Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
OK if Bush et al aren't the pitbull, then who is? The pitbull is just reacting dumbly and instinctually in this scenario.
|
I thought this was common knowledge. Dick Chaney is the administration "pitbull", or the behind the scene guy that does the "unpleasant work". I have never met or studied "nice", powerful, yet effective person ( I do think Bush is in the category) who did not have a guy like Dick Chaney. I don't know Dick Chaney personally, but I have met people who are like him and has his personality. If you choose to pick a fight with these people, you cannot do it in a half-assed way. You must be prepared to take it to the limit, people who are not willing to do that are foolish to take on the fight.
Quote:
|
And Plame by no means kicked the dog. Maybe her husband did, but they just used her to attack him. That's both unethical and illegal in my book.
|
You may be correct about it being unethical and illegal, but like I said legality and ethics don't always protect you. Fitzgerald doesn't think the outing of Plame was illegal enough to bring charges against anyone. On the question of ethics, I am sure there are people who would argue both sides of that question.
You assume Plame is an innocent victim, I don't. I assume she knew what she and her husband were doing. She is a CIA agent, a agent who was covert, doesn't that say enough about her ability to play the game and fool people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Ace, even if I were to stipulate your assessment as the status quo, I wouldn't think it was OK. If we expect better and nail the people we can catch, we can have a better system.
|
Yes, we can have a better system but we don't. There are people who clearly go over the line and then there are those who "test the limits". We live in a world were people who "test the limits" will always rationalize their actions. I think this is a situation were the administration "tested the limits" but did not cross the line. Reasonable people can disagree. However, they did give Fitzgerald the freedom to investigate this matter.
So in my view not only did the Administration "test the limits", they are now thumbing their nose at critics given Fitzgerald's unwillingness to bring the outing issue to trial.
In addition, you have the Gonzales matter, the war funding issue and a few other things were the Administration is just wiping the floor with their critics and oppnents. It amazes me how people under-estimate Bush and his team.
Quote:
|
I guess on some level it sounds like you feel that things are the way they are and there isn't any reason to expect more.
|
I don't have an Ivy League education, but I do have a good street education. The irony is that when people think of street knowledge they percieve that it only applies to the street and not to board rooms and to Washington's ivory towers. Nothing has changed since Cain and Abel. We can expect more, but should not be surprised when our expectations are not met.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
In your "world" ace, no one who has a job to protect, a career, or a reputation, and certainly no one who is a spouse of anyone employed in a classified position in a government agency, <b>SHOULD....if they know what's good for them</b>, openly challenge or criticize the principles in the US executive branch, or they will be "paid back" if they sepak out publicly, just as Plame was, for her husband's challenge of white house assertions to justify invading Iraq and toppling it's government.
Do I have what you are saying, about right, ace? Why would you or anyone, want to be (settle for....) living in a country where the elected leaders claim they stand for "freedom", but behave like that....making an "example" of Plame, to discourage the "rest of us" from speaking out in objection, even to the point of "outing" a 20 year covert CIA veteran, managing a group working on investigation of possible Iranian WMD programs?
|
I think you get my point if you understand that things are not always fair.
Quote:
|
ace, here is the issue that your opinion, vs. mine....and others who have weighed in here, can be reduced to....it's in the last sentence in this opinion piece:
|
Fitzgerald has the freedom to bring the issue to trial, he has not done that for whatever the reason. So when you say the rule of law, I would argue that the rule of law is not on either side at this point because it has not been invited to the party.