Talking Points

You know I love talking points.

I love even more knocking them down like the strawmen they are...

So here at the spy scandal Republican talking points, and my reactions:

1. President Bush is protecting us! Don't question it!

There is an AP story that Drudge is leading with: Bush: Eavesdropping Helps Save U.S. Lives. It includes a quote from the President, stating "The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad." Most right-wing bloggers share this sentiment. For instance, Carol Platt Liebau said that the outrage is just people "denouncing the President's efforts to keep all of us safe".

A fair point... yet it misses the point simultaneously. The fact that the adminstration uses 9/11 to justify almost everything they've done (invade Iraq, torture, etc) completely devalues the argument to begin with. It is debatable whether this program prevented an attack. But it's beside the point... terrorist attacks are prevented all the time in countries like Israel without abusing the law. To use a fairly abused example, Mussolini made the trains run on time... but he was still a scumbag.

After 9/11, the President told us 'they hate us for our freedoms'. First off, that's bullshit, they hate us for more complicated reasons than that. However, if we were to believe that (as the President does), should we then believe that the way to combat those who hate our freedoms is to... surrender those freedoms to government under the assumption its for own protection? If you believe that, you probably thought "1984" was a lovely read.

If the President thought this was legal, necessary, and/or okay, it wouldn't have been hidden in this way. There would have been more transparency with the Congress. He would've obtained the warrants legally... which would made this entire scandal somewhat moot.

I will repost what I said yesterday- We all want the government to protect us (yes, even liberals!!) and we are all grateful that great efforts have been undertaken to accomplish this goal successfully. But there is a right and a wrong way to do so. The President chose the wrong way. I understand that, given the post-9/11 climate, certain aspects of crime-fighting law occassionally need bending. I understand that. So change the law. Don't break it over and over for over three years. Given the terrorist threat, should we give the White House the benefit of the doubt? NO. This administration has proven over and over it cannot be trusted.... We cannot surrender our democracy because of fears of enemies, no matter how serious (and I am not underestimating the genuine threat we face). The bottom line is this- The President cannot simply disobey laws (continually, for over three years) that he finds bothersome. He swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and our laws, not subvert them whenever he feels necessary.

2. This is a leak of classified info!! Shame on the Times for printing it! Prosecute the leaker!

Many conservatives are noting, correctly, that this is classified government information that was illegally leaked to the New York Times and a serious offense. They state that liberals should be as mad at this as they are over the Valerie Plame leak. First off, this argument is devalued by the fact that the people making it don't actually seem to give a shit that Plame's identity was leaked. They think the real villains in that story were Plame and Wilson themselves. Onto the main issue... yes, this does constitute the illegal leaking of classified info. But sometimes that can be justified (perhaps not legally, of course, but from a larger point of view). If people in the government have committed crimes, I believe it can greatly be argued that officials have an obligation to expose it to the public. There is a name for this- whistleblowing - and it's led to the exposing of powerful crimes.

As an example, Deep Throat (aka- Mark Felt) leaked classified info about the Nixon White House to Bob Woodward at the Washington Post. As the #2 man at the FBI, it was certainly illegal for him to do so. But it was also the right thing. And he is considered an American hero today for his actions.. except by people like G Gordon Liddy and Chuck Colson, the criminals he helped expose.

Final note on the Plame comparison. The leaking of her identity is more serious of a leak than this because that was not a case of whistleblowing. The only whistleblower in that saga was Joe Wilson. Valerie Plame committed no crime. Her name wasn't leaked to expose governmental wrongdoing, it was exposed out of vindictiveness and revenge. No comparison.

If the government wants an investigation to find the leakers, they should by all means do so, but that doesn't invalidate the crimes of the President that were exposed.

3. The Times only broke this story to help the book of an employee!

This is another point that is genuinely valid, but also besides the point. The Drudge Report (a fair and balanced news source, natch) posted NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE. The story notes that the author of the Times article, James Risen, has a book coming out entitled 'STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration', dealing with this and other issues. Drudge's story notes that "now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many 'explosive newsbreaking'stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!... The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale."

This is shocking, of course, though I expect nothing less at this point from the paper that gave us Judy Miller and her run amok adventures with WMDs and Scooter Libby. Yes, the Times sucks and their motives for breaking this story are dubious... but they are not the issue here. The President is. I already gave the Times a great deal of criticism yesterday for their handling of this story: Shame on the New York Times. However, I am glad they did print the story and that, maybe, the President will be held accountable for his actions. No matter why they broke this story, the fact is that the story they broke is important. It is good that we have this information, no matter what the reasons. The Times' questionable ethics are nothing in comparison to the President violating his oath to protect the Constitution.
.
.

This is one problem I've always had with the right-wing... simplicity. One sign of a mature mind is the ability to hold two seemingly conflicting point of views without ones brain exploding. The right tends to see things in black and white (ie. that whole 'hate us for our freedom' nonsense). So to the right if they accept these things - the President needs to do what's necessary to protect us, classified info was leaked, and the NY Times had odd motives - that to them means the charges against the President are invalid. Liberals see complexities; they can agree that all those points are true, yet simultaneously appreciate the seriousness of the crime that the President has committed.

There are many angles to this story. But the bottom line is that the President has behaved inappropriately and has stated that his power is not limited by laws or the Constitution and he will continue to behave this way if he feels that it is necessary. This is unacceptable. As the honorable Feingold said, he is a President, not a King. If the Congress cannot rein in the President's imperial abuses of power, he must be impeached.

God bless America.