Friday, July 15, 2005

I, FOR ONE

Am really quite enjoying Plamegate. Seriously, as evil as those guys in the White House are, they're pretty damn good at being evil, huh? I mean, really good. Like, in twenty years when they make a movie about this whole thing, it'll all seem downright Ocean's Eleven good. Fine job, boys. Good on ya, Karl. Chin up, Dick. You've made a ripe fine mess of things, muddied the waters until we couldn't see our toes in the brackish water of your lies and deceit, and by Jove that of course is just how you wanted it. There won't be any resignations, any convictions, or any fallout for the Republicans.

And people, you don't know how strongly I want all of that to be untrue. You really don't. But I calls em like I sees em, and the hapless and spineless Democrats (and spineless journalists) have once again fallen on the sword of their slack-jawed incredulity - "them there guys did whaaaaa....?" Always a step behind, ain't ya, boys?

Moving on...

I've had a sore throat now for five days. Strep throat. How do I know? Because I know my own body, fools, and it knows me. Now, here's what's interesting: if left untreated for more than a few days, strep throat can turn into rheumatic fever. Rheumatic fever! Oh, if only I were so lucky. Well, so far I don't think I've contracted that, as my joints aren't sore and irritated, I don't have a rash (besides the permanent one on my right thigh) and my heart valves aren't deteriorating (only my heartstrings and my heartstuffs - a consequence of long ago losing the capacity for love). Suffice it to say that I should probably go to a doctor and get some penicillin, if I knew what was good for me, which I clearly don't. Or is it that I do know what is good for me (namely, antibiotics) and just refuse to get treated? If the correct answer is the latter, then why, let us wonder, is that the case? Is it because I am lazy? Is it because I never listen to anyone about anything and just stubbornly and arrogantly assume that I can do things others can't? Is it because I'd rather wait it out until the glands on my neck swell to the size of veritable grapes, protruding like errant goiters and then writing about the aforementioned, gargantuan lymph nodes on my ever so unpopular blog in some sort of attempt to gain your pity, perhaps even your admiration as I struggle through the work day, painfully swallowing every thirty seconds, sipping a rancid cup of Theraflu?

Is it none of these things, my friends. It is simply that I wish to become incredibly ill at the hand of some odd and unrecognizalbe disease, and to then be treated by Princeton's most brilliant doctor, House.

MD.

11 comments:

Ofc. Krupke said...

I think part of the problem is that various liberals have attributed so many unlikely evil conspiracies to Rove that this one seems sort of pale in comparison.

I did get a chuckle over Howard Dean fuming that Rove had endangered "CIA operatives fighting on the front lines in the war on terror."

Howard, take a pill. Plame flew a desk at Langley. If she's on the "front lines", then I expect my Silver Star in the mail any day.

Mathis said...

Ridiculous, Krupke. Her fucking business involved selling, dealing, and managing the trade of irregular and biological weapons (as I understand it). Not only did they out her as a CIA operative, which means she could no longer work in that capactity, they ruined her business and endangered the lives of all the people working for her business overseas. No harm no foul, right? Bull. Shit.

I really can't believe that you, of all people (i.e., "an officer of the policic order") would be so quick to mock someone just because they sat at a desk. I thought there were some cops that did that as well. If they were undercover detectives, would it matter if I leaked their info to the press? Wouldn't you be pissed if a guy in your division working on a case had been outed as an undercover cop for no other reason than some petty political payback?

The most surprising thing in all of this, I think, is that the Republican machine, from the top on down, has spouted so much nonsense that even reasonable people like you are convinced that, if anything, it was Wilson and Plame that were at fault.

You're just on the wrong side on this one, my friend. Duped by the Rovester and the Melhmeister.

Jimmy Saffron said...

I think part of the problem is that various liberals have attributed so many unlikely evil conspiracies to Rove that this one seems sort of pale in comparison.

Defining deviousness down.

Ofc. Krupke said...

I'm actually not mocking Plame's desk job, I'm mocking Dean (and he is by no means the only one) for trying to sell this narrative of Plame as some kind of shadowy James Bond, betrayed and endangered from above.

Plame worked in the nonproliferation division in the CIA. That doesn't by itself make her a covert agent. She worked at Langley. She hadn't been overseas since 1997. Why is this relevant? Because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the relevant law in this matter, states that it is a crime to knowingly and intentionally reveal the identity of a covert agent, which it describes as someone who has a cover and has operated under that cover within the last five years. Plame doesn't qualify. Her husband, Ambassador Wilson, has even sort of confirmed as much: Note that he tells Blitzer she wasn't a "clandestine" agent at the time of Novak's article, and plays coy when asked if she was before that.

