He said nothing about wanting evidence, you five-star bonehead. He said that people that complained about the terrorist alert being smoke and mirrors really shouldn’t be saying anything about THIS issue, because they got what they wanted.
You are so-o-o-o naive. The Court of Public Opinion is where Khan got outed. The second his name was ANYWHERE in the NYT, his use as an agent was obliterated.
OSAMA: “Hey, Khan… word on the street is that you’re a rat.”
KHAN: “No, 'Samy, I’m cool! It hasn’t been officially confirmed yet!”
OSAMA: “Kha-a-a-a-a-an!” ::blam blam::
KHAN: ::slump::
Considering the admin is doing the same exact thing, I’d rather have a few lowly beats cops with loose lips, people will take them less seriously.
You’re right. Why can’t the admin come out and say “look folks, we’re in a bit of a damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation here. We think by keeping the appropriate law enforcement people informed we can best fight this war, etc, etc…so this is the course of action we’ve chosen”
I don’t give a shit what’s easier, I want what will fix the problem.
Actually, I think this is completely wrong. First of all, most of the complaints I’ve heard about unspecific terror threats is that they completely lack information about the threat, not about the evidence for the threat. I’m fairly certain this is because they don’t have the information, not because they’re witholding it to protect the source. However, there’s no reason why you can’t warn people of specific threats without compromising your sources.
Good: “We have reason to believe terrorists are planning an attack within the next few months, possibly against buildings X,Y, and Z in New York.”
Bad: “We have reason to believe terrorists are planning an attack because our secret agent John Smith has infiltrated their highest ranks and is even now monitoring their plans, unbeknowst to them.”
Useless: “Watch out! Something bad is coming! Buy more duct tape! You’ll need it! Never mind why!”
What about the rest of us, smartass?
Do you feel that we have any reason to express grave concern over the fact that some member of the Bush team blew yet another sensitive, classified, national security operation?
In your opinion, how many more undercover anti-WMD-proliferation agents do thay have to out, how many more life threatening national security secrets do they have to give to the Axis of Evil, before any American is able to righteuosly complain? What numbers are the cut-off points?
I’m just wondering, because some Americans somewhere have to call these guys on these monumental examples of mendacity or incompetence.
Americans should note that Bush picked at least one advisor who has a history of passing classified national security information to agents of a foreign government. When you take this in light of the reasons why character matters this sort of thing becomes predictable.
But most liberals weren’t saying “release more information about the alerts!” They (we) were mostly saying “since you don’t have any detail to give us, don’t bother with these useless alerts!”
I guess, except that no one wanted evidence at the cost of throwing away an invaluable national security asset. I mean, I can tell my mother that I want a new XBox for Christmas. That doesn’t mean I want her to sell a kidney to pay for it. And if she does, I can damn well say “are you frickin’ nuts?”
No matter what the skeptics said, it doesn’t change the fact that this administration is in charge of protecting the nation. For them to throw away this asset is insane. For people to defend the throwing away of this asset is really unfathomable to me.
Not to me. It’s our fault for doubting the warnings. It’s Howard Dean’s fault for speaking up about doubting the warnings, which got others to talk about it (bless you Dr. Dean). It’s the Democrat’s fault for doubting anything this administration does.
Say something against the administration? They’ll sacrifice a spook so they can say “SEE? See what you made us do?? I’d shut up if I were you!”
In theory, such a fuck up shouldn’t be a partisan issue. I believe they made it an issue back when they outed Valerie Plame out of pure spite, and here again, because we dared to question.
I think that one’s already been answered. But let me add one more thing:
Wolf!
People were complaining about this one being smoke and mirrors, since (a) there’d been so many meaningless alerts already, and (b) so many of them had seemed to fall at unusually convenient times, just in time to change the subject - and usually from something a bit more substantial than Monica Lewinsky. The street cred of terror alerts was rapidly converging towards zero.
What ‘forced’ the Bushies to do stupid things was their own past actions. When your bank account is down to pennies, and you still want to buy something, you wind up hocking your Rolex. And that’s what they did, rather than simply exercising some self-discipline.
Only it wasn’t their Rolex to hock, in this case. It wasn’t even America’s Rolex to hock. It belonged to everyone on our side in the frickin’ WoT.
But we hocked it anyway. And we can’t understand why Britain and Pakistan are mad at us.
Yeah, the Bushies gave Khan’s name to the press, saying nothing about his role as double agent. The press - surprise! - printed it! (Golly day, who’d’a thunk?) So somehow The Court of Public Opinion, whatever that is in this instance, is responsible for outing Khan. Not the Bushies.
Is that all it takes? Fuck, I guess we can dismantle the Bureau of Homeland Security, the CIA, and pull our troops out of the Middle East. We don’t need to fight terrorism, just a few cunning stories in the NYT and they’ll all salughter each other!
The more information that people wanted was just what was given in this one - specific places at risk. The other ones were of the “it’s Friday, and they may attack somewhere. New York, Las Vegas, Peoria, the Moon. We don’t know. We got static on the radio.” variety.
Let me know who asked for the identity of agents, huh? It’s everyone’s fault but Shrub’s right? What the fuck happened to personal responsibility? What could these morons do that would make you not defend them. Oh, I know. Raise taxes for their rich friends.
It’s the reporter’s fault, because he shoulda known it was wrong to print the information given to him by Bush cronies.
So, Bush and his homies get a free pass, and can go shouting state secrets from the rooftops; we’ll trust the *press *to make sure that what happens at the White House stays at the White House.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I’m quite convinced that Bush could rape, kill, skin, dismember, cook, eat, and throw up a puppy in the middle of a prime-time press conference and people would say, look how likeable he is?
Or they might say It’s a fucking dog. Get over it. At this point, actually, I think the response (once someone complained about the puppy) would be a Drudge report “KERRY HAD A PUPPY CANDLELIGHT DINNER IN 1975 WITH JANE FONDA… DEVELOPING…” combined with a publicity campaign about how eating puppies shows how the President is just a regular guy just like everyone else.
Brutus, your kneejerk defending is admirable, as always, but I bet there’s one thing even you can’t stretch to: care to defend the outing of the double agent without informing the intel of the country’s chief ally, who were relying on his testimony to bust Al Qaeda cells? Care to try?
At this point, actually, I think the response (once someone complained about the puppy) would be a Drudge report “KERRY HAD A PUPPY CANDLELIGHT DINNER IN 1975 WITH JANE FONDA… DEVELOPING…” combined with a publicity campaign about how eating puppies shows how the President is just a regular guy just like everyone else.