Valerie Plame: The Value of Treachery

Here's an interesting take from AMERICAblog:

If a senior White House staffer had intentionally outed an American spy during World War II, he'd have been shot.

We're at war, George Bush keeps reminding us. We cannot continue with business as usual. A pre-9/11 mentality is deadly. Putting the lives of our troops at risk is treason.

Then why is the White House and the Republican party engaged in a concerted campaign to make treason acceptable during a time of war? That's exactly what they're doing. On numerous news shows today, Republican surrogates, their talking points ready, issued variations of the following concerning White House chief of staff Karl Rove's outing of a covert CIA agent as part of a political vendetta:

- It's the criminalization of politics
- Is this 'minor' leak really worth all this?
- Political payback is common and should not be criminalized
- Mis-speaking or mis-remembering is not a crime

Yes, the Republicans are now making light of an intentional effort to expose an undercover CIA agent, working on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, no less, while we are at war in the Middle East on that very issue.

The GOP has become the party of treason.

As a non-partisan (or, rather, an anti-partisan observer), I'm happy to believe that the Democrats would be playing the same games.   He goes on:

America is ignoring the Geneva Conventions because our president feels that winning this war is so paramount. Our Congress has watered down our civil rights laws. We have jailed American citizens with no access to legal counsel. And our President even believes it is worth lying to the American people in order to wage this so-important battle. All this because we are a nation at war and nothing will be permitted to stand in the way of this life-and-death struggle.

But when a senior aide to the President of the United States endangers the life of an undercover CIA agent, her colleagues and contacts around the world - when he chooses to put at risk our entire effort to undercover weapons of mass destruction before they are used to kill millions in an American city - what response do we get from the Bush White House and the Republican Party? A defensive (offensive) shrug ... They are trying to convince Americans that betraying our country during wartime for personal gain is no more serious than running a stop sign or going 60 in a 55 zone.

Good points.  My question is, are the troops fanning out to protect Rove and Libby, or do they already know the net is much wider, with Cheney, Abrams, Bolton and others all at risk?

October 17, 2005 in Bush Administration, Cheney, Dick, Current Affairs, Libya, Literature, US Justice System | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Why Did Libya Escape?

I have a question that I haven't heard asked or answered:

If the United States attacked Iraq because (a) it had weapons of mass destruction; (b) it was too cozy with terrorists; (c) because it was threatening its neighbours; and (d) because it snubbed its nose at the USA, why on earth did they not invade Libya?

Libya clearly had WMD (unlike Saddam). Libya was infamous for the terrorist acts it carried out itself (several airliners, clubs in Germany, etc) and for its support of the IRA, Hamas and other groups. Libya was involved in several coups and coup attempts in Africa. Libya was a public enemy of the US for decades.

But there never seemed to be any discussion of invading Libya. I wonder why not? It is tempting to suggest that the oil companies were not interested in that particular location.

October 21, 2004 in America Inc, Bush Administration, Iraq, Libya | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack