Hmmm. Where have I heard this argument before? From the WSJ:
[…] There is little doubt that the Washington Post story on alleged prisons in Europe has done enormous damage—at a minimum, to our ability to secure future cooperation in the war on terror from countries that don’t want their assistance to be exposed. Likewise, the New York Times wiretapping exposé may have ruined one of our most effective anti-al Qaeda surveillance programs. Ms. McCarthy denies being the source of these stories. But somebody inside the intelligence community was.
Leaving partisanship aside, this ought to be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about democratic government. The CIA leakers are arrogating to themselves the right to subvert the policy of a twice-elected Administration. Paul Pillar, another former CIA analyst well known for opposing Mr. Bush while he was at Langley, appears to think this is as it should be. He recently wrote in Foreign Affairs that the intelligence community should be treated like the Federal Reserve and have independent political status. In other words, the intelligence community should be a sort of clerisy accountable to no one.
[…]
The press is also inventing a preposterous double standard that is supposed to help us all distinguish between bad leaks (the Plame name) and virtuous leaks (whatever Ms. McCarthy might have done). Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie has put himself on record as saying Ms. McCarthy should not “come to harm” for helping citizens hold their government accountable. Of the Plame affair, by contrast, the Post’s editorial page said her exposure may have been an “egregious abuse of the public trust.”
It would appear that the only relevant difference here is whose political ox is being gored, and whether a liberal or conservative journalist was the beneficiary of the leak. That the press sought to hound Robert Novak out of polite society for the Plame disclosure and then rewards Ms. Priest and Mr. Risen with Pulitzers proves the worst that any critic has ever said about media bias.
[my emphases].
So there you have it. Tinpot Machiavellianism—wherein the ends justify the means, with the means supposedly justifiable based on its proponents’ arrogant assertion of righteousness and mental superiority, both of which, once they manage to become ascendant, implicitly supercede the will of the electorate in a representative democracy. Such bald political calculus is, of course, profoundly illiberal and logically inconsistent outside its own paradigm of self-serving, pragmatically-colored nihilism (a nihilism that its partisan adopters take great pains to disguise as patriotic idealism and moral outrage), as just about anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty would admit. And yet millions of people cleave together and pretend their actions aren’t based solely on political self-interest and a desire for the power that has eluded them in recent elections…
Amazing, that.
Incidentally, the full WSJ piece is subscription only. But no matter: I’ve said the same things here on a number of occasions (most recently, yesterday—and all I’ve ever asked in return is that you give me little mental hugs from time to time.
Just so I know you care.
(h/t Terry Hastings)
Are you arguing against leaks, or against the federal reserve system?
Jeffy-poo, I care.
And ignore actus, y’all.
Jeff,
Consider this an warm embrace of your cerebellum and loving clinch to your cortex. We know you care.
Can I “hug” your brain with my Machete?
Careful with that machete, there r4d20. You might whack off a leg, or something. ‘twould be a shame.
I’d even give you a sloppy wet mental kiss, but I don’t want Sullivan getting any ideas!
Not cool r2
Ode to Protein Wisdom
I have an F-N-F-A-L
It’s chambered 3 oh 8
I keep it clean and shiny
and trained upon the gate
With which repellent attributes
to keep my foes at bay
That they may not abuse my dog
or try to turn him gay
Yet you with pen and rapier wit
dissect your manxome foes
or ban their ass and banish them
to Eschatons foul hole
I will not mourn them nor lament
to us they are as dead
But it’s OK, they’re just away
on Duncans open thread
“Tinpot Machiavellianism” is a good description, but do not google it. Seriously. Don’t.
How’s about we substitute hugs for Hoegaarden’s or Guinness’s. They’re more fun anyways.
Awww, c’mere… <gives Jeff a manly half-hug>
Like a Viking
I’ll even blow you a kiss.
You know, it’s not enough sometimes to know that you have “nailed” a performance – you just gotta have the applause you deserve.
(clap)
(clap)
(clap)
Why does Jeff want little metal bugs?
BECAUSE OF THE ROBOTICS!!
Never mind.
I think it’s safe to say that the media elitists who wear their lefty bias on their sleeve like some badge of honor are running out of time.
The drudge report that Insty linked to today about the plummeting Air America ratings and the dismal sales performance of the Daily Kos’s “Crashing the Gate” are a bellweather.
When that guy says “I’m mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore!” today I don’t think it means what the left thinks it means.
Cripes, Kos only sold 3600 copies of his book already? And he got a spot on comedy central?
Beto,
Your verse is moving, and both Jeff and your dog are lucky to have you.
T/W son, as in good job!
Let’s hear it for our pal, meeeeetanarrative!
Yaaay, metanarrative!
“Why does Jeff want little metal bugs?”
Priceless.
Showing the Love!
LOL!
