Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Can You Incohere Me Now?
The Republicans are down. It would be a golden opportunity for the Democrats...if only they stood for something, had a message, had anything worthwhile to say. Gary Yonge writes in the Guardian:

Having supported the war and without coherent proposals for disengaging, they are ill-placed to take advantage of the Republican's current troubles.

Either unable or unwilling to present a clear agenda of how they would do things differently, they have been effectively mute for several months. With no opposition, popular disenchantment with the Bush Administration's ethical failings is descending into cynicism.

Indeed, the only group that has really flexed its muscles in recent weeks has been the Christian right, which derailed Mier's nomination to the supreme court. Bush is likely to nominate another candidate later this week who will be more to their liking, thereby tipping the balance of the court against abortion and affirmative action. Unless the Democrats develop the wherewithal to challenge them, conservatives will then shape both the law and the politics of the country for a generation. And Fitzmas will be little more than a lingering reminder of what the law can do when politics has failed.

Posted by aalkon at October 31, 2005 9:15 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/749

Comments

Here's the main reason why the Democrats are not offering anything up in the complete absence of wise leadership shown by the Repubs: http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary15.html

The next few decades are going to be ROUGH.

Posted by: Joe at October 31, 2005 7:01 AM

I wouldn't take what Gary Yonge has to say too seriously since he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. The Christian right and other social conservatives backed Miers nomination. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, gave her strong support. It was the more libertarian wing of the Republican party that fought against her nomination.

But he's right that the Democrats don't have a unifying message.

Posted by: nash at October 31, 2005 7:21 AM

> Fitzmas will be little more than a lingering
> reminder of what the law can do when politics
> has failed.

No. This is a tremendously political scandal. It's not so much about Dems vs Reps, but about the CIA versus the White House.

Libby's lie to the investigator, if it happened, is not more offensive than Clinton's. In fact, I'm LESS offended by Libby's misconduct. Remember: http://www.slate.com/id/1000183/

Posted by: Crid at October 31, 2005 11:25 AM

So Crid, your hierarchy of offensiveness is that illegal, dirty tricks used to retaliate against truthful political discussion are ok - but lying about adultery in the White House is not.

The Bush White House wasn't even "man enough" to go after Wilson, whose sin was shining a light on a lie used to send thousands of people to war. Instead, they outed his wife, flushed her career down the toilet and potentially put her life in jeopardy. And since the fictional employer that Plame used as a cover was used for other CIA operatives, the damage to the CIA goes far beyond this one woman.

On one level, it's surprising that the son of a former CIA head isn't leading the charge against such reprehensible tactics, because he should know how much damage may have been done. But that response would require intelligence and integrity, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. And by intelligence, I mean what's in your skull - not the stuff you want the CIA to fudge so you can justify what you were going to do anyway.

To get back to the original issue - yes, I think it is really sad that the "loyal opposition" is lying down and rolling over for the garbage we're being fed, the policies being foisted on us, the balls being dropped, the opportunities being missed - and most of all, the big lie that those leading the government are conservatives, because they clearly have no problem with big government, increased government spending, and deficits, as long as it benefits them and their friends personally. But as long as the Dems aren't offering a viable alternative, or even speaking out about it to any extent, I guess we'll continue to get the government we (sadly and collectively) deserve.

Posted by: Melissa at October 31, 2005 2:06 PM

Indeed, the only group that has really flexed its muscles in recent weeks has been the Christian right, which derailed Mier's nomination to the supreme court.

That's not remotely true; Miers was largely supported by the Christian Right and opposed by the rest of the Republican Party (neocons, liberatarians, and pro-bidness tax-cutters.) The neocons wrote the script for her exit, the phony battle over documents.

The Guradian can't even get British politics right, and its take on American politics is simply comical.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at October 31, 2005 2:42 PM

"Affirmative action"? Who is in charge of that, and why, again, is it needed?

Do we really need to keep the Asian kids out of college that badly?

Posted by: Radwaste at October 31, 2005 2:43 PM

I'm all for affirmative action in college admissions, at least while male enrollment is down around 43%. But feminist liberals have pretty much quit pushing it except for disabled Native American lesbians with weight problems and a history of abuse.

Posted by: Richard Bennett at October 31, 2005 4:02 PM

>So Crid, your hierarchy of offensiveness is that illegal, dirty tricks used to retaliate against truthful political discussion are ok - but lying about adultery in the White House is not.

Agreed. And I don't buy the witchhunt scenario, either.

