Everyone’s a Victim?

Betsy Newmark, yesterday:

Mackubin Thomas Owens had a great column yesterday in honor of Veterans Day. He noted the proclivity of those in the media to treat those in the military as either victims or monsters. He notes that since the Vietnam War the storyline from the left about American military is that serving in an unjust war warped the consciences of the soldiers to the extent that they regularly committed atrocities. The narrative started in Vietnam, but now is being continued for the war in Iraq.

TNR gave the game away by admitting that the point of the series penned by Beauchamp was to illustrate “the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war.” In doing so, TNR was reinforcing the left-wing stereotype that has shaped popular opinion about soldiers since the Vietnam War: that they are dehumanized animals.

According to the conventional wisdom passed down from the anti-war left of the Sixties and Seventies and absorbed by the press — even those too young to remember it — Vietnam brutalized those who fought it. At first vilified by the anti-war left as war criminals and baby-killers, American soldiers soon evolved into victims—victimized first by their country, which made them poor and sent them off to fight an unjust war, then victimized again by a military that dehumanized them and turned them into killers. Beauchamp provided TNR that pre-approved narrative, facts be damned. This was Vietnam redux.

We remember well what critics of the Vietnam War said about the troops. In his infamous 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry said they had acted “in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan,” that they had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,” and done worse to civilians in the ravaged south. Kerry’s organization,

And now in Iraq, the media chooses to focus more on stories, substantiated or not, of atrocities rather than heroism.

Would anyone have believed such a story about World War II and the “greatest generation?” Of course not, but many in the media have been willing to believe that U.S. servicemen in Vietnam were capable of any atrocity. This predisposition lives on today. Here’s our old friend, John Kerry, last year on Face the Nation. American troops, said Kerry, were “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of, of, of historical customs, religious customs . . .”

And who can forget the bilious Rep. John Murtha (D., Penn.), a vociferous critic of the war, who claimed that Marines in Haditha had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” long before an investigation had been completed. Murtha contended that the incident “shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they’re out in combat.” Murtha subsequently went further, claiming that the shootings in Haditha had been covered up. “Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long? We don’t know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command.” As readers may know, the Haditha prosecutions have largely unraveled.

In both Vietnam and Iraq, news stories about soldiers have been largely negative. But heroism and sacrifice were far more prevalent in Vietnam than atrocities, and the same holds true today. The TNR-Beauchamp affair illustrates just how little things have changed since Vietnam. In April of 2005, Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, U.S. Army, became the first soldier in the Iraq war to be awarded the Medal of Honor. He was killed in action when his outnumbered unit was attacked by Iraqi forces at the Baghdad airport on April 4, 2003, and is credited with saving hundreds of lives. Yet as Robert Kaplan observed in a piece in the Wall Street Journal that “according to LexisNexis, by June 2005, two months after his posthumous award, [Smith’s] stirring story had drawn only 90 media mentions, compared to 4,677 for the supposed Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay, and 5,159 for the court-martialed Abu Ghraib guard Lynndie England.

Yeah, well, It’s certainly not a phenom limited to the press.  Let’s not forget, for example, Ron Paul doing the same thing as Murtha.

But clearly, what we’re witness to here is the filter through which the left and the press….Not totally separate entities, by any stretch… view the world.  Nobody could possibly do what these guys and gals do without either being duped or being a monster, or both…. so they’d have us believe.

The idea that fighting a war is the right thing to do under some conditions, that some things are worth fighting for, is something which cannot be found in their handbook. The irony is that so many of them are so violent while pursuing their anti-war activities.

But to see them as Betsy clearly, and correctly, does…

Our military are not victims brutalized into committing war crimes. The overwhelming majority are brave men and women honorably serving with courage and humanity.

…would be to negate their own position. It would cause them.. nay, force them, to engage in actual thought… something which is to be avoided at all costs, since it might cause them to admit they’ve been wrong all this time.

Apparently, the consequences of that admission, to their self image, is of greater import to them than the damage their position is doing to those of us out here in the real world. It’s called “Self centeredness”. Or, “Selfishness” in short.

