From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Too many people are going through tortured gyrations to explain away what
happened in some way that will make Dubya and the White House somehow seem less
culpable. But the simplest explanation is that the White House was angry at
Wilson for publicly declaring that there was no Iraqi attempt to purchase
uranium, that it decided to get back at him without any regard for consequences.
Absent any reason to believe otherwise, in this case I think Occam's Razor holds.
Maybe I'm blind, but Occam's Razor doesn't lead me to the same conclusion you have come to... Let's say the White House DID want to get revenge on Wilson; *Why* would it choose outing his wife as the way to do it? Wouldn't there be countless better, more direct, more subtle, less *traitorous* ways to do so? You know, get him tax audited, get a friendly journalist to write a character assasination article, or something? Is the White House so powerless that it would need to resort to compromising national security to get a petty revenge, and so uncaring about national security that it would actually do so?
Sounds pretty convoluted to me. General idiocy/incompetence sounds much simpler. There's an old saying: "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity". In politics, I think some partisans in both parties have a near opposite saying: "Never dismiss as stupidity or error anything that can be blamed as wrongdoing on behalf of the opposition party."
Of course, as a known opponent of Bush, I am obviously interpreting this
situation in the way most injurious to the White House. I admit that. I still
think that someone in the White House wanted to injure Wilson and decided to crap
on his wife. And the idea that Bush doesn't know who did it - and can't
instantly find out - strikes me as ludicrous. He's the president - either he's on
top of things (in which case, he knows who did it and is lying) or he's not on
top of things (in which case who's actually running the country?) All he has to
do is order his staff to 'fess up and promise that heads will roll if they
don't. That he hasn't done so to me indicates either he knows or he doesn't want
to know. Either way, it makes a mockery of his public stance that he wants to
get to the bottom of this.
How do you know he hasn't ordered his staff to 'fess up? What if the person(s) who did it (intentionally or through error/stupidity) acted alone, and won't confess?
My question is: don't a bunch of journalists *know* who told them the leak? Why don't they spill the beans and put an end to this whole thing? This isn't a case of them protecting some confidential informant whistleblower, it's a traitorous leaker who *used* them.
The current Bush admin is a bunch of monarchists who act as if they believe
"the king can do no wrong". And that the rest of us are supposed to bow and
scrape and knuckle our foreheads and avert our eyes and supplicate to His
Majesty. This is a prime example of them thinking they can do something that, if it
happened when Clinton was in the White House, they would be shrieking to the
high heavens merited impeachment (if not disembowelment without trial).
I agree that if Clinton was in power, the Republicans would be calling for his head, rather than Democrats calling for Bush's head. But if it were Clinton, I'd still be saying that it sounds like idiocy/incompetance to me, rather than a revenge conspiracy.
This is a scummy act of political revenge, and anyone who doesn't see it that
way is deliberately blinding themselves.
Okey doke.
_________________________________________________________________
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