Clinton lied about a blowjob during a special prosecutor's supposed investigation into a real-estate scandal that couldn't be linked to him.

Libby lied about who told him to out a CIA agent during an investigation into who outed a CIA agent.

One of these lies was relevant to the investigation, one of them wasn't. One of these is obstructing justice, one is not. One of these lies was relevant to national security and one of them wasn't.

Posted by: little Ted at October 31, 2005 4:18 PM

> illegal, dirty tricks used
> to retaliate against truthful
> political discussion...

Come again? Fitzgerald said on Oct 28, after 22 months of expensive investigation: "We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally, outed a covert agent." Get the picture? Your chatter about dirty tricks is hollow and baseless. It didn't happen, and no credible source claims that it did.

AND EVEN IF IT HAD, there's nothing to admire in Wilson and Plame. This woman was not James Bond. She was a "white wine" agent, an attractive blond to talk to at beltway cocktail parties. People just knew that one day, she'd become the wonderful second wife of some scoundrel, and that scoundrel was Wilson. By 2002, when she recommended her husband to the mission, she was in safe domestic duty as mother to his twin toddler sons... She'd already flushed her own precious career. That's why he felt free to PUBLISH (bogus) EDITORIALS IN THE NEW YORK TIMES, which is not the behavior of someone who's trying to keep his wife's life private. And meanwhile, says Steyn: "British intelligence, French intelligence, and even a former prime minister of Niger agree that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Niger."

And for the love of Christ, will someone tell me why righteous lefties are all of the sudden defending the CIA? (!!?!?!?!)

Because its bad for George Bush.

> On one level, it's surprising
> that the son of a former CIA
> head...

Oh, don't be so bashful. It's PROFOUNDLY telling that Bush 43 finds his administration burdened by the CIA. This is one of the great family dramas in American political history. The alcoholic, dyslexic, draft-dodger/business-failure son turns away from the "realism" and realpolitik of his war hero father's generation. I've posted the links here before and you didn't read 'em, so I won't bother reposting them. But when Dubya says the United States is not going to work with shabby dictators via the CIA to make things happen in foreign policy, I think he means it. AND EVEN IF HE DOESN'T we should be glad that he's declared that to be our policy. It's a good standard for a new millenium of human relations.
And for the love of Christ, will someone tell me why all these righteous lefties are all of the sudden defending the CIA? (!!?!?!?!)

Because its bad for George Bush.

> On one level, it's surprising
> that the son of a former CIA
> head...

Oh, don't be so bashful. It's PROFOUNDLY telling that Bush 43 finds his administration burdened by the CIA. This is one of the great family dramas in American political history. The alcoholic, dyslexic, draft-dodger/business-failure son turns away from the "realism" and realpolitik of his war hero father's generation. I've posted the links here before and you didn't read them then, so I won't bother reposting them. But when Dubya says the United States is not going to work with shabby dictators via the CIA to make things happen in foreign policy, I think he means it. AND EVEN IF HE DOESN'T we should be glad that he's declared that to be our policy.

Posted by: Crid at October 31, 2005 10:33 PM

Melissa,

You are misinformed on a number of issues. Here is an article by the leftist Hitchens:

http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/

He shows that according the Senate Intelligence Committee that Joe Wilson is a liar.

Posted by: nash at October 31, 2005 10:45 PM

Come again? Fitzgerald said on Oct 28, after 22 months of expensive investigation: "We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally, outed a covert agent." Get the picture? Your chatter about dirty tricks is hollow and baseless. It didn't happen, and no credible source claims that it did.

You must have missed the press conference, because the prosecutor said that the reason they are not making that allegation is that they would have to prove intent, and they didn't have enough evidence about intent to bring that particular charge. They charged what they could prove (obstruction, perjury), and they did not rule out the possibility of the other charge being brought at some point.

Not charging that particular crime is not the same thing as saying that it did not occur - surely you must understand the difference, just as acquittal is not the same as innocence. But the prosecutor did specifically say that Scooter Libby was the source of the leak, so it's a reasonable inference for a non-prosecutor to say the motive was dirty tricks and retaliation.

Posted by: Melissa at November 1, 2005 4:50 PM

But when Dubya says the United States is not going to work with shabby dictators via the CIA to make things happen in foreign policy, I think he means it. AND EVEN IF HE DOESN'T we should be glad that he's declared that to be our policy. It's a good standard for a new millenium of human relations.