I am sure Kos is feeling the LOVE!
Actually he must feel pretty humiliated. And I for one feel real sorry for the little turd.
/WSJ There is little doubt that the Washington Post story on alleged prisons in Europe has done enormous damage /WSJ
Gee, over a century ago Oliver Wendell Holmes clearly stated that if you yell fire in a crowded theater and there is no fire, hey, no harm, no foul. You’d just be keeping everybody on their toes.
I think the idea of sending mental hugs is an offensive display of anti-monkey bias. You should be ashamed.
You should apologise to the simian community and correct this post to conform to a standard that would help include our simian brothers and sisters into the conversation.
I would suggest instead of mental hugs you ask for everyone to either masturbate or fling poo.
This hug stuff doesn’t mean we’re lumberjacks right?
I would suggest instead of mental hugs you ask for everyone to either masturbate or fling poo.
Done and done.
Thanks Jeff for articulating better than I can the issue at heart in this.
I have given up attempting to convince opposing voices at other sites that rationalizing leaks to the media of information determined to be classified by an elected administration is a net negative for our system of government. To carry their rationale further, it means that nothing can ever be secret, even in wartime, because there can always be found some case for public disclosure of the country’s secrets, regardless of the party in power.
It could be. Drudge says 3 thousand some total retail sales. That looks like enough to make it to 26 on amazon, above the da vinci code.
did you guys hear that? sounded like some dying animal under a bridge…
Beatroot, fling some feces will ya?
actus, are you really as incapable as In Vino Veritas of understanding what the amazon rating means? I expect better from you.
We don’t, Maguire.
Hah! Hah! Hah! LMAO
OT: For Jeff and other conservatives: How do you rate WSJ compared to other newspapers? It’s painfully obvious that NTY and WaPo are quite skewed to the left. How skewed is WSJ? Among the three, which would be most preferred by conservatives?
Thanks!
What’s a newspaper?
Hmmmmm. So he wants an American version of the dreaded (and out-of-control) Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence?
He must be out of his mind. Honestly. One reason why the US doesn’t go through coups d’etat or other violent transitions is because everything is under civilian control. Nothing, not even the military, is outside civilian control. As it is, the CIA is quite independent.
Look at the other countries of the world that have independent (de facto or de jure) intelligence agencies. We don’t want such an entity to exist in the US. It will enslave us all.
Have you never owned a parakeet?
Mushiloon —
Believe it or not, outside of its editorial page (which is conservative), the WSJ is actually more liberal than the NYT or LAT.
But the editorial page is very good.
You gonna debunk that, beet?
Back when I had a subscription a favorite game was to try to find when the editorial page contradicts something reported in the news section.
Remember: the business press explains. You won’t find franker discussion of class war anywhere.
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
Hugs?
So this really is a vanity site.
Oh Christ no, Scot! Send money, instead.
Because I’d rather be a whore than, say, Warren Beatty or George Soros.
I’m a little bit slow, Jeff. I thought you were working for the truth, not hugs.
Here. Let me help you out, Scot:
There. Much better.
Always a pleasure Jeff.
Thanks, Jeff!
How about a mental firm handshake? The only man I can bring myself to hug is dear old dad.
TW:and don’t EXPECT a pat on the fanny either.
Sorry I didn’t give you a mental hug sooner Jeff. I was chopping down trees. Then I had to eat my lunch, and … well, you know.
<3
Oh. I know htey’re not total sales.
Kudos!
oh, fer pete’s sake. dontcha guyz know how to hug?
((((((jeff))))))
you rock my world.
-Ok….lets not start talking about rocks….this is borderline anti-Coors as it is… ‘cept maybe for the fanny patting part ‘course, but that has to be done in your fav room decorated in the team colors, or the other guys might snicker between belches, like the other day as McGehees when… but thats another story….
no love till we see pics of you and the rimless glasses!
BBH, were you the one who broke into my house while I was out shopping, and having hot scones for tea?
oh, fer pete’s sake. dontcha guyz know how to hug?
((((((jeff))))))
That looked more like a grope, Nishi.
I can’t help but wonder then what you think about the leaks coming from the WH? Let’s not even mention the fact that the “so-called” leaker from the CIA has denied leaking anything, but the leakers (notice multiple) from the WH have admitted to doing so in front of a Grand Jury.
But leaving that aside, I have to ask: you don’t see any difference in leaking cherry-picked information to bolster a call to war even though that information was already discredited and leaking information about your government breaking it own laws? You don’t see that there are, in fact, patterns of behavior which are detrimental to the character of the Nation which should be reported as opposed to simply wanting to get your side of a story out because you were embarassed in the NYT? You don’t see these acts as fundamentally and ethically different? Because if that is true, then you also don’t see a difference betwenn just plain murder or killing someone in self-defense.
Which just tells me that your moral compass is seriously flawed.
