Are we being hypocritical?

[BloodyWilliam]

I've been seriously considering this. Are we clamoring to see Bush strung up for something we'd let Clinton slide on?

(to qualify this, rather: WOULD we let Clinton slide on this?)

I'd love to hear your thoughts, but this is the conclusion I've come to for myself

No.

As both a journalism student and a liberal I'm about as free-wheeling you can get when it comes to releasing classified information, leaks, and printing the truth. But even I have ethical limits, and for me one of those limits is safety, like any other journalist. If publishing or releasing information puts anyone in danger, it must be seriously considered before it is published, if at all. What the White House (or whoever leaked this :eyes:) leaked and what Novak published goes against this. Revealing a CIA agent is tantamount to revealing troop positions. It endangers her life, the life of her contacts, and it upsets (to put it mildly) all intelligence operations (and security) remotely connected to her. As a journalist, as a liberal, and as an American this is a class 1 fuck-up. I feel just in wanting to see blood for this, not only for my political interests.

[Trajan]

1. ACKS ! ....

I DID misread this thread ... my bad ....

I agree with ya: ..... completely ....

It was the premise "are we being hypocritical?" that I disagree with: .... you answered NO .....

You are correct .....

Forgive me for my previous response ....

[Padraig18]

3. Huh?

:wtf:

I think you need to read what he wrote again, without composing your answer while you do. he said we're NOT being hypocritical, unless I misread it.

[diplomats]

9. That was my take

[roughsatori]

6. I second your guess NT

[QC]

12. Try reading past the first line.

[NWHarkness]

14. You must not have read what I read

What part of "As a journalist, as a liberal, and as an American this is a class 1 fuck-up. I feel just in wanting to see blood for this" did you read as being pro-Bush?

[BloodyWilliam]

16. ...

And on another EDIT: No problem. Sorry for biting your head off in response. :hippie:

[Trajan]

17. LMFAO ....

Nevermind ....

(damn if I didnt start a world of shit ...... ) ....

[BloodyWilliam]

20. Can I nominate this thread for most edits in a 10 minute period?

:-)

[NicoleM]

2. are you kidding?

Anybody who would give Clinton a pass on this IS a hypocrite. If Clinton did this I would be MORE pissed off than I am about Dubya doing it.

[imhotep]

4. lol

nice try.

[diplomats]

5. I agree with you

I think we're on strong ground saying Monica, Travelgate or Whitewater never compromised national security.

[Brucey]

7. The repugs would have crucified Clinton for the same.

It is a legit story and especially because Wilson has been credible and forthcoming.

[SoCalDem]

8. "we"???

got a frog in your pocket???

[library_max]

10. For clarification

What exactly are you talking about? Bush's war in Iraq? Bush's tax cuts and the economic devastation thereof? Bush's war on the environment? Bush's war on civil liberties? Or something more specific?

[sexybomber]

11. No, we're not.

Because I can't recall a single time when Clinton released the name of a CIA agent. A blowjob isn't treason, my friend. Clinton never committed treason. Bush did. Therefore, we were correct in letting Clinton slide and for demanding blood (in a completely, totally, absolutely metaphorical sense) in this case.

[Spoon]

21. Remember those FBI files? Not treason, but still "classified" intel

http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/23/fbi.files/
FBI files, travel office case dog Clinton

June 23, 1996
Web posted at: 4:30 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- A political tug of war continued Sunday over hundreds of FBI background files improperly obtained by the Clinton administration. The president's staff insists there was no misuse of information, but skeptical Republicans aren't convinced.
Vice President Al Gore repeated the administration's promise to prevent access to such files in the future.
(snip)
...said Dole during the weekly Republican radio address. "The Clinton administration came in to office vowing to set a new ethical standard. Unfortunately, the standard they have set cannot be defended."
(snip)

Sounds familier, doesn't it? I know this is "apples, oranges", but it's still fruit.