Furthermore, I may be a little behind on my CIA protocols, but if you really are a covert operator, on whose secrecy lives literally depend, here's something you don't do: you don't sit for a Vanity Fair photo shoot done up like Michelle Pfeiffer in The Russia House. If that doesn't convince you that the "she was exposed and endangered" story line is too cute by half, I don't know what will.

I might be willing to believe that the revelation of her name was, as you say, "petty political payback," if Plame's status as a CIA officer was completely irrelevant to Wilson's trip to Africa, but it isn't. He was sent upon her recommendation, his repeated statements to the contrary notwithstanding. So, basically, what we have here is a situation where Wilson can spin BS about how he ended up going, but the White House can't correct him. Nice.

Anyway, the issue here is whether or not Rove committed a crime, isn't it? Shouldn't it be? Isn't that what's at stake in a grand jury investigation? Isn't that what Wilson meant when he talked about Rove being "frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs?" It's unclear a crime was even committed, and there are indications that Rove wasn't the primary source for the leak, that he may not have known Plame's name, and that he confirmed it only upon being asked himself. All this could cause problems for the "knowingly and intentionally" elements of the IIPA, and also for the image that's been pushed, of Rove whispering in the ears of friendly journos to get them to do his bidding.

And, hey, this doesn't even mean Rove is necessarily blameless. There's still the question of whether he lied to the President or to other investigators. He may end up taking the Martha Stewart route, and getting nailed for covering up something that wasn't even a violation. But there hasn't been much coming out on that front, and I'm surprised how few people I even hear discussing it. But more to the point, it doesn't justify the Democrats' rhetoric that the administration callously compromised national security over Plame.

And, speaking of petty political payback, are you saying you detect none of that in the Democrats' efforts to get something, anything, on Rove, who is by coincidence the man they inevitably blame for their election losses?

King Koopa said...

Christopher Hitchens nails it again!

Gotta love it. Is he ever wrong?

Mathis said...

Well, Krupke, I didn't mean to ignore your comment. The way I see it, the investigation would not have continued this far if all of the things you suggest were true (ie, the statute of 5 years, etc.) Something criminal occured, or was thought to have occured, and Fitzgerald is trying to figure out what it was. To suggest that nothing illegal happened is to give little credit to the special prosecutor's ability to make a pretty important decision, that being whether or not to pursue the source of a leak of which nothing criminal occured.

In addition, I believe Frank Rich when he stated in his latest editorial that the entire Rove brouhaha is really little more than a Maguffin to what is the real meat of this story: that being the forged documents that ended up in the hands of the Italians and the more than 300 public mentions of Iraq's nuclear program by the Administration in the run up to the war.

King Koopa said...

These two articles here and here kinda cleared things up for me.

So, is possessing a nuclear centrifuge, seeking to buy uranium ore from Niger, and seeking to buy long range missiles from North Korea (the holy trinity of bomb production) all that different from having a nuclear program? Seems like semantics to me.

Mathis said...

Wow, Koopa, stellar site you found there. Not partisan or anything! Maybe next time I'll just post some stuff from Daily Kos!

King Koopa said...

Oh, you're being sarcastic! Now I get it!

Wait, no I don't. Are you saying you think Slate.com is partisan? To the right??? Are you serious?

If you don't want to post from Daily Kos, you could probably find something to support your view from Timothy Noah's Karl Rove Death Watch Part 4 from his "Chatterbox" series. On the same site as Mickey Kaus and Christopher Hitchens, no less! Partisan, indeed.

Mathis said...

Hmmm, I guess I had my sights set a little more directly on Cshink Current Events and Commentary in which there are twenty editorials drawing a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Sensitive much, Cshink?

Seriously, Knoop, worst partisan political site evah.

King Koopa said...

Well, I almost feel sheepish pointing this out to my internet sleuthmeister, but if you actually read the articles you would've noticed that none of them were editorials from cshink.com. They were reprints of articles from Slate.com and FT.com (Financial Times magazine), respectively. I'd never heard of cshink.com until I found those reprints on there.

Thanks for reading (sniffle) and paying attention to me (sniffle sniffle).