Poor Michelle
I feel bad for Michelle Malkin. All her best friends in the government are getting caught for their criminal behavior, and that can't be any fun for her. Who is she going to cheer with trite platitudes when her buds are on trial or in jail? Who's she gonna cut down with limp one-liners when those she criticizes are proved right?
When it comes to the revelation that the President authorized secret spying by the NSA on American citizens and residents (though the NSA was doing it even before he'd authorized it, apparently), she's just so mad she could spit! How dare someone reveal that the President was shitting on the Constitution and breaking the law? They must be hoping a nuclear weapon goes off inside the Corn Palace! If the Democrats were so upset about the Valerie Plame leak, why aren't we upset about this leak? We must obviously be idiots and hypocrites. We couldn't possibly be more upset about the content of the leak than about the leak itself.
I mean, administration officials leaking classified information to attack a critic is harmless compared someone leaking classified information that shows that the administration was committing an impeachable offense and trying to keep it in the shadows. Right?
Two simple things that Bush administration apologists just can't or won't accept:
1) This revelation doesn't help terrorists. Hurting Bush and helping terrorists are not one and the same.
2) With the Plame leak, the leak was the whole point. It didn't reveal a crime, and while conservatives would like to think so, it didn't discredit Joe Wilson's findings. The point of the NSA leak was to reveal a greater crime being committed against the American people.
So go ahead, investigate the NSA secret spying leak. If it's determined that the leaker didn't follow procedures put in place to be considered a whistleblower, and that the reporters in question don't have the right to withhold their sources, then go right ahead. My guess is that a judge will protect the identity of this source, but I could be wrong. See, liberals aren't crazy people who can't admit when we're wrong. Bill Clinton fucked up and lied to a prosecutor, and so he got what he deserved. I believe that. He was wrong, and stupid to lie.
The fact is, though, that his sex life should never have been under investigation. Valerie Plame's identity should never have been revealed. And the president should never have tap danced around the law to spy on American citizens. What's so hard to understand?
Ms. Malkin quotes some jackass named Rick Moran:
"If ever one needed proof that the liberal worldview (if ever its adherents were voted back into power) would be dangerous to the safety and security of the United States then this editorial should put all doubts to rest. Simply put, this editorial proves once and for all that liberals would prefer that terrorists succeed in attacking us rather than do what is necessary to protect us. The key word here is "necessary," of course. And the fact is that the Times definition of "necessary" seems to be so limited and constricting that, if left up to them, the terrorists would have a gigantic head start and a leg up in trying to kill as many of us as they can. Any possible defense that they are serious about national security can therefore be ignored."
I'm unclear as to how the editorial proves that liberals are for the killing by terrorists of American babies and the drinking of the blood of American Virgins. Because we expect the president to obey the law? The Times's definition of what is "necessary" to protect national security is probably just legal. There was nothing necessary about sneaking around the FISA court. It was only necessary to go around the FISA court in order to blow off a check against Executive power.
Touché, Michelle? Can I ask you why you're using French? I thought you loved America.
ETA: This is a great post.
When it comes to the revelation that the President authorized secret spying by the NSA on American citizens and residents (though the NSA was doing it even before he'd authorized it, apparently), she's just so mad she could spit! How dare someone reveal that the President was shitting on the Constitution and breaking the law? They must be hoping a nuclear weapon goes off inside the Corn Palace! If the Democrats were so upset about the Valerie Plame leak, why aren't we upset about this leak? We must obviously be idiots and hypocrites. We couldn't possibly be more upset about the content of the leak than about the leak itself.
I mean, administration officials leaking classified information to attack a critic is harmless compared someone leaking classified information that shows that the administration was committing an impeachable offense and trying to keep it in the shadows. Right?
Two simple things that Bush administration apologists just can't or won't accept:
1) This revelation doesn't help terrorists. Hurting Bush and helping terrorists are not one and the same.
2) With the Plame leak, the leak was the whole point. It didn't reveal a crime, and while conservatives would like to think so, it didn't discredit Joe Wilson's findings. The point of the NSA leak was to reveal a greater crime being committed against the American people.
So go ahead, investigate the NSA secret spying leak. If it's determined that the leaker didn't follow procedures put in place to be considered a whistleblower, and that the reporters in question don't have the right to withhold their sources, then go right ahead. My guess is that a judge will protect the identity of this source, but I could be wrong. See, liberals aren't crazy people who can't admit when we're wrong. Bill Clinton fucked up and lied to a prosecutor, and so he got what he deserved. I believe that. He was wrong, and stupid to lie.
The fact is, though, that his sex life should never have been under investigation. Valerie Plame's identity should never have been revealed. And the president should never have tap danced around the law to spy on American citizens. What's so hard to understand?
Ms. Malkin quotes some jackass named Rick Moran:
"If ever one needed proof that the liberal worldview (if ever its adherents were voted back into power) would be dangerous to the safety and security of the United States then this editorial should put all doubts to rest. Simply put, this editorial proves once and for all that liberals would prefer that terrorists succeed in attacking us rather than do what is necessary to protect us. The key word here is "necessary," of course. And the fact is that the Times definition of "necessary" seems to be so limited and constricting that, if left up to them, the terrorists would have a gigantic head start and a leg up in trying to kill as many of us as they can. Any possible defense that they are serious about national security can therefore be ignored."
I'm unclear as to how the editorial proves that liberals are for the killing by terrorists of American babies and the drinking of the blood of American Virgins. Because we expect the president to obey the law? The Times's definition of what is "necessary" to protect national security is probably just legal. There was nothing necessary about sneaking around the FISA court. It was only necessary to go around the FISA court in order to blow off a check against Executive power.
Touché, Michelle? Can I ask you why you're using French? I thought you loved America.
ETA: This is a great post.