Not working with shabby dictators is one thing - spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives to bring one particular dictator down is quite another.

Recent history proves that an outside power waging war and toppling dictators is not the best way to foster democracy in a given country or region, either. So if only for the sake of efficiency and efficacy, Bush's means should be questioned, even if his motives are above reproach (which I do not concede).

As for your penultimate sentence above, if Bush doesn't mean what he says, it's blatant hypocrisy, which is never good policy nor good for foreign relations. Lying and hypocrisy may be business as usual for politicians, but it's disgraceful if the president asks soldiers and taxpayers to back up his lies.

Posted by: Melissa at November 1, 2005 5:10 PM

> the reason they are not making that
> allegation is that they would have
> to prove intent, and they didn't have
> enough evidence about intent to bring
> that particular charge.

My point exactly! Your presumptions are imaginary.

> Recent history proves that an outside power
> waging war and toppling dictators is not the
> best way to foster democracy in a given
> country or region, either.

Tell it to the Germans.


> it's blatant hypocrisy, which is never
> good policy

Likeks once asked: "Who believes that hypocrisy is somehow the greatest sin of all? Adolescents. Which ought to tell you something."

Furthermore, the point which you elide is that Bush has said that supporting dictators will no longer be our policy. It's an unalloyed virtual that this is the standard to which we should be held. It will be very difficult for you to pretend otherwise and claim to be a person of meaningful decency.

Posted by: Crid at November 1, 2005 5:18 PM

Unalloyed VIRTUE. Man I wish we could edit.

Hey Amy's, what's going on in Paris? Six night's in a row. Is this the pattern there from here on out? See also this:


http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_suicide_bombers.html

Posted by: Crid at November 1, 2005 5:52 PM

>She was a "white wine" agent, an attractive blond to talk to at beltway cocktail parties

I don't want a politician's damage-control team deciding whether or not a CIA agent's covert status is worthy; I'd rather the intel people make that call.

Posted by: little Ted at November 1, 2005 9:50 PM

What's been going on in LA has been the problem...my sick perfectionism/deadline. Just finished.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 1, 2005 10:06 PM

> a politician's damage-control team
> deciding whether or not a CIA agent's
> covert status is worthy;

Go ahead, make the call yourself! Is this the sort of 'agent' you want to be precious about?

> I'd rather the intel people make that call.

I don't trust them! I don't trust them! I don't trust them! I don't trust them!

And YOU shouldn't either! Why the hell would you? What did the CIA ever do for you? How on Earth did this generation, raised on scandals like Watergate, Iran-Contra, and all the subterreanean wretchedness of the Cold War itself, come to be so concerned about the spooks?

Hollywood, that's how. You think a bald guy with a cat wants to do something nasty to Sean Connery with a laser lathe or a pool full of piranhas.... It's the only explanation.

Posted by: Crid at November 2, 2005 1:47 AM

Thanks for posting that article Crid. Very insightful.

Monday (Halloween) I was shopping at Target with my two-year-old. We were in the toddler clothing area. I saw this man, most likely of Arabic descent, and got this strange feeling. It was not a prejudicial feeling. I have Arabic friends and live in a relatively integrated community. It was more something in his countenance. A couple minutes later I saw him walk over to I presume his wife. ... She was dressed fully in black, wearing a berka - only a very narrow rectangular opening over her eyes. I tell you, the irony of shopping in Target of all places (on Halloween, no less - but it was no costume!), and seeing a woman dressed in a berka, following her husband around. Also, I found it interesting that she could walk around "freely" in her wardrobe in a society that does not generally agree with such an extreme practice; I bet you that I could not walk around freely in the community where she was originally from, wearing my outfit. Nor could I freely or openly practice my religion. What a great Country this is...as long as the berka's don't take over!
Wearing a berka while shopping in Target...

Posted by: Claire at November 2, 2005 7:46 AM

> Wearing a berka while shopping
> in Target...

...While shopping in Target for HALLOWEEN COSTUMES! (At least that means the kids are getting some taste of western traditions, right?)

The sexual incoherance(!) of arab Muslim life is the best reason to fight these fights.

Posted by: Crid at November 2, 2005 9:17 AM

Here's your "intelligence agency" at work! Checkl out the photo!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

Can you IMAGINE what a day is like in there?

Posted by: Crid at November 2, 2005 10:08 AM

> Recent history proves that an outside power
> waging war and toppling dictators is not the
> best way to foster democracy in a given
> country or region, either.

