Even if it doens't show in my posts, I often worry that I've gone off of the liberal deep end; that I believe ridiculous things about the current administration just because they are Republicans.
So it was encouraging to see this today in ABC News' The Note:
Back when The Note was young, we used to get all jazzed up whenever we saw shoe-is-on-the-other-foot hypocrisy by one party or the other on Washington/White House scandals.
But, over the years, as we have become as wizened as Ed Walsh's pinkie, we raised the bar for what outrages us.
Still, every so often we trot out our "imagine if Clinton did that [sigma] " question, and this is such a case.
Remember [~] revealing the names of agents has been a Daddy Party/Mommy Party split for years, as part of the "national security versus civil liberties" debates of the '70s, '80s, and '90s.
Imagine if a major newspaper reported that the CIA wanted the Clinton Justice Department headed by an attorney general whose former political consultant is now the president's top political adviser to investigate if the White House improperly revealed the name of an agent for apparently political purposes.
We are in the phase of the story in which reporters are mostly going to the Chuck Schumers of the world to let them express moral outrage.
But what happens when the press goes to the Duncan Hunters of the world (long-time defenders of the importance of protecting the names of agents)?
Nice to see I'm not the only one thinking that.
Now sprinting back to tinfoil-hat-country, what if the person at the center of the Plame scandal is Dick Cheney? I mean, even if it was Karl Rove who leaked the name to the press, someone would have had to have given her the name to Rove.
All right, I guess I don't do my best thinking on the way to the dentist's office. Still, it's an interesting thought isn't it?
6:22:08 PM 
|