HOUMA, La. (AP) — A white state lawmaker in a runoff election called a black civil-rights veteran who had helped her campaign “Buckwheat,” prompting the NAACP to urge voters to kick her out of office.Rep. Carla Blanchard Dartez, a Democrat, acknowledged that she ended a Thursday night conversation with Hazel Boykin by saying, “Talk to you later, Buckwheat.” Dartez had been thanking Boykin for driving voters to the polls.Buckwheat, a black child character in the “Little Rascals” comedies of the 1930s and ’40s, is viewed as a racial stereotype.

Boykin, 75, helped desegregate restaurants and the parish school system in the 1960s. Her son, Jerome, is president of the Terrebonne Parish chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

“I’ve never had no one talk to me that way and I considered it a racial slur,” Hazel Boykin said. “I know the meaning of it, it’s just like the N-word.”

Hasn’t it dawned on anyone, yet, that this kind of thing is the logical result of the racial politics that Democrats … and the NAACP…have engaged in for decades? And, oh, yes, should we point out that the state is dominated by the Democrats? Spend a few decades pitting one race against the other, and this kind of confrontation will invariably occur.

Who benefits? Irony: The Democrats who facilitated it.

Mike Allen, Politico, reports on Howard Dean’s latest gaff:

In another statement likely to stir debate among the evangelical Christians his party is urgently trying to court, Dean also asserted “there are no bars to heaven for anybody,” according to the report by JTA, a 90-year-old non-profit organization which calls itself “the global news service of the Jewish people.”

Allah Pundit, Hot Air:

Beyond the sheer freakishness of his suggestion that the Party has a formal position on who qualifies for eternal salvation (anyone who’s donated to MoveOn?), Dean seems to imply that Republicans as a general rule do think Jews are barred from entering heaven — even though, ironically, the most notorious statement on that subject by a prominent conservative of late specified that Jews can indeed be saved by following their own laws. It’s we Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/godless heathens who have strayed from the Book who seem to be SOL. Ah well.

Allah grabs the point that eluded Allen, Dean wasn’t insulting just evangelical Christians.  He is insulting any person of faith.

Sister Toldjah:

Here, Dean demonstrates the ignorance that totally consumes the Democratic party on matters of faith.

Is Dean seriously trying to persuade Christians to vote democratic by arguing that their religion is worthless?  By the Gospel according to Dean, there is no sin, no need for belief and no need to ask for forgiveness.  In short, Dean sees no need for religion at all.

Dean is not a Christian.  Rather, he is a secularist.  His foolish attempts to preach his gospel for political ends only expose his ignorance.

Then Dean is not unique as a democrat.  Think, Joe Biden opined that demcrats lacked faith in the public.  Then Michelle Obama said black voters didn’t support her husband, because they were though themselves stupid.  Now Dean insults all people of faith.  Dean calls this inclusion.  I call it stupidity.  What say you?

More, Memeorandum.

Addendum: (David L) As I said in the comments, the question goes beyond Howard Dean to the ‘rats themselves.  Thanks to A.J. Strata, Strata-Sphere, we have strong evidence that liberals simply do not like people of religion.  Barak Obama on Meet the Press:

[B]ut understand, Tim, part of what I hope to offer as president is the ability to reach to people that I don’t agree with, and the evangelical community is one where the Democratic Party, I think, we have generally seen as hostile, we haven’t been reaching out to them, and I think that if we’re going to make significant progress on critical issues that we face, whether it’s education, or health care, or energy, or our foreign policy in this country, we’ve got to be able to get beyond our comfort zones and just talk to people we don’t like (pause) or just talk to people we like, or people that we agree with on every single issue.

Remember how Ann Coulter got skewered for saying she believed she wouldn’t see her Jewish friends in Heaven?.  The leftards called Coulter a bigot.  Obama admits he does not like people of religion.

Since when has that phrase ever, in reality, had anything to do with age?