Tell it to the Germans.

Most people understand the distinction between going to war to stop a country that is invading other countries, and going into a country to overthrow its dictator pre-emptively. I have far less of a problem with Bush Sr's war to throw Saddam out of Kuwait than what we're currently doing.

Plus, along with many others, I'm convinced that the main reason we're in Iraq instead of invading any number of other countries with terrible dictators is because of the Bush family history with Saddam (jr. trying to finish the job daddy started, make dad proud, etc.) - and, of course, because of strategic oil reserves.

> the reason they are not making that
> allegation is that they would have
> to prove intent, and they didn't have
> enough evidence about intent to bring
> that particular charge.

My point exactly! Your presumptions are imaginary.

No, no, you're missing the point, Crid. The motive can't be proven, so that particular charge can't be brought, but we still have the same action and the same result, just different charges. It's as if you're crowing that someone wasn't charged with murder, while ignoring the fact that they were charged with manslaughter.

Posted by: Melissa at November 2, 2005 5:03 PM

It's in black and white, but you decline to take --or even phrase answers to-- any points. It's good that this is happening on Amy's blog... She has strong ideas about people who believe things without evidence.

Posted by: Crid at November 2, 2005 5:27 PM

>And YOU shouldn't either! Why the hell would you? What did the CIA ever do for you...etc.etc.etc.

I'm sorry, there just isn't anyway you're going to convince me or anyone rational person that Libby or Cheney or Rove or you or Geraldo Rivera or Pravda or anyone is in a better position to decide that a CIA agent's covert status is undeserved than the CIA- however disfunctional, however untrustworthy the CIA may be. There's just no way to spin that to say otherwise.

Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe, maybe she was covert not because it would jeopardize the amount of information she could get, but to prevent her and her family from being a target? If al-qaeda wanted to know what we know about them and their pursuit of WMDs, isn't a "white-wine" beaureaucrat exactly the person who would know the most and resist the least?

I realize this is unlikely to the point of paranoia, but wasn't the notion that a bunch of people no one had ever heard of in a wasteland country that we knew nothing about would want to and be able to ram a plane into the Pentagon (the Pentagon!) paranoid to the point of impossibility until it happened?

I know a retired police officer who has an unlisted phone number and whose paper trail goes by a name other than his own for all papers not related to his work (mortgage, bank accounts, etc.) because he doesn't want to take the chance that someone he arrested ten years ago will bear a grudge. I've never heard of an instance of a reprisal on a ex-cop, but I find this to be a perfectly reasonable precaution just as I find it perfectly reasonable for the CIA to want to protect the identity of a WMD agent whether or not that agent does anything difficult or dangerous at her job.

Posted by: little Ted at November 2, 2005 11:08 PM

> however untrustworthy the CIA may be.

Wow. OK.

Good luck out there.

Posted by: crid at November 3, 2005 10:37 AM

Goddammit, I cannot resist.

> maybe she was covert not because
> it would jeopardize the amount of
> information she could get, but
> to prevent her and her family
> from being a target?

People trying to stay under the radar don't publish noisemaking editorials in the New York Times, especially when their delicate little secret agent wives are home tending twin infant sons.

> isn't a "white-wine" beaureaucrat
> exactly the person who would
> know the most and resist the
> least?

You're right! They're beaureaucrats! So let's fire them for incompetence. They didn't protect us from Al-Qaeda, did they? And meanwhile let's not worry that Goldfinger's going to send Oddjob to behead our pretty little Valerie with his flying razor-hat. (Link provided for readers under age 45)

- http://www.jamesbond007.net/seconds/Oddjob.jpg

When Al-Qaeda attacked, they were as happy to kill random Americans as notable ones. But if Plame is truly such a fragile little blossom, let's not burden her with the risk.

OK, actually, you're wrong. Historically, working for the CIA has not meant that at some point in your career someone's going to torture you for information. That happens much more often in the films than in real life.

> Libby or Cheney or Rove or you
> or Geraldo Rivera or Pravda or
> anyone

I'm not arguing for anyone, I'm arguing for EVERYONE. No single individual should make such judgments, rather the whole country should... Or nobody should, because the Agency should be closed. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and Langley is a stable that badly needs mucking out.

Bush's critics strike shiny gold when they talk about the hidden torture that the administration has countenanced and sometimes set in motion. These critics are right: It's time for the United States to quit doing things it's ashamed of. It'll happen sooner if we stop assuming that abject secrecy is necessary as a matter of course. We're the good guys, and we can win this thing playing clean.

