Powerline posits the motivations and sources of information that had Sen. John Rockefeller spluttering over CIA Director Porter Goss’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee today.
Goss did a couple of things today that should have some folks sitting up and paying attention.
First, he outlined in fairly strong language just how damaging the leak of the NSA international eavesdropping program was. It made his job harder, froze ongoing programs and placed American operatives and assets in danger.
Second, by detailing the severity of this leak, he placed in clear context the Valerie Plame case. Only Democrats and former intelligence community members sympathetic to Plame and her husband Joe Whatshisname and antagonistic toward the Bush Administration have claimed damage was done by the release of her name. Rockefeller in particular has made such charges with no evidence to back them up.
Where we quibble with our friends at Powerline is the source of the leak. As we have reported from the beginning, from the indications we’ve gotten from sources on Capitol Hill, in law enforcement and in the Administration, the strong suspicion and anecdotal evidence is that the leak of the NSA program came off of Capitol Hill from the office of a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We stand by that reporting.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?