We all know 70 year olds who are younger than a fair handful of 20-somethings we know…

Dale Franks, this morning, adds somewhat to the discussion of yesterday of “Lions for Lambs”, with an unusually insightful piece called “Antiwar movie Flops”.

Go RTWT.

I add a question:

 But perhaps the larger question, here is whom such a movie WOULD appeal to. And who, would conceive of such a storyline, in the first place?

In both cases, the answer comes back:

Someone who already thinks America sucks,the Americans are the bad guys, and freedom is an undesirable item.

This is not just anti-American propaganda, we’re dealing with, here… it’s an act of self-justification for positions already held.

Newsbusters:

 On Sunday’s “NBC Nightly News,” correspondent Pete Williams previewed details of a new book, The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack, by Ronald Kessler, in which Kessler revealed information obtained by the an FBI agent who extensively interviewed Saddam Hussein and found, among other things, that the former Iraqi leader had deliberately tried to “fool the U.S.” into believing he had weapons of mass destruction because “he wanted Iranian leaders to believe that he had nuclear and biological weapons.” The FBI agent, named George Piro, also reported that Saddam Hussein “hoped the post-Gulf War sanctions on Iraq would dissolve, allowing him to pursue a nuclear capability.”

NBC News correspondent Pete Williams began his report: “Saddam Hussein told his American captors that he so feared Iran, he wanted Iranian leaders to believe that he had nuclear and biological weapons. So he planned to fool the U.S. by, among other things, stalling U.N. inspectors to make it appear he had something to hide, weapons of mass destruction or WMD. But he hoped the post-Gulf War sanctions on Iraq would dissolve, allowing him to pursue a nuclear capability.”

Hmmm.

Stand by for claims from the left that NBC was paid off by the Bush family.

Right Wing News:

An excerpt, in an article called, “LAPD Plan To Map Muslim Communities Angers Some Groups,” caught my attention,

“A plan by the LAPD counterterrorism bureau to create a map detailing the Muslim communities in that city was reported Friday to be angering civil rights groups.At least three major Muslim groups and the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter Thursday to top city officials raising concerns about the plan, The New York Times reported.

…For the LAPD or any police department to assume that one group is more terrorist or violent than another because of their religion alone, that’s a very scary phenomenon in our country,” a Muslim advocate group representative said.

Ehr…“one group is more terrorist or violent than another because of their religion alone,” and that group would be Muslims.

Perhaps stated more correctly, the amount of terrorism going on in the world today that is not directly linked to Islam, is non-existent.

But, let’s just say it like it is: if Allah were real and he called home every Muslim on the planet to heaven, where they would spend eternity cavorting with virgins, 99% of the terrorism happening back here on earth would immediately cease.

But more important, I think, is the idea that without such mapping, as they’re calling it… and idetntifying the problem areas… and the innocents… without the better understanding that such mapping provides,  Are we not more vulnerable to attack?

Perhaps more importantly; are we not also more prone to arresting innocents?

Ironic, Daily Mail (UK):

Gunfire killed at least six people and wounded 80 today at a Fatah memorial rally for Yasser Arafat attended by hundreds of thousands of supporters of the defeated faction in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

A sea of yellow Fatah flags had filled a Gaza square for the biggest gathering held by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s secular faction in the territory since Hamas Islamists routed its fighters there in June.

Hat Tip:  Memeorandum.

The other shoe has finally dropped:

Fred Dicker at the NY Post:

November 12, 2007 — Gov. Spitzer‘s former communications director, Darren Dopp, asked another Spitzer aide to lie about the origins of the Dirty Tricks Scandal – including the governor’s own allegedly extensive knowledge of the plot to smear the Senate’s GOP leader, a well-placed source told The Post yesterday.

Dopp wanted now-demoted Spitzer homeland-security aide William Howard to join him in denying there was anything unusual in their months-long effort to use the State Police to gather evidence purporting to show Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Rensselaer) misused state aircraft for political purposes, said the source, who knows many of those involved in the scandal.

….

