Um…what??
OK, a bit of twisted pleasure in seeing Slate turn its idiotic grimace against Ms. Clinton, but is this remotely plausible? Of COURSE US diplomats are supposed to gather intel about their counterparts. The only reason Clinton should be fired is if she told our diplomatic corps NOT to do this.
Absolutely agreed.
The article admits that this is Standard Operating Procedure, and that the only reason to urge her firing is that her actions have become public. Frankly, that’s pandering to the unwashed masses. “Oh gosh, we’ve hurt the feellings of another country!”
Those countries are doing, or should be doing, the same to us. That’s life, big deal, who cares.
I think this is “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” journalism. Come up with a whole bunch of crazy ideas, ignore the majority of them that don’t pan out, and then trumpet your successes with the few that do come true. On the odd chance that Clinton does resign, you get to have the huge scoop before anyone else, and if she doesn’t, then you just distract your readers with another wild and crazy story.
Did she help start a war under false pretenses, or lie about people be unable to imagine large airplanes being employed as flying bombs?
No?
She’s still Golden.
Clinton voted against the Iraq AUMF? I guess history has been re-written.
As for the article… sensationalism sells. Wikileaks is the story du jour. The news cycle will be different next week.
I dunno. Gathering biometric data on the Sec Gen of the UN and diplomats from allied countries is pretty far beyond the type of intel I’d expect the Dept of State to be instructing its diplomats to collect. Indeed, its pretty much the only thing in the leaks that I thought was surprising. And as the article notes, surprising or not, it does appear to be in violation of international treaties.
I doubt Hillary will step down over it, but I don’t think its as hum-drum business as usual as you make it out to be.
That article is full of fail. And confusion.
I should add more to the actual argument, but mainly I’m just saying I agree with Bricker’s last two sentences.
My dad was career State Department with multiple tours in Africa, Europe and South America, and some degree of intel was a normal part of his job. It’s not like it’s a secret. Every country knows that every country does this. It’s gambling in the Casino. No one is shocked.
Slate did not say any such thing. An op-ed writer at *Slate *said that.
This editorial is the New York Times saying something:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a211
This op-ed piece is Gail Thomas saying something in the Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/opinion/04collins.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a212
I have no idea if Slate publishes editorials or anything similar.
I can’t help but notice that the batch of leaks that show people in high places engaged in high-school-cliquish sniping and backbiting are making a much bigger splash than the ones a few months back.
Arguing from ignorance, are we? Slate does not publish editorials. Slate publishes writers who are generally liberal.
Slate’s whole schtick is contrarianism. Witness Will Saletan’s columns on genetic intelligence and penis size. In fact, I discount the idea pretty much just because Slate is saying it.
The obvious counterpoint to “diplomat caught being ne’er-do-well” is that virtually all diplomats were caught, not just Hilary Clinton, and a huge portion of the diplomatic traffic is from before her time. She’s not singled out as particularly nefarious by the document dump.
Overall, I expect the Wikileaks release to lead to a period of fairly straight talk between diplomats, actually, now that they have to deal with all the backroom gossip that’s been exposed. I’d be very curious to see what Iran’s diplomats encounter now that it’s widely known that virtually every other Middle Eastern country wants (hell, begged) the U.S. to bomb their nuclear program out of existence.
Whether Slate publishes editorials is irrelevant to my point. My only point is that Slate did not say what was in Shafer’s piece. Shafer said it in Slate.
Oh, nonsense; that was your point. Slate has a point of view, and it does not require that it publish editorials to make the statement, “Slate says,” a perfectly valid shortcut.
If Mother Jones or National Review was being cited in the OP, I’d expect the same wording.
What the hell does it matter? Is there some substantive point you’re trying to make? Because it seems like nitpickery, like responding to a headline “White House Says Tax Cuts Good” with comments like the White House doesn’t speak.
Why would my point be something other than what I wrote?
Does Slate exercise editorial control of all the opinions in its op-ed pages? Is Slate saying all the things that its op-ed writes say? What about when their op-ed writers contradict each other?
Is the New York Times saying everything that its op-ed writers say? Is the Washington Post responsible for the views in John Boehner and Mitch McConnell’s recent op-ed?
Did the Post call America a “secular-socialist machine”?
Publications do not say the things that op-ed writers say.
Because. Just because.
Do you have any particular opinions to post in this thread other than a critique of the OP’s phrasing? 'Cause if not, you’re not adding value.
Hillary has a big and busy job. I doubt that she can be expected to know about and to have to personally approve so many small time transgressions. Evey single country that will pretend to be offended will be guilty of the same things. It is much about nothing.
The OP did seem to mention it as a critique of Slate as a whole (saying they’re “turning their Idiotic grimace” which seems kind of a mixed metaphor, but whatever), so its not like Peirrot was coming out of left field to mention that it wasn’t the editorial stance of Slate as a whole but just the particular op-ed writer.
Yes. There was definitely some poisoning of the well and I took that to be what **PLF **was responding to.