white American conservative…
January 7th, 2006 at 8:38 pmDear RightSlap – You sound like a darling neighbor of mine. She has the most wonderful intentions…blah, blah…
Comment by RightPunch
Oh crap, not another homosexual? Even women don’t talk like that.
January 7th, 2006 at 10:12 pmOh crap, not another homosexual? Even women don’t talk like that.
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 7, 2006 @ 10:12 pm
er… ahem…. you might want to double-check before you post your nonsense, I-RIGHT-I. That was RightPunch quoting Mighty Aphrodite.
Or maybe you should try reading beyond the first two lines of the post you are replying to. It’s not that hard. Really.
January 7th, 2006 at 10:56 pmI would not stick my peepee in Malkin’s thingy. Sam I am.
January 8th, 2006 at 2:09 amDear Fat Papa – I always knew the “humanitarian†side of progressivism was a facade – “Can you spell Stalin, Comrade?â€
Comment by mighty aphrodite #68,
If putting horses with broken legs out of their misery is referred to as a “humanitarian” act then why wouldn’t doing the same for mindless, spineless inbreds be looked at the same?
I’d poke ya, but I wouldn’t know which hole…
January 8th, 2006 at 2:01 pmATTENTION REPUBLISCUM:
Jan. 7-
Tom “Dumb” DeLay announces he’ll never again seek to run the criminal enterprise commonly referred to as the Republican majority (of inbreds in da’ House)…
Jan. 8-
Howard Dean shuts Wolf Bullschnitzers pie hole with an unequivocal announcement that “NOT ONE DEMocrat took money from Abramoff.”
“There’s some (right wing, inbred) ‘hoes’ in dis’ house!”
…the curse is working…
January 8th, 2006 at 2:06 pmMichelle Malkin took note of Think Pessimism’s “correction†and then de-bunked Thunk Progress, noting the paragraph before TP assertion – which TP neglected to include.. Who would of thought???
Not much of a rejoinder. As Judd pointed out, the provision Malkin cited had to do with covert activities. Judd cited the other provision to show that “intelligence” activities were covered in a different place, and with different rules. Malkin’s belated citing of the header adds little to Malkin’s argument. It does not provide for any specific exception as does the “covert activities” one (and one rule of interpretation is that if something is specifically excepted in one place and left out in another, it doesn’t apply to the other. All Malkin is left with is some mealy-mouthed stuff about “consistent with”, hardly any real authorization for the withholding of information as required by law.
Cheers,
January 8th, 2006 at 8:21 pm#75 – Fat Papa – The 1st Amendment gives you the right to be as trashy and vulgar as I suspect you enjoy – either in person or probably thru peeping – but I’ll exercise my logic to suspect it’s probably been a VERY long tome since you’ve had a consentual sexual relationship – with an adult woman.
January 8th, 2006 at 8:53 pm#71 – As usual, unbelievable, you throw verbal rocks without addressing the premise….yawn….zzzzz…zzz…
January 8th, 2006 at 8:55 pm#71 – As usual, unbelievable, you throw verbal rocks without addressing the premise….yawn….zzzzz…zzz…
Comment by mighty aphrodite — January 8, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
You had a premise? Was hard to tell from all that incoherent babbling and raving. Try not to log-on when you’re that drunk, Magda.
January 8th, 2006 at 9:24 pmbut I’ll exercise my logic to suspect it’s probably been a VERY long tome since you’ve had a consentual sexual relationship – with an adult woman.
Comment by mighty aphrodite #78
If that’s a proposition, I don’t do pigs…
Can we get off the sexual innuendo and back on politics.
Conservative right wing inbred Senator Sam Broke Back ‘er Brownback is “troubled” by the criminal Bushite junta’s “legal explanation” of their authority to wiretap sans warrants…
Does this mean that Bushiva and L’il dick stepped into some legal caca?
January 9th, 2006 at 9:23 am[...] She was promptly criticized by right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin, who lashed out at Harman with a post titled “Jane Harman’s Bogus Attack.” ThinkProgress noted, and Malkin later admitted, that Malkin’s rebuttal was based on a legal provision that was totally irrelevant to the issue. Nevertheless, Malkin stuck to her general claim that Harman was wrong. [...]
January 19th, 2006 at 9:23 am[...] Not surprisingly Michelle is pretty upset, here’s her response: Pat yourselves on the backs, you tolerant liberal bastards. ***This is hardly the first time liberals have made Asian whore ping-pong ball jokes about me. But Wonkette has now mainstreamed it. And I’m sick of it. Are you proud of yourselves? Do you get a bonus from Nick Denton for scraping the bottom of the barrel? [...]
May 20th, 2006 at 3:28 pmOnly in liberal la-la land do you find moonbats cracking on the way Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter look. Since their looks seem to carry so much weight in their arguments, I propose we settle the whole left-wing/ right-wing debate with a beauty contest.
May 20th, 2006 at 11:53 pmOn the right we have: Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, the Bush Twins, Laura Bush, Condi Rice, Mary Cheney, Laura Ingram, and the late Barbara Olsen.
On the left we have: hmmmmmmmmm…. let’s see……. Helen Thomas. No, wait a minute. I really don’t think we want to go there…… ummmmm….. Randi Rhodes. Nope….. disqualified for using a bogus name. Ummmmmmm…. I’ve got it…Madeleine Albright. OWWWW….cut it out…. I’m really trying here, OK? Then it’s gotta be….. Janet Reno. Damn….. disqualified for burning people alive in Waco and forcing little boys back to Communist dictatorships at gun point…. besides, if you ever really checked under the dress, I’m sure you’d find a really large pair… three strikes… he’s errrrr she’s out. Crap…. Barbara Boxer….. Nancy Pelosi…..
I frickin’ surrender… and I’m feelin’ a little queasy. I think I’ll go have a stiff drink and try to get that last parade out my head.