September 28, 2003
TOO COMPLICATED?....The Valerie Plame story is "too complicated" for Glenn Reynolds to understand? Give me a break. That was the same excuse he used with John Lott.
There's nothing complicated in either of these cases. Lott fudged
his data and tried to cover it up, pure and simple. Someone in the
White House deliberately exposed a CIA operative for political gain,
pure and simple.
Look, guys, here was Tacitus this morning: Still
mostly unnamed sources in WaPo this morning, but I think there's no
denying that there's something to the Plame affair at this point....and
it means trouble for the Administration.
That's the
absolute minimum anyone should say about this. If you insist that the
evidence isn't clear yet and you're still waiting for confirmation,
fine. But at least tell us that, yes, if this is true, it stinks and heads should roll.
Again: this isn't just normal partisan sniping. This is serious
stuff, and loyalty to George Bush shouldn't prevent anyone from saying
so. From a bunch of folks who have been bleating about moral clarity
for over a year, that's the least we can expect.
Posted by Kevin Drum at September 28, 2003 01:32 PM
| TrackBack
It is long past time for intelligent people to cease thinking Glenn
Reynolds prioritizes truth and honesty over political partisanship. He
drank the Kool-Aid many moons ago. Being the center of the blogosphere
universe does not mean he should be taken seriously or respected. The
difference between Reynolds and Tacitus is quite telling.
I'm eagerly awaiting the rationalizations as to why the "Rule of Law"
that was so sacred when Bill Clinton lied about receiving fellatio from
an intern doesn't hold here. This is going to require the Mary Lou
Retton of rhetorical gymnastics.
A commenter at Pandagon said it well: using Instalogic, failing to take this seriously means you are objectively pro-treason.
"Partisan Sniping" formerly known as the opposition. An art long
since lost to the ages, practiced during the democratic years of the
Empire. Some find it quaint, and perform re-enactments at annual media
picnics.
One day it'll be Judge Instahack!
Jaquandor, they're going to turn it around and blast Democrats by
saying, "hey, you guys were arguing against the Rule of Law when it came
to the Clenis, so it's not fair to suddenly care about it now!"
We've already seen someone on the Calpundit comments bring up Hillary as a defense for Bush.
--Kynn
"Again: this isn't just normal partisan sniping. This is serious
stuff, and loyalty to George Bush shouldn't prevent anyone from saying
so."
Very little of the major criticisms of Bush are merely partisan snipes any more.
"It's partisan backstabbing, pure and simple, and it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously."
-- Instapundit writing on July 10, 2003 about the uranium-from-Niger flap in the State Union address
I wonder -- given the recent reports -- if the professor will revist his smear of the administration's critics.
But I'm not holding my breath. Heh.
Glenn said what I was thinking: why? It doesn't make sense to me to "out" Plame to get revenge on Wilson.
What part doesn't make sense, Hari? The administration was angry
with Wilson for crossing them. They punished him by burning his wife.
The message isn't lost on others who might be tempted to fuck with the
white house: Do it and we'll burn you too, any way we can.
If by "it doesn't make sense" you mean "I can't believe they'd do
it," well, I disagree but I understand. But it certainly does make
sense in that it will plausibly serve a plausible goal. The perps are
probably astonished that people are talking scandal. I imagine they
thought this was just good clean fun, much like, say, the South Carolina
primary push polls.
One man's "hardball" is another's "multiple felonies." Who knew?
Revenge was only part of it. Intimidation was the primary reason.
The part that's hard to understand is: why would they try this on the CIA? Hubris? Stupidity? Arrogance? All of the above?
Yes all of the above, how ironic is it that the second Bush
administration, of all people would pick a fight with the CIA? Poppy has
to be popping an artery right about now.
Has anyone seen the recent "updates" Instapundit has added to his
thread on this matter? He's still confused. He thinks the smear job
was meant to intimidate Wilson and apparently hasn't considered that the
smear job was meant to intimidate future whistleblowers. Wilson, after
all, has already told his damn story. What good would it do to
intimidate him after the fact??
I hope Instapundit is faking his confusion. How the hell can he
teach law if he can't understand the import of a criminal act that no
one in the White House has denied?
I think I've got it.
It was Rove and Dan Bartlett, who've worked together for over a decade.
Bartlett's young (31 or so), so might not have the wisdom required to
squelch such a horrible idea as outing a CIA agent. He's at that age
where you have bright, overconfident people doing massively dumb things
such as when Nick Leeson brought down Barings Bank due to bad, risky
trades. (Actually, a bit older - Leeson was about 28 when he was
jailed).
Further, during that week there might have been an authority vacuum,
what with Ari stepping down, leaving an opening for bad ideas to be
acted upon.
I don't think Ari did it. Journalists would have little reason
not to finger him, since he became a civilian that week. They wouldn't
be losing an administration source. And lord knows they weren't that
fond of him when he stepped down.
I take Reynolds at his word. This is indeed too complicated for him to understand. Heh.
Anything that creates serious cognitive dissonance is "too
complicated" for Glenn Reynolds to understand. It hurts his head too
much to have to rethink basic assumptions.
Instahac...er...pundit has several updates.
Since not everyone can stand to hold their nose long enough to read him, let me summarize:
Neener neener neener I can't HEAR you.
That is all.
I read through the Glenn Reynolds ramble to come to the conclusion that it is "too complicated" for him.
Strange that this was too complicated, yet he knew instantly--without even looking into it, really--that MEChA was filled with fascist hatemongers.
Josh Marshall has some info about Rove and Novak! check it out : link
I'm surprised that no one (maybe I've missed someone) has singled out
what I find most chilling, the W Administration is saying as plain as
day:
"You cross us, and we won't stop with punishing you, we'll go after your loved ones too."
If Instahack can't perceive that he has no business teaching people (about anything).
"It is long past time for intelligent people to cease thinking Glenn
Reynolds prioritizes truth and honesty over political partisanship."
Maybe it's because I haven't been around long enough, but, uh, when was it ever time to do that?
glenn been think too much head hurt. treason OK.
Look...if someone from the White House didn't leak Plame's name, then someone else high up in the administration did.
The question isn't whether this was an illegal act. The question is WHO committed it.
Either the folks in the White House committed the crime, or someone
else with a high enough security clearance in the administration leake
dthe info.
Sure, Plame or Joe Wilson could have leaked it, but that's highly unlikely.
And that would require that Bob Novak lied about the level of his
source, which is possible, except it was corroborated by the Washington
Post story.
Now, was this leaked by the CIA, highly doubtful, as they tried to get Novak and other reporters to not run her name.
Could it be from the Pentagon? A very good guess, provided the source isn't [or wasn't] in the White House.
And, how likely is it that this came from State? Pretty slim.
So, that leaves either the White House, ir someone high enough up at the Pentagon to know the information.
And, since all of the sources say it came form the White House...they look like the culprits.
Yes, congrats for this site, check those too
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it..
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
People are just smart enough to not be happily ignorant.
The words of truth are always paradoxical.
|
