Wednesday, December 21, 2005

'Plame Platoon' is AWOL on new leaks


IT SEEMS like only yesterday that every high-minded politician, pundit and professional activist was in high dudgeon about the threat posed to national security by the revelation that Valerie Plame was a spook. For daring to reveal a CIA operative's name — in wartime, no less! — they wanted someone frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs, preferably headed for the gallows.

Since then there have been some considerably more serious security breaches. Major media organs have broken news about secret prisons run by the CIA, the interrogation techniques employed therein, and the use of "renditions" to capture suspects, right down to the tail numbers of covert CIA aircraft. They have also reported on a secret National Security Agency program to monitor calls and e-mails from people in the U.S. to suspected terrorists abroad, and about the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity designed to protect military bases worldwide. — Max Boot — Los Angeles Times

27 comments:

Syl said...

There are three types of 'democrats' in this 'debate'.

(1)There are those who are genuinely concerned with national security and keeping Americans safe. They are a little worried about what is going on, but do, in all sincerety, hope its legal and Bush has the authority to do so to keep us safe.

(2)There are those who feel as (1) does and wants us to be safe. Furthermore they suspect Bush was acting within his powers as CiC. They figure no harm is being done and the program will continue anyway, so why not bitch and moan and make Bush look bad. It's just politics. They also believe the bitching and moaning will fire up the crazies and make sure the Dems get their votes.

(3)The crazies who really believe Bush is behaving like a dictator and has no authority whatsoever to do what he is doing...that is spying on innocent Americans, like themselves. This is the group that (2) is pandering to.

Groups (1) and (2) can be engaged in rational debate. Group 3 cannot.

Mark belongs to Group 3.

chuck said...

Um Kevin Drum writing there dimwit. It really is disappointing to come here looking for intelligent discourse and only finding you Peety.

Kevin Drum and intelligent discourse is an oxymoronic juxtaposition. He was one of the guys who prompted me to leave the Democratic Party.

Charlie Martin said...

Um Kevin Drum writing there dimwit. It really is disappointing to come here looking for intelligent discourse and only finding you Peety.

Well, you don't seem to be having a great time with attribution yourself, mark.

Specter said...

So let's see how your logic plays out Mark.

Who was hurt by the "outing" of Valerie "Vanity Fair" Plame? How did it endanger the security of the US?

Now - on the other hand. Picture this. Terrorist A is resident in the US and is talking to OSME bin about killing a few thousand innocent US civilians. But he reads about the NSA program in the NYT and lets OSME bin know to switch to another pre-paid phone. Now we lose track of both of them and people get killed. Who got hurt? Valerie Plame? Joe Wilson? No - citizens - innocent ones at that. How in the world can you apply such an obvious double standard?

Charlie Martin said...

Mark, that seems like a really long quote to insert as a comment. Try to summarize, and quote the essential points instead of the whole thing. That'll improve your reputation with us, and you could use the practice putting things in your own words.

Unknown said...

Well I think Valerie Plame should be fired for sending her lying drunk of a husband to Africa.

Was that unkind? I keep forgetting how big and bad and brave they are.

I am not going to go over the whole entire, sorry, silly, stupid, useless, inane, ridiculous, story of the inept, incompetent, dishonest, diplomat sent to Africa to drink sweet tea.

He then came back and told one story and then another story and then yet another story in spite of the fact that he was supposed to be on secret mission. Joe is a liar, enough said.

Now we have a bunch of folks caught in one screw up after another who apparently feel that CYA is the order of the day and so they are getting the Bushies in the hopes they can somehow save their sorry asses.

It is one thing to go after a political opponent. It is another thing to deliberately jeopardize national security to do it.

The Democrats are handling this the same way they handled Sandy Berger's pants....when it works to their benefit the rules apply, when it does not they don't..simple rule and rather pathological when you think about it.

buddy larsen said...

what a magnificent specimen, slapping away the dogs of our puerile culture while evading receptionists while writing a comment here every eleven or so seconds while getting right to the decision makers "chocolate or vanilla, kid? One scoop or two?"

buddy larsen said...

But, to your point, that the anti-government Right is suddenly pro-government, what about your lot, the pro-government party suddenly anti-government? Won't you at least share the cartoon panel with us?

Unknown said...

Mark...You know if our little corner of the world is not good enough for you after hanging out with the elite, well all I can say is don't let the door hit in the ass on the way out honey.

Specter said...

Don't send him away. We still need comic relief.....

buddy larsen said...

...but he said he comes here for "intelligent discourse", so I think that's a compliment, right?

buddy larsen said...

yes, let's not be enemas!

buddy larsen said...

can't we all be frenzied?

ex-democrat said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ex-democrat said...

if you guys want to take a break from trying to reason with the pathologically unreasonable 9aka Irritable Troll Syndrome), you might want to check out Hindraker at Powerline doing much the same thing (regarding the NSA kerfuffle) with similar results: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012624.php

buddy larsen said...

play it again, Sham.

buddy larsen said...

if you need me, just bristle.

Charlie Martin said...

Of course, you might just as well ask yourself why there were no terrorist attacks on American soil in the four years before 9/11.

You could even ask if it's true — of course, if you did, you'd discover that there were multiple bombings of American embassies in August 1998 (three years and a month) and on the USS Cole in October 2000 (less than a year.)

And before you even mention it, yes, both embassies and Navy vessels are considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.

buddy larsen said...

"Here's lookin' at your skid."

buddy larsen said...

You know, Rick, I have many enemies in the atmosphere, but somehow, just because you trust me, I despise you.
--MarxG8

Charlie Martin said...

Well I dunno Peety I'll bet Drum gets far and away more traffic than this little conclave. I'd say the marketplace has placed his value pretty high.

Today's educational moment: which classical fallacy are you using here, Mark?

buddy larsen said...

without looking, ad hoc, ergo post hoc?

buddy larsen said...

You know, Rick, I have many friends in Pasadena, and just because they despise it, they paid me to move me to Utah.
--Mark

buddy larsen said...

okay, I looked, it's "biased sample".

measuring every unit of income as a unit of population.

(Practical) Mark's site could have one Billionaire doner, and if popularity is measured by income, it will be more popular than a site with one-off a billion $1 donors.

buddy larsen said...

"Biased Sample" (one form of)

5mm righters have 5k blogs
1mm lefters have .5k blogs
ratio favors left blog visits by 2:1

buddy larsen said...

Related, & ht InstaPundit

buddy larsen said...

I don't think the garrity-types believe their hogwash. How could they? They're carnival barkers for the coalition of the illiterate and the deeply flawed. On commission.