> there just isn't anyway you're
> going to convince me

I know. Hollywood is powerful.

The popular imagination has two wretched presumptions from the Cold War that'll hobble us in this century: The necessity of the hard-boiled, world-weary, furtive but trustworthy secret agent; and the myth of the compassionate, best-from-each-culture, righteously administrative United Nations. Each should be disassembled, both in fantasy and on the ground.

Posted by: Crid at November 3, 2005 12:36 PM

It's in black and white, but you decline to take --or even phrase answers to-- any points. It's good that this is happening on Amy's blog... She has strong ideas about people who believe things without evidence.

Crid, if that was addressed to me, I know what Amy thinks of my blog contributions from personal e-mails and phone calls, so I'm not exactly quaking in my boots anticipating her response.

And I have actually addressed a number of your points - I just don't have the time to correct each incorrect or illogical statement. Nor do I have any inclination to try to teach a pig to sing (it's a waste of your time, and just annoys the pig).

Posted by: Melissa at November 3, 2005 3:06 PM

Let me just say I have the highest respect for Melissa's reasoning.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 3, 2005 4:19 PM

The point is not to get you in trouble with teacher, it's to see the irony of coming HERE to share religious faith in Bush's malevolence. There's no evidence, and yet you believe.

> it's a waste of your time...

Never!

Posted by: Crid at November 3, 2005 6:43 PM

>People trying to stay under the radar don't publish noisemaking editorials in the New York Times, especially when their delicate little secret agent wives are home tending twin infant sons.

Didn't know the editorial announced that his wife worked for the CIA. Besides, wasn't Joseph Wilson's noise made under the name "anonymous?"

>OK, actually, you're wrong. Historically, working for the CIA has not meant that at some point in your career someone's going to torture you for information. That happens much more often in the films than in real life.

That's true. It's also true that people who work in the justice system are only killed by people they put away on Law and Order episodes so I guess you can decide for them they don't need unlisted phone numbers.

Then again, there was that judge...

>I'm arguing for EVERYONE. No single individual should make such judgments, rather the whole country should

Right, we'll have commercials during Survivor asking people to vote on whether government witness against the IRA, Drinky McFightagain of 304 W 7th St., Chicago Il (phone number 555-9734) should remain in the witness protection program.

If you think the CIA should be dismantled, you should have that discussion, not this one.

You still haven't explained why Clinton's lie is more of a political outrage than Libby's.

Posted by: little Ted at November 3, 2005 11:06 PM

Anyone still reading?

> you should have that discussion,
> not this one.

Here it is! 'You're soaking in it.'

> why Clinton's lie is more of
> a political outrage...

Follow the link. Besides, I didn't say 'polital outrage,' I said 'offensive.'

Posted by: Crid at November 4, 2005 10:36 AM

> wasn't Joseph Wilson's noise
> made under the name "anonymous?"

No, by "Joseph C. Wilson 4th": http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Not the behavior of a family trying to stay under the radar.

Misadministration of Witness protection programs is not something people worry about a lot. (With superhuman control, I resist the temptation to tell you that it's another conversation, one you should make elsewhere).

But people ARE concerned about misconduct by the CIA, and with good reason. This week WaPo reports that they've been running secret prisons ("black sites") in Eastern Europe.

Most people who read this many blog comments take pride in being suspicious of entrenched authority, and distrust arguments without evidence. The CIA has been operating (with unpublished budget) on your blind faith for years. They don't deserve it.

Wilson CERTAINLY doesn't. He denied that his wife asked that he be sent to Niger, but as Max Boot said in Tuesday's LAT: "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who "had suggested his name for the trip." By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight; not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife...

"The panel's report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger's prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information."

Then what of Fitz? Imagine a New Year's Eve roadblock, where 500 cars are stopped for a half an hour apiece to check for drunk drivers. Every driver passes the test, but one guy gets in trouble for mouthing off at a cop. Was the roadblock a success?

Posted by: Crid at November 4, 2005 11:19 AM

>Most people who read this many blog comments take pride in being suspicious of entrenched authority, and distrust arguments without evidence. The CIA has been operating (with unpublished budget) on your blind faith for years. They don't deserve it.