“Darren made it clear to Howard and others that he wanted a story to be told that was different than the one that actually happened,” the source claimed. “His comments stunned some of those who heard it, because they didn’t want to lie.”

Dopp also insisted at another meeting that “the boss,” as he called Spitzer, had been kept fully informed “from the start” about the anti-Bruno effort, which dated back to the spring, the source said.

Such a claim, if true, would contradict Spitzer’s repeated insistence that he didn’t learn about the anti-Bruno plot until shortly before it became public – and had even made an unsuccessful effort to stop it.

And so now, the credibility of Spitzer is somewhat lower than that of a used spit dealer. It’s not the crime thatll get ya but the cover up, Spitz.

Hmmm. How does one remove a sitting governor from office, again?

More, Memeorandum

Jim Wrenn the Editor of PoliSat.com, asks a pretty fair question, given the political conetnt and angle of the movie:

Who has the financial clout and production skills to counter Hollywood’s “Lions for Lambs” campaign-ad?  Does not McCain/Feingold unconstitutionally limit the capacity of political parties, candidates, their supporters, grass-roots organizations, etc. to effectively counter such naked propaganda?  Of course it does.  Are we who opposed McCain/Feingold now entitled to say “We told you so”?  Of course we are, but there’s no satisfaction in that.

How can opponents of such naked propaganda counter it?  Here’s one of my meager attempts at http://PoliSat.Com/BaseballFootballAndWar.htm (which includes a windows movie video) or, if you insist on giving traffic to Google/Gorgle, you can view the video on YouTube at http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ww3VocsYFc.  The only “good” news is that at least so far, the Hollywood Left’s most recent hurt-America-in-order-to-hurt Bush “blockbusters” may prove to be wallet-busters for the Hollywood Left, but given the scope of resources they possess and their fanatical willingness to expend them hurting America in order to hurt Bush, there’s little cause for optimism.  The only thing that will ever get their attention is when enough consumers stand up on their hind legs in the market place and say “Enough.”

Well, given the sales figures we’re seeing from the movie, it would appear that that has already started.  That said, however, I will point out that a goodly portion of the people exposed to this propaganda, aren’t going to be Americans.  They’re also in some part going to be people who seriously approve of this nonsense. So Hollywood is insulated from American reaction.

All this does raise the question about McCain Feingold, however.  Just how far do we take that?  I suppose, ultimately, that entirely depends on what and who the law is being applied to.  Which is what those of us who have been speaking out against it all along, have been worried about.

Say Anything:

Despite all their protestations of piety and clean living as well as their condemnation of anything they deem to be “Unislamic” it seems that our friends from the Religion of Peace have a keen desire to dive right in to internet porn.

In fact, it looks like they surf porn more than anyone else. I’ve highlighted some of their favorite internet, er, hobbies:

Arabic is the 2nd most common language that is used to search for “gay sex.” It’s the number one language for search involving “sexy.” As you can see in that same graph, Iran is at 3 and Egypt is at 4, listed under regions where search on “sexy” was most conducted.

Arabic is the 2nd most common language that is used to search for “gay man.” The countries that most search for this is currently Malaysia (#1) and Indonesia (#2). For “gay girl,” Arabic is also the 2nd most common language.

For “child porn,” Turkey is the 2nd country where this is most searched. Turkish is the #1 language used.

Turkey has one of the most searches for the word “porno.” Morocco is at 5. Turkish is #1 language used to conduct the search in. Indonesia is currently #1 country that search for the word “vagina.”

Turkey is not an Arab country, nor are some of the other countries I listed. But they are Muslim, so I thought the findings were fascinating to say the least. All of this information is not in the least bit shocking, but it’s quite ironic.

Oh, those naughty, naughty boys. Covering their women while they surf porn with sweaty-eyed gusto. And here are some more fun filled facts about our sexually repressed representatives of the Religion of Peace:

Egypt is currently #1 for “fat sex.”

Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey and Egypt are at the top of the list when it comes to “animal sex.”

