The right wingers jump every time the word "classified" or "secret" is used as a source in a New York Times article. Well how about if the Washington Times uses the same terms?
Recent U.S. intelligence analyses of North Korea's nuclear and missile programs were flawed and the lack of clarity on the issue hampered U.S. diplomatic efforts to avert the underground blast detected Sunday, according to Bush administration officials..
Some recent secret reports stated that Pyongyang did not have nuclear arms and until recently was bluffing about plans for a test, according to officials who have read the classified assessments.
The analyses in question included a National Intelligence Estimate a consensus report of all U.S. spy agencies produced several months ago and at least two other classified reports on North Korea produced by senior officials within the office of the Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte.
(emphasis mine)
So what's the difference? Why isn't Bush out calling the Washington Times traitors and his little pack of cult followers yelling for treason charges against the paper? Oh wait. This is the conservative Washington Times and the information could be looked at to help Bush. That makes it all better. Classified information is not the same when it comes to political save face - just ask Valerie Plame.
I would like to enlighten you with something you might find interesting. It has to do with the use of the tern 'illegal immigrant'. I can remember a time when this term was not used. People use to say 'illegal alien'. As far as I can tell, it is not used anymore. 'Illegal immigrant' is now the only thing you here; from the local and national news, to the Democratic Debates. The liberal media has slowly wiped it out to down play it's hard edged effect on peoples outlook about illegals in the United States. There is power, as a whole, in the words that we use. And simple changing the word 'alien' to 'immigrant' has made the average American perceive this illegal act as something that doesn't seem so wrong. And American's are buying it, dismissing the law and our soveranty. The funny thing is, this term did not even exist. It is not in any Dictionary, and is very hard to look up on the internet. You might find it on a sight that deals with word usage, but most word banks will refer you strait to the term 'illegal alien' and its definition. 'Legal alien', in contrast, also does not exist. Now the term 'illegal immigrant', in my opinion, is kind of an oxymoron unto itself. An 'illegal alien' is a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization. That means the act of being an alien in the United States is an illegal act, under the law. Now an 'immigrant' is a person who migrates to another country, usually for 'permanent residence'. This definition is more vague, though we all understand the process which one goes through to become a 'permanent resident'. That is to legally apply and then be accepted to enter. That means the act of being an immigrant in the United States is a legal act, under the law. Illegally crossing the border or purposefully overstaying your visa does not in anyway, shape, or form make one an 'immigrant'. Being naturalized by the federal government does. Therefore, there is no such thing as an 'illegal immigrant'. I think I made my point, but I just want to add that evil is out there using every little thing that they can make up to divide this country. And people need to know and understand that we have to enforce the law and uphold the constitution. Something even our president has not done very well, at least when it comes to our situation with 'illegal aliens'.
Post new comment