1 If it had been a democrat, it would have been front page news in the Washington Post, and Rush Limbaugh would be having an apoplectic fit, and Michelle Malkin would be wanting to put her in an internment camp.

2 Actually, Dan, you are so full of crap that your eyes are turning brown.

Notice that the story is reported about a Republican by which news outlet? Oh, yeah, the allegedly conservative GOP-biased FoxNews -- and at least 200 other news outlets around the country, including the liberal Washington Post.

I don't know what Limbaugh had to say about the matter -- I work, so don't get the chance to listen to him (and am not a huge fan, in any event).

As for Michelle Malkin, she would only support internment in the event they were potential threats to national security who have sided with the terrorists against whom we currently battle -- which does, in fact, include most Democrat elected officials in this country (and a good chunk of the Lleft wing of the blogosphere).

And notice -- I put up a piece about this incident regarding a Republican. Would you have posted something like this if she were a Democrat? I didn't think so.

3 I wouldn't post about this because it's trivial junk. Who cares about nonsense like this?

I have posted pieces severely criticizing democrats over substantive issues, though. I just don't really go for mock outrage over trivialities. That's why this "story" didn't show up on my blog.

BTW - check up on the Washington Post. They've gone over to your side of the aisle.

4 I posted the story because it is funny, in a warped sor of way.

You know -- humor. Ha! Ha!

And sorry, the Post is certainly not a GOP organ, not as long as it publishes treasonous material like that written by Dana Priest. That puts them squarely in your party's camp.

5 Sorry I miss the humor. As for the Post, I'm impressed with your insistence on rigid orthodoxy. Trust me, though, that after "a good leak", they're not in our camp.

The funny thing is, you don't want them because they published the truth. We don't want them because they lied. Seems like a pattern is forming.

6 Actually, I don't want them because they are publishing national security secrets in time of war -- something the Supreme Court said can be banned back during WWI.

7 I'm glad they did. I see no purpose in our government running secret prisons like some soviet-era eastern european dictatorship. We're supposed to be better than that.

8 I'm surprised, Dan, given that most folks on the Left have more in common with the ideological views of "soviet-era eastern european dictatorsips" than with the principles that undergird America's founding documents.

That said, let's not ignore a couple of little deails that have since emerged.

1) Subsequent investigations have determined that Dana Priest's story was false, and that said prisons do not exist.

2) This was a leak of classified material -- haven't you folks been claiming that such things are unacceptable? Or is leaking acceptable when done in an unauthorized manner to attack a president you despise, but unacceptable when done with presidential authorization as a part of his constitutional perogatives?

3) It appears this material was ILLEGALLY leaked by an individual who has just been fired. Furthermore, Dana Priest lied about the source at the time of the publication -- making specific denials about the partisan nature of the source (she is a Democrat who made major donations to Kerry and other Democrat campaigns/funds) by indicating that her CIA sources were Republican.

Taken together, it appears that the story is false, based upon illegally leaked material, and the reporter in question lied about the source to make her more credible than she would have been otherwise. Such high ethics -- AT LEAST two lies and a crime!

9 To my knowledge, no reputable investigation has concluded that the prisons don't exist.