Fine. What does that have to do with revoking the anonymity of a public servant? I haven't said Wilson's wife was relevant. I haven't said the CIA is trustworthy. I haven't even said that it should exist. Quite frankly, that's an argument to have with someone else. I don't want an FDA and I'm not terribly certain about an IRS. I want the Homeland Security Agency taken apart yesterday and burned on the pyre that hosted the TSA the day before. Reassign all those people to the Mexican border to make sure all the illegals are speaking Spanish and picking grapes.

The only argument that I'm making here is that when someone's job is adjudged to be of potential hazard to his or her life if his or her identity was to be revealed, they should be entitled to anonymity. I don't want a government which feels it's within it's rights to out any such anonymous person for political reasons. Pretty soon we'll have mayors' aides telling the newspapers the name of that Narc officer who said he's voting for the other guy.

>Follow the link. Besides, I didn't say 'polital outrage,' I said 'offensive.'

So you're offended because Clinton wasn't giving full attention to a discussion about how much money we should maybe spend in Bosnia if we were to move troops in at some future point? I read that the first time but thought you had something better.

Posted by: little Ted at November 5, 2005 12:59 AM

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, and then someone else can do the signoff. References at the tail.

Y'know how when a marriage is breaking up and the husband leaves a sock in the middle of the bedroom floor, the wife will assume he wanted her to trip and crack her skull on the nightstand so that she'd bleed all over the carpet and die and then he could have her '91 Toyota Tercel, too? Or how when the husband finds the cap off the toothpaste, he assumes she wanted germs and cooties to get in there and infect him so that he'd die a gruesome, wheezing, congestive death so that she could sell off his motherfucking tackle box and spend the money on Yanni albums?

That's where people seem to be with Bush. And it's good to distrust presidents. But it shouldn't be a mechanical response to personalities... Everyone in government deserves to be checked.

> What does that have to do
> with revoking the anonymity
> of a public servant?

Ted, you keep saying 'I have no interest in protecting spooks... But spooks should be protected!' I think 'anonymous public servant' is a contradiction in terms... At least it SHOULD be. Either you trust government to act on your behalf or you don't. The people who wrote the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 built a lot of constraints into it, because they knew spooks couldn't be trusted. It's a very difficult law to break, and Libby, and Rove, and Cheney didn't break it. Fitz says so in plainest English. Melissa is mistaken:

> The motive can't be proven...

Motive is the one thing here that's so shiny that blind people see it. Hating people for their motives is your own beeswax. It doesn't make them criminal. In my judgment these motives don't even make them especially distasteful, as public servants go. I don't want people abusing the delicate, dicey privilege of anonymity to tell unchecked lies about activities on our behalf, as Wilson did.

> I don't want a government
> which feels it's within it's
> rights to out any such
> anonymous person for
> political reasons.

Politics is PROTECTING us. These conflicting interests are GOOD. People operating in secret is BAD.

> Clinton wasn't giving full
> attention to a discussion
> about how much money we
> should maybe spend in Bosnia
> if we were to move troops in
> at some future point?

Golly... Phrasing it like that sounds better than "Squirting his goo down the gullet of a fleshy, subordinate bimbo while sending teenagers to die."

Posted by: Crid at November 6, 2005 10:31 AM

Ah, there were a bunch of links with that, but it won't let me post them because it thinks they're viagra ads instead of articles in the washington post. But hey, you trust Wilson, you can trust me too, right?

Posted by: Crid at November 6, 2005 10:33 AM

If you post a post here that just says "Crid's post here" in the text, and then email me the post with links at adviceamy@aol.com, I'll post it over "Crid's post here."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at November 6, 2005 1:01 PM

I said this: The only argument that I'm making here is that when someone's job is adjudged to be of potential hazard to his or her life if his or her identity was to be revealed, they should be entitled to anonymity. I don't want a government which feels it's within it's rights to out any such anonymous person for political reasons

Not this: 'I have no interest in protecting spooks... But spooks should be protected!'

You're continuing to pick at syntax and defend points I'm not making instead of addressing what's important.

This's my argument broken down, with nothing to distract yourself:

I don't want a government which feels it's within it's rights to out any person who requires anonymity for safety reasons (such as any undercover agents for narcotics, FBI, Treasury, CIA, Counterterrorism, witness protection and said agent's families), especially when that outing is for PR purposes. Pretty soon we'll have mayors' aides telling the newspapers the name of that Narc officer who said he's voting for the other guy, which is essentially what happened here.

Don't infer. I'm not saying anything else.

Posted by: little Ted at November 6, 2005 10:56 PM

Leave a comment