For “children sex,” Pakistan is at #1, Egypt #2 and Iran #3. The most common languages used to conduct the search in are Arabic and Turkish.

For “sexy child,” Pakistan is #1, followed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. Common languages are Persian, Arabic, and Turkish.

For “homo sex,” Indonesia is #1, Morocco is at 6.

For “rape,” Pakistan is at 1. Malaysia is at 3.

For “bird sex,” Egypt is at 1. (Come ON!)

What, you’ve never heard of the Muslim version of “Chicken”?

(Bwaaaawk!)

Says Say Anything:

These are evidently very busy people.

Well, yes, they do appear to have a good deal going on.  And, of course, we Americans are the source of all immorality.

The thing that interests me, I wonder why we’re just now getting around to this.  That data had to have been up there for some time.  Which, of itself, raises another question.  Given what we saw Google bending over forward to accommodate the Chinese, why do we not see similar restrictions on what gets searched for and returned in the countries in question?

More seriously; I suspect and suppose that this data gives us a fair indication that support for Muslim extremists, and their totalitarian ways, is a lot softer than we were led to believe.  Of course, the accuracy of that observation would seem to depend almost totally on who it is that has Internet access in the countries in question.

John J. Miller, National Review, comes upon a piece of vapidity from the New York Times,  a moron, writing under the nom de plume, Eduardo Porter, wrote:

The framers of the Constitution evidently believed that happiness could be achieved, putting its pursuit up there alongside the unalienable rights to life and liberty. Though governments since then have seen life and liberty as deserving of vigorous protection, for all the public policies aimed at increasing economic growth, people have been left to sort out their happiness.

Ok moron, from the top, the reference to happiness is not found in the Constitution of the United States, but rather in the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

Two the authors of the Declaration said nothing at all about how happiness could be achieved,  if it  could be achieved or who should achieve it.      The authors only avered that it was the divine right of Man to pursue it

Then if a Pinch Sulzberger reader believes that the Constitution calls for state achievement of happiness, he is stupid enough to believe Porter’s premiss that happiness can be achieved if only taxes are made sufficently high.

Aside to Bit, I know we looking for another writer.   However Porter need not bother to apply.

Edit:  (David)

Addendum:  Bryan, Hot Air, has the video up.

McQ over at Q&O:

 Run Silent, Run Deep…

And pop up like a cork in the midst of a carrier battle group:

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk – a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

We talked about this a bit on the podcast last night, but this is a very serious incident as far as the US Navy is concerned.  And it brings to mind a few questions.

…

(1) Has our Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capability degraded since the demise of the USSR?

(2) How many times have the Chinese been able to successfully do this?

(3) Why in the world would you let the US know you had both the tactics and technology to do this?

He egts into discussion on this stuff, and I’ll advise you to go and RTWT.

For my part, some offhand comments:

Nuclear powered submarines, are much quieter, than their Diesel counterparts. We in the west supposedly have the best ASW platforms in the world, been yet for whatever reason we were unable to detect an ostensibly easier to detect submarine than the nuclear powered ones that we’ve all been concerned about.

Granted, diesel power was not likely running when they were within range of our people. But what kind of range are we talking about?

Best I can figure out… Either the sub was sitting on or close to the bottom, waiting for the group to come along, or they drove from just outside range, to within range, all on battery power. Must be a hell of a battery powering that thing.

If it’s the latter of the two, that is one extraordinarily quiet submarine. If it’s the former, and I think this more likely, what we have here, is an incredible stroke of luck, that the sub chose the right spot to sit in, to wait for the group to show up. If that’s the case, I have my doubts that exposure of that ability was ever intended. It just happened.

(3) Why in the world would you let the US know you had both the tactics and technology to do this?

Well, these are communists we are dealing with. Everything that they do is politically motivated. Making the assumption that that is what they’re doing, (I haven’t, yet, but for the sake of discussion …) I would view this as propaganda value. Sort of like spending a couple of billion dollars on a satellite whose only ability was to play monotone music over a short wave frequency back to earth… the music being “THe East is Red”.

