October 01, 2024Try to Keep it All in PerspectiveLet me be clear on something (as it seems some of my commentators keep missing this point): I think that there should be punishment for whomever it is that leaked Plame's name. And I support the investigation. However, the reaction needs to be commensurate to the harm done, and the nature of that harm has not been spelled out to my satisfaction. Many Democrats have been a bit hyperbolic on this affair (such as Schumer's statement that this leak is like putting a gun to Plame's head) to the degree that one would think that the head of covert ops in Moscow in the days of the Cold War was published on the front page of the New York Times. It really does matter as to the exact nature of her job, and the harm to her role it the CIA when it comes time to determine the appropriate punishment for the leaker(s)--assuming they can even be found As I have stated at least twice--the defenders of the admin shouldn't dismiss this situation as trivial, but similarly it seems reasonable to ask those who oppose the admin to tone it down. In other words, a little proportionality would be nice for a change (but then again, I sometimes may be too much of an optimist...). Another point that seems to have been missed by some: much of my language in discussing this affair has been tentative, not declarative. Posted by Steven Taylor at October 1, 2024 04:23 PM | TrackBackComments
Let's see if I can 'splain it to Steven. Since this story re-emerged two days ago, you've engaged in repeating every meme, talking point, rumor, innuendo and outright fabrication in order to minimize this crime. You're a political scientist; you've got the Ph.D. Act like it. For once, stop being a political hack. Stop pulling out all the stops to protect Dubya. Think about what's happened. Think why it happened. Consider the ramifications. Without getting into a debate as to what Plame did or didn't do in the CIA--consider for a moment what happened to her. She was 'outted' by the highest levels of the Executive Branch. Why? Clearly as retribution for her husband telling the truth. I'd add that this retribution was not intended as a message to just one individual but to our intelligence community as a whole. The message is simple: stray from the party line and tell the truth--suffer the consequences. Another, and more insidious message, is that this WH apparently believes national security is in play as a political tool. Remember, again, this smear job was done by *senior* administration officials--not by some GS-12. Consider: if this administration is willing to flush away a national security asset as political revenge, what else are they willing to compromise or lie about? Posted by: JadeGold at October 1, 2024 07:07 PMConsider: if this administration is willing to flush away a national security asset as political revenge, what else are they willing to compromise or lie about? Obviously, the answer is ANYTHING. And if they're that good at lying, why, we could never tell when they were telling the truth. They might even LIE and tell people that they never had sex with interns! You're right, Jade. Your incessant twisting of facts and trollish behavior has done so much to educate those of us who are not quite so bright. Now we see Steve as he truly is: not a dispassionate Poli Sci PhD, but a partisan BushWhacker of the highest order. Why, he's probably got a personal red phone that connects to Karl Rove's office. Check his tape library. I bet there's nothing but recorded versions of GWB reading Hitler's "Mein Kampf"! You might not have guessed this, Jade, but Steve spent some time in Texas. You know what else is in Texas, Jade? OOOOIIIIYYYEEEEAAAAL! Haliburton! Dick Cheney's old stomping grounds. Carlisle Group. Enron. Ring a bell. I see the pieces all fitting together. Man, it's so good to have clear-headed, right (oops, I mean, left) thinking people like you to straighten us dumb hicks out. Posted by: Bryan at October 1, 2024 08:40 PMBryan, Ya got me. I am secretly a member of the Haliburton board! S Posted by: Steven at October 1, 2024 09:44 PMBravo, Bryan! It certainly didn't take you long to get to the crux of this issue--it's all Bill Clinton's fault. His marital infidelity led Dubya's adnministration to compromise national security. Steven, a word of advice: don't let the Department Head at Troy State see Bryan's perceptive and insightful comment. Or you run the very real risk of becoming the assistant assistant Professor of Poli Sci. Today's assignment for our southern Poli Sci whizzes: If Dubya refuses to personally and forcefully pursue a national security risk on his own staff, how can we trust him to keep this country safe? Today's assignment for the blindly partisan JadeGold: Explain how a president "personally pursues" a national security risk on his own staff? Drag them all into a room and say, "alright, we're not leaving here until someone confesses. And if no one comes forward, everyone gets punished!" Yeah, that worked for us in junior high too. Does it work for you now, while you're in junior high, Jade? Posted by: bryan at October 2, 2024 11:51 PMPost a comment
|
|