'It's Like a Lottery That Rewards Stupidity'
I have a headache, and so am in no mood to deal with deliberate stupidity right now -- and the fact that there is so much of it today makes my head ache even worse. But here are some thoughts on some of the items that especially irritated me today:
1. From Michelle Malkin's blog, quoting that Little Green Footballs guy, who was defending his blog's blood-thirsty commenters:
This is a great example of how far the left has devolved; London suffers the worst terrorist attack in her history, with more than 50 dead and as many as a thousand injured, and people like Chris Bowers are just horrified that anyone would react to such an atrocity with rage.
In other words, react like human beings.
For Bowers, there’s apparently no difference between spouting off on a comment system and actually committing genocide
I'm pretty sure that Bowers knows that there is a difference. I'd be willing to bet he thinks Hitler, say, was a worse person than the typical LGF. However, just as one can express patriotic sentiments without actually doing anything substantive to support one's country, one can express genocidal sentiments without actually committing genocide. So, the LGF commenters are probably as genocidal as they are patriotic. And, of course, just because said commenters haven't actually committed the genocide they have called for doesn't mean that they aren't worthy of the contempt of decent people.
Now, part of Michelle's comment about the LGF Guy's comment:
Charles is dead-on about the Left's stifling of debate on controlling and monitoring immigration from Islamist-friendly countries. He also hits the nail on the head about another pet peeve--the substitution of rage with the therapeutic impulse
Michelle, while I appreciate the bulk of this post (which calls on commenters at right-wing sites to stop the hate speech), why is it bad to substitute rage with something else?. Why shouldn't we westerners try to understand our foes, and use that understanding to devise effective ways to prevent further attacks? And why is it wrong to devote more energy worrying about the the victims of an attack than to thirst for the blood of those who attacked them?
After all, anger isn't a moral quality, it's an emotion. And while anger may be a natural reaction to certain events or perceived conditions, lashing out because you're mad doesn't make you a better person than those who control their anger. In fact, it can be argued (based on the Bible) that a good person is someone who doesn't react out of anger, but who instead takes measured action. As it says in Psalms, "Cease from anger, and forsake wrath; fret not yourself in any wise to do evil. " Proverbs adds, "He that is soon angry dealeth foolishly," and, "Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go; lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul." Per Ecclesiastes, "Be not hasty in they spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools." And so on.
And in that vein, a certain guy I read about said that we are to even love our enemies. To me, this means that while we try to keep them from killing more innocents, that we don't give in to revenge fantasies and racial hatred (for our own sake more than theirs). At least, that's what the Bible seems to say -- but maybe it's just substituting rage with therapeutic impulses.
2. From Hindrocket's analysis of why Rove did no wrong by leaking Valerie Plame's CIA employment to Newsweek:
In any event, a violation of the IIPA seems highly unlikely. It is doubtful whether Rove or any other administration source knew of Plame's affiliation with the CIA through access to classified materials;
Hindrocket, here's part of the Newsweek item you quoted:
Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."
So, how do you think that Rove learned that the DCI didn't approve the trip? From Fox News, maybe? Or perhaps he read about it in his fortune cookie?
Of COURSE Rove learned about the background of Wilson's Niger assignment through his access to classified information (meaning, that because Rove has a security clearance and the requisite "need to know," he is privy to classified information). And he most likely learned about Plame working in the Non-Proliferation Center (and about the NPC being the CIA office that tasked Wilson to travel to Niger) from someone in the Vice President's office or Doug Feith's office. Rove (and Scooter, if he was the other leaker) obviously got their information about Plame's CIA affiliation, her work on WMDs, and about Wilson's trip to Niger from their access to classified information -- to claim otherwise is to show one's self to be a moron.