EDIT: Added link

[Brotherjohn]

26. Every incoming WH gets FBI files on many incoming and outgoing personnel.

That makes it at least plausible that it was simply a paperwork glitch that they perhaps got a few they didn't absolutely require. Or possibly even they WERE all files that were required. We're talking about national security here, you know. They were a few hunderd files in thousands upon thousands, if I remember right. And many of them were people who were to have continued access to the WH, and therefore required scurity checks.

Not only plausible, but unless you have more evidence (nobody had ever presented any), it is probably the most likely explanation. It is simply part of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Simple possession of files, when it is SOP to obtain files of thousands of poeple who might have WH access, demonstrates nothing. Repuibs simply got in a tizzy because the Clinton WH had any reason to have FBI info on any Republicans.

[The Magistrate]

13. Let Us Hope So, Sir

Hypocrisy is an essential element of the political armorarium; those who cannot practice it are unfit to take the field.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Bandit]

19. I really hope you are being facetious

I cannot believe you believe that. After all the great comments you have made in the past this has to be your most boneheaded one. Hypocrisy is not essential to being a politician although it certainly may seem that way at times.

[alcuno]

15. The difference is that I never heard anyone say they supported Clinton

100%. On his best day, someone like me, a strong Democrat, could give him 90%. But I hear it all the time from Republicans that they support Bush 100% and it scares me. 100% commitment is blind allegience. It means that no matter what you do or how ill-conceived your policies are, these people will support you.

Allegience should be given to fellow citizens, not politicians.

[Brian Sweat]

18. No.

No, if someone in the Clinton administration had done this, I would be very embarrassed, but I would want them punished. This is a serious crime and the issue should trancend partisanship.

Also, I am not convinced that Bush was involved in this at first. However, it does look like he is helping to cover it up.

[Brotherjohn]

22. I see nothing in all the accusations against Clinton that came close...

... to this (or for that matter, any number of things Bush has done). Even if the many accusations below against Clinton were true, and we let him "slide", they all pale by comparison. Let's dispense with the Vince Foster "murder" accusations. I mean serious alleged "scandals".

Whitewater? A failed land deal from decades back. Nothing found it anyway.

TravelGate? Just a question of who hired/fired whom. Who made some personnel decisions in the WH and why.

ChinaGate? So Chinese nationals donated money to Democratic coffers? I'd hate to see who's donated to some past Repub campaigns (besides which, it's legal). If you had proof that there was a quid pro quo to make decisions for the Chinese Government (as the innuendo went), that would be another thing entirely. Of course, there was never the slightest evidence of anything of the sort.

Monica? Get serious.

There are many more, but they were all little minutiae that had little to no bearing on national security, or even policy, in any way (even if they were true). We let Clinton "slide" on these things not only because they were inconsequential, but usually because the "evidence" amounted to little more than rantings and innuendo from the right.

The evidence here, however, includes several independent journalists all corroborating the same story. The consequences, whether Valerie Plame was an undercover operative or not, could be the deaths of many abroad and the sabotaging of much international espionage on WMD, to the detriment of our national security.

Think about it... you are an arms merchant and/or dictator up to no good in the Mid-East. You've had dealings with several people who have been associated with Valerie Plame, now known to be CIA. Do you:

A) Keep doing business as usual.
B) Take measures to further conceal what you are doing, including cutting ties with anyone involved with Valerie Plame.
C) Kill anyone involved with Valerie Plame.

My guess is B and/or C.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

23. Let's look at this thing dispassionately:

More lives were/are at stake in this mess than just that of Ms. Plame-Wilson. Every single person she ever came in contact with, in the course of her duties under non-official cover, is now under grave suspicion, wherever they are. In some countries, they just torture you a while then either let you die or gice you the merciful way out, a bullet to the head.

It is quite clear that this was done for something so cheap and venal as domestic political gain. Easily it can be inferred that these lives in the balance meant nothing to the worms that outed Ms. Plame-Wilson.