The president is allowed to defend his decision making. Lets remove the war from the equation, because we obviously differ on the war.
If someone tells me that I lied when I sold them software because I said the competition did not have a certain feature when in fact they did, and I tell them that the information that I had was assumed to be accurate. Then to bolster that argument I email them my marketing groups competetive info which states that the other software does not have that particular feature. Is it wrong of me to defend myself against a cherry-picked argument?
This is entirely different than if my company had a plan to counter another companies marketing with our own by creating a partnership with an independant consulting group to get our hands on the other companies software. This happens. Is it illegal? Not really. Is it dirty? Yes. Would my ass get fired and deservedly so if I called ComputerWorld and blabbed? Hell yes.
Here’s the difference. In one case, the information is well known. Well enough known to be “discredited” at least, so I leak some information that I am entitled to leak, because 1) I am authorized to disseminate that information and 2) The information is already public in one form or another.
In the second case, the information is considered vital to the business, is not meant to become public, could have negative repercussions if it is made public and I as an employee am not allowed to make public company information that is not to be made public. Under pain of losing my job and maybe even a lawsuit or two.
Hope that helps.
By definition, an intelligence consensus is not cherry-picked. Garbage in, garbage out.
The rest of your point is pretty gay, Georgie: Of course, we see plenty of difference between ‘leaking’ declassified information and blowing operational cover for field agents (sooper-secret prisons, tail number of CIA aircraft, NSA, and on and on).
Dumbass, that’s exactly what we’ve been saying. Your featherlight “patterns” of “detrimental” behavior can pack sand; how else are we supposed to treat captured terrorists? Post their names, measurements, turn-offs/turn-ons and pin-ups at Daily Kos? Run up to the muezzzin and call off their names at the Muslim hourly prayer?
Excuse our ‘moral compass’. When you get a clue, we’ll excuse your obtuseness.
See it quite clearly on display amongst the Leftists currently infesting the CIA.
And I must admit, after seeing your nic, I was convinced the whole post must have been sarcasm, considering the Orwellian tripe the Left peddles routinely in place of, you know, actual ideas.
lostmycookies:
Interesting arguement; but wrong. The President may be authorized to declassify whatever he wants (questionable), but he only declassified those parts of the NIE which bolstered his arguement, keeping the parts which did not bolster his arguement classified, meaning, quite simply, he understood that his arguement was weak and so tried to simply discredit the other arguement through “cherry-picked” intelligence. And, don’t forget, they outed a NOC officer simply to discredit her husband. But you don’t seem to regard that as a criminal offense.
The second part of your arguement is also wrong. First, as it seems you wish to ignore it, Ms. McCarthy has stated that she did not in fact leak any info about secret prisons. If I remember correctly, you are still innocent until proven guilty (or until you confess, which Rove and Libby have done already, but for some reason aren’t held to the same legal standard as the rest of us). So just from that point, she shouldn’t have lost her position for talking to reporters. Lots of people talk to reporters without getting fired for it.
Second, and I think much more important is that we live in a country based on law; that laws were violated by a government which seems tobelieve that those laws do not pertain to them, and someone gave information about this violation of our laws to the press. The press printed that information. Is the common good served by holding the Government accountable? Yes, it is.
As for the other two replies to my post:
If you have nothing to contribute except idiotic invective, perhaps you two should both go get an education in The Constitution and the founding principles of our Country before you blather about shit you just don’t know, understand, or even care to know.
Yeah, you had me at cherry-picked. You had me at cherry-picked.
George, not questionable at all, and he only had to counter the argument, which is; this is the information I used to justify my decision, I told you why I wanted to go to war, here is the classified information I used. He does not have to answer an unasked question and it’s not illegal for him not to do so.
.
What exactly does that have to do with the price of eggs? Who’s they and who was covert? Stay on target Wedge.
Well, Mary or her lawyers told the press she didn’t leak secret prisons but she got her ass fired for something, and the CIA says its for contact with the press and leaking classified info. They also said she admitted it, and failed two polygraph tests, so until her lawyers disprove that and she gets her job back, well she leaked classified info, maybe not that specific info, but classified info. She’s one of those word parsers, most people are pretty over that kind of stuff.
Rove confessed? How come Drudge didn’t have that? I know I spend a lot of time on planes, but that would’ve been tough to miss. Too much Nickelodeon I guess, damn kids. Can’t believe I missed a good frog-march.
Please understand that the law that I am hoping we hold Ms. McCarthy to actually doesn’t apply to the president the way you think it does. And the Rove\Libby thing is an unrelated boondoggle. You obviously have a different opinion.
Lots of people don’t work for the CIA. Like me, for instance. As far as you know anyway, unless you look at my on-line bio at the CIA website.
Kidding, I really don’t work for the CIA, my wife does.
No she doesn’t.
Really.