So...You Think The CIA Is A Covert Agency?

Think again.

Apparently, your neighborhood watch is better at "espionage" than the vaunted CIA.

Let me add to that...I just caught Barbara Boxer on "Fox and Friends". When the blonde commentator (woman) asked her about the infighting and leaks that looked political (she said "hate between the parties" and I give her kudos for saying it) and did either party hate the other one so much they would compromise our security?

Boxer said, "No" predicatably (which I call bullshit on because, in a dog fight, the dog doesn't always realize that it's biting its own tail), but what I found most disturbing was that she just tried to spread an unsubstantiated rumor that the latest leak about the secret prisons came from a Republican meeting. Let me call Bullshit again.

Then she segued into the "but". But, the problem with these prisons isn't about the leak, it's about the lack of over-sight and the fact that an amendment was added to Sen. McCain's "no torture" bill that would have excluded the CIA.

Let me make some points perfectly clear:

1) The Senate Select Committe on Intelligence has over sight. Quick search did not reveal Boxer as a part of that committee. Maybe she's just a party pogue who has no idea what a committe is supposed to do?

2) The problem with McCain's bill isn't that it prohibits torture. The truth is, it's so broad and undefined as to what qualifies as "torture" that it could seriously (I mean seriously) cause some poor soldier or employee of an agency to be railroaded into prison (something that has come close to happening already with he broadly defined military field manuals) by an over zealous prosecutor and some court that is looking to set the broadest precedent possible for future cases. In reality, the military field manuals already say there will be "no torture" and state clearly that any soldier violating this will be subject to prosecution under the UMCJ. And, we already do prosecute, so who do we need the bill for?

It is the Senate's responsibility to set the rules for capture on land and sea (constitution Article III), but the reality is, this bill is dangerous without the specifics. It's grand standing so the Senate can act like it did something.

If it wanted to do something then it's best bet is not just some grand standing BS bill that could cost men and women their lives and career, but could actually make recommendations that were not a bill but were very specific about what the Senate believed was not appropriate. They don't want to do this either because leaving something out of such a directive might imply that it is acceptable. However, as long as it was a general directive or recommendations and not a bill or law, it would serve the same purpose and leave it open for future additions.

3) Not the least of the problems with Boxer's BS is that these same tactics, operations and imprisonments were going on under Clinton and not a word was spoken.

NOT A WORD!

So, not only do I call this woman full of bull, but she's a hypocrit to boot.