In the past, the government, most often under repuke administrations, has hounded to the ends of the earth those who would comprimise that which they have decided is of national security interest. In the Hansen Affair, it can be reasonably argued that he was able to spend many years, giving up the intracacies of counter-terrorism tradecraft and organisation due to the fact that he was a repuke and Opus Dei. Truly, the gulf between the nostrums and bromides offered by the repukes, on national security issues, and what they do when no one is looking, is 100 miles wide and 100 miles deep. But "Chinagate" was roundly flogged and came up a dry hole. But they continue flogging it. They never mention Hansen.

I place a lot of blame on this situation on the simple fact that America is The Land of Opportunity. A real large number of people, in this administration and in congress, on both sides, but especially and glaringly, the repukes, have scratched and clawed their way to where they are today. Many have no military experience. They do not have the practical experience to teach them what results from bad or compromised intelligence. Hence, the intelligence community, and its people and products, become just another expendible political commodity. In just the same way that it seems that the American people and the American Tripartite Socio-economic System has become an expendible political commodity, just something to give up ad betray, on the way to whatever vision of excessive power, gain and success one might hold dear.

These people may have scratched and clawed their way up, some of them, but they have spent a lot more time sublimating the memories of where they came from and what has real and lasting value. Truly, their only god is Mammon. Everything else is just bullets in their clips.

[salin]

25. more lives than that... perhaps our lives?

If we believe, as we were supposed to according to this administration, that we are all at risk of terrorists getting their hands on WMDs (remember - that was a primary reason Saddam was a threat - he had 'em and would deal 'em)... then compromising intel that gathers data on the flow of WMDs - means we suddenly can't get that info - and can't mount operations to prevent those very WMDs from... getting in terrorists hands. Which according to the WH is the BIG threat to the US.

So according to their own logic, it is WE who are now in peril.

[salin]

24. threatens intelligence on..... Weapons of Mass Destruction!

this isn't any intel operation that was compromised. Focus on WHAT was compromised.

For political expediency (to try to deflect charges by Ambassador Wilson- who as Bush1's ambassador to Iraq at the time of the first Gulf War, by the way), two 'administration officials' blew out of the water an intelligence network that tracked the flow of WMDs - get it - that intel - is what prevents WMDs from getting into terrorist hands.

Rewind the clock. Saddam's big threat, repeated ad nasuem by this administration, was that he has WMDs and could give them to terrorists who would strike the US. Get it - the threat was WMDs falling into terrorist hands.

So - in the blink of an eye - folks in this same administration who sold us on going to war for the reason of preventing WMDs from getting into terrorist hands - just made it much easier for WMDs to fall into terrorist hands. How? With no or limited intell on the flow of WMDs - we can't stop it.

Now consider that this breech of national security happened 2 months ago and this administration has done nothing about it. They are unconcerned about that particular breech of national security. They are unconcerned that they may have made it MORE likely that terrorists get their hands on WMDs.

Where is the hypocrisy? On the side telling us that this isn't a story, or that what Clinton did was worse. Blow job. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hmmmmm.

[wryter2000]

27. No, we're not

We wouldn't let Clinton or anyone else slide on something like this. To tell you the truth, I thought his affair in the Oval Office with a much younger intern was a disgrace, and he deserved to be roasted for it. He didn't deserve to be impeached, of course.

This is dastardly. It's not just a breach of national security, it's thuggishness of the very worst sort. It's worse than Nixon's enemies list.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

28. Well Bloody William (interesting handle)

I am as liberal as you can get and I don't favor chilling the press ever. Frankly I think it sets the precedent that the press can be silenced every time one claims they jeopardized national security. I can see CIA desk jockeys being reclassified as field agents and operatives on the sly simply to intimidate the press and since their inner workings are secret and they know better than anyone else how to ERASE a paper trail it could EASILY be accomplished.

on edit: I furthermore think it is interesting that you would invoke ANY comparison to Clinton as an analogy since there was nothing in his tenure that even comes CLOSE to this. But that's just me thinking in code.