I wouldn’t call it sabre rattling, exactly, but again everything they do is politically motivated; doubtless, they see it as having a positive effect on their negotiations around the world on things not military . Fear, he is, after all, a great motivator.

The obvious implications for vulnerability aside , and along with it the questions about our ASW ability… one question we’ve not asked yet…Would we have been better off.. as in, more cost effective… staying with Diesel power technology in our submarines? After all, the Chinese appear to have figured out a way to make them quiet enough to be effective….

Ace of Spades says:

Looks like the Saturday night box office estimates are in and while Lions for Lambs basically doubled its take from Friday, $6.7 million in box office is only good for 4th place.

A distant 4th place: Bee Movie grossed $26 million, American Gangster $24 million, and Fred Claus $19 million.

Memo to Hollywood…we don’t hate America as much as you do. Want to make some money? Make a movie where Americans are the good guys and the terrorists are the bad guys. It’s not like there’s a shortage of stories that fit the bill.

Thing is, that poor showing is despite one of the largest ad campaigns the online community has ever seen.  The message is clear enough, for anyone who wants a piece of it; Americans are tired of limousine liberals making their moral judgments for them.

Mostly, we see that reaction where the message of the movie is how morally bankrupt America is.  How wrong we all are, how selfish, and so on.  Even if it was true, (and it’s not) I can’t see large numbers of people without a masochist streak showing up to plunk down $10 or $15.00 apiece to be preached that in that manner.  But of course, the American people are smarter than Hollywood in this; they know America’s not the problem.  They know who is being morale in these events, and who is not.

This is particularly true since the limousine liberals in question don’t seem to have any morals themselves; All that’s needed to confirm that has to the latest tabloids .

Update: (Bit )

I’ve been asked, in feedback, the following question:

The message is clear enough, for anyone who wants a piece of it; Americans are tired of limousine liberals making their moral judgments for them.

So what of Movies like “Sicko”?

Well, you see, this is where the leftist penchant for editing my comments comes into play. Look a little further down the post:

I can’t see large numbers of people without a masochist streak showing up to plunk down $10 or $15.00 apiece to be preached that in that manner.

Did you read that?  Good.  Not go back and read it again.  Keep doing that until you understand the implications of all the words in that sentence. After a while it may come upon some of you, that the people included in that sentence are not in the American political mainstream.

Now; Ever hear of a cult movie?

A juicy tidbit from the weekend talking heads, Wolf Blitzer to Richard Armitage on his disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s employer to Robert Novak:

ARMITAGE: They’re not words on which I disagree. I think it was extraordinarily foolish of me. There was no ill-intent on my part and I had never seen ever, in 43 years of having a security clearance, a covert operative’s name in a memo. The only reason I knew a “Mrs. Wilson,” not “Mrs. Plame,” worked at the agency was because I saw it in a memo. But I don’t disagree with her words to a large measure.

The CIA published Wilson’s name in a memo. Covert agents names are never published. Mrs. Wilson was not covert. Patrick Fitzgerald knew that Mrs. Wilson was not covert. There was no leak of an agent name and utterly no need for an investigation.

Hat tips, Byron York, National Review; Memeorandum.

Addendum I: (Bit) Which brings us back to the obvious question of why in the world Richard Armitage was not a much larger part the investigation which eventually convicted Scooter Libby, instead  The obvious answer is that the conviction of Richard Armitage, was not nearly as politically fruitful to those feeding the investigation.
It also calls to mind the possibility of a setup of the White House involving Armitage.  Let’s remember that in the last eight years there have been several occasions where the state department has gone directly contrary to White House policy on foreign affairs.  It doesn’t take much imagination to assign motivation to members of the state department in this case. 

Addendum II:  (David L)

The bigger questions include, but go beyond Patrick Fritzgerald.    Question is why did the CIA refer the mention of Mrs. Wilson’s name to the DOJ when she was not convert and not protected by IIPA.    Why is Fitzgerald still sitting on the referal letter?