it is further questionable whether Rove or any other source knew that she was a "covert" employee,
Since a substantial portion of stateside CIA employees ARE under cover, no reasonable senior White House official who holds a security clearance would tell a reporter that an individual was a CIA employee without verifying that said employee wasn't under cover. To reveal to a reporter the actual status of an undercover CIA employee (I'm not talking about a "covert agent," just a regular CIA officer who has been placed under cover) is to have disclosed Confidential (the lowest level of classification) material to an unauthorized person. So, whether or not Rove actually knew Plame was undercover, he damn well should have found out before contacting reporters -- negligence is no excuse when dealing with national security matters. To paraphrase somebody who reportedly had a security clearance for one summer, "Against this background, it strikes me as ludicrous to suggest that a senior official like Karl Rove, with years of experience in the White House, would forget that he is not supposed to disclose CIA affiliations (and said officers' assignments) to reporters. No, there was a very serious reason why Rove committed a serious security breach: he did it because he thinks petty politics are more important than national security."
or that the government was making an effort to keep her affiliation with the Agency a secret. (In fact, it is unclear whether the Agency did make such an effort.)
Hindrocket, you moron, what do you THINK it means when the Agency sets up a cover company (which isn't a casual undertaking), and puts in place mechanisms to "backstop" the employment of certain employees by having the front company issue W-2s, set up insurance accounts, etc. for these employees? Do you think the Agency does stuff like that because it WANTS these employees to be named in print as CIA employees? Could you BE any stupider?
Rove presumably told the President that he was one of the sources of the Plame information long ago.
Well, the leak occurred in July 2003, and DOJ announced it was pursuing a criminal investigation in Sept. 2003 -- and yet presumably Rove hadn't told the President as of Oct. 6, 2003, when Bush answered a reporter who asked about the leaker as follows: "I don't know who leaked the information, for starters. So it's hard for me to answer that question until I find out the truth." He also said that he would like to know who leaked the information about Plame. What do you make of that, Mr. Hindrocket? Did Rove sandbag his President about his involvement in the matter even after the investigation had commenced? Did Bush really NOT want to know who leaked? Or what?
And, of course, on 10 Oct, 2003, there was this exchange at a WH press conference:
Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.
Q So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
So, was Scottie playing a "that depends on the meaning of 'involved'" game, or did Rove mislead Scottie, or is this an entire administration where nobody has any honesty and integrity?
But back to Hindrocket, who will now explain why it's GOOD that Bush believes in surrounding himself with people who play games with national security matters.
It is interesting that Bush didn't take the path of least resistance and ease Rove out of the administration at the end of his first term. The President's reputation for loyalty to has aides is certainly well-deserved.
Too bad the President doesn't believe in loyalty to career CIA officers trying to keep WMDs out of the hands of our enemies.
Now, the other two stooges weigh in:
Deacon adds: The media feeding frenzy will, indeed, be massive.But absent a serious claim of a statutory violation or perjury, it's questionable whether anyone apart from liberal bloggers and other pre-existing Bush haters will partake in the media's dog food. [...] It's a top aide providing truthful information to journalists in response to lies told to embarrass the administration and our government.
Deacon, per the Newsweek memo that Hindrocket quoted, Rove said that "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." That is a lie. Valerie Plame, a mid-level CIA employee, could not authorize anybody's overseas assignment. As the CIA has said, she did NOT authorize her husband's mission, it was either done by the DDO or somebody under him (she offered his services, but she didn't choose him for the assignment or authorize him to carry out the mission). So, this is a case of a top aide providing lies AND committing a statutory violation (with possible perjury on the side) in response to information that politically embarrassed the administration. Get your facts straight, and leave the dumbassery to Hindrocket, guy.
BIGTRUNK adds: Hilail Gildin writes: "Andrea Mitchell was asked, on MSNBC, whether it was generally known to news people, before the hullabaloo, that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA. She answered, somewhat reluctantly, that it was. In the light of this, I don't understand the ensuing fuss."
Even if BigTrunk is right about what Gildin said (BT didn't provide a link, and I can't find Gildin's statement via Google), and Gildin accurately characterized Ms. Mitchell's remarks, and Ms. Mitchell was being truthful and accurate about what she believed news people were aware of at some point it time -- even if we grant all that, the fact that some news people may think they know something does not give a senior government official the right to call reporters, confirm it to them, and urge them to use this classified information in their stories. And it certainly doesn't mean it's okay to make a CIA employee "fair game" for political purposes. In fact, as a certain George W. Bush said, "This is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action." Hey, Mr. Gildin (and Mr.BigTrunk, et. al.), I think disagreeing with the President in time of war is treason or something.
1:13:49 AM 
|
