I suspect it'll be a long wait because the rule of thumb seems to be that although it's treasonous for pro-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass an administration critic, it's a public service for anti-Bush partisans to spill secrets that might embarrass the administration. The determination of which secrets are OK to reveal is, of course, to be made not by officials charged with protecting our nation but by journalists charged with selling newspapers.See how skillful this is--how it changes the basis of objection and makes us sound hypocritical. No, Max. The Plame leak was likely illegal, and was motivated by an overweening sense of executive power. The domestic surveillance program was likely illegal, and was motivated by an overweening sense of executive power. Wow--consistency. Who'd a thunk it.
He also says
The president has an even stronger moral case. Before condemning him, ask yourself why there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001. Not one. It's hard to know the exact reason we've been spared, but surely part of our good fortune should be attributed to the very measures — the Patriot Act, the NSA surveillance, the renditions, the enhanced interrogation techniques — that are now being pilloried by self-righteous journalists and lawmakers.Sorry again, buddy. You'll have to wait until early 2009 to make this argument. That's when the amount of time elapsed since the 9/11 attacks will be equal to the amount of time that passed between the prior terrorist attack on US soil, and 9/11. You'll remember that one--the 1993 WTC bombings. Would you attribute our safety during that 7 1/2 year period to the lack of the Patriot Act, surveillance, renditions, interrogations...? Isn't it a problem for your propaganda, that we stayed unattacked for a longer period of time without all the heavyhandedness and law-breaking?
Thanks, Noah, for pointing out the column. Although, gah.
No comments:
Post a Comment