Three Comments/Links

by

1). I personally feel that even by the low standards of crank calling, this is lame and geeky, and not in a good way.

Via Balloon Juice.

2). Amazing how quickly Marxists can sound sensible when they’re saying the same things you were, huh? – only with a lot more spleen and righteous indignation. Surprised that I haven’t seen this before, though.

Via Tim Blair.

3). Vanity Fair? Vanity Fair? I had to bone up on this entire Plame situation, stay measured and calm, keep informed about the whole thing… so that Plame could parley it into a Vanity Fair article and photo shoot? I spent lifespan on this stupid thing, buddy: the least you could have done was sell out for a CBS miniseries.*

Via… GRATUITOUS INSTAPUNDIT POST!!!!!

Moe

*For those objecting to this last one, it looks like Glenn will be collecting the “Stick a fork in this scandal, it’s done” and the “Doesn’t change anything” links. I find that – blissfully, really – I no longer need to care.

15 thoughts on “Three Comments/Links”

  1. Let me compile the best of the “doesn’t change anything” right here. The first one, especially, is a must read:
    http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000919.html
    http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000918.html
    http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/000924.html
    http://www.pandagon.net/archives/00002213.htm
    Joseph Wilson needs to tone down the self-dramatization about 9 notches, but the original story is much the same as it ever was. Where HAS that Justice Department investigation gone? Because we still know how to get to the bottom of it whenever they decide they want to.

  2. It is crap, but Reynolds totally misses the point with his dclaration of the whole scandal being bogus.
    The point isn’t how the people behaved after it, or before it, or whatever. The point is simply that someone outed an intelligence agent; and that most likely in a tit-for-tat act.
    That’s what the scandal’s about. Not whether the woman can disguise herself or should disguise herself. Yes, it makes them look stupid, but that’s not at the crux of the matter.

  3. I agree with Casey and Katherine. The scandal may be losing its political potency, but its legal potency (as in, laws appear to have been broken) continues. Glenn Reynolds, a law professor, and should know better (or at least choose his words more carefully).

  4. Jeez, how embarrassing. What a moment for the Wilsons to indulge their 007 fantasies.
    If I had to guess, I’d say since both of them are probably currently unemployable in D.C., being media radioactive, they no doubt need income of some kind to survive the coming sh*tstorm.
    Along with everyone else but Moe I contend it doesn’t change the “WH senior administrator’s” role in the scandal at all. But it does show neither Wilson knows when they’re sending up easy lobs for the talk shows. Not to mention Karl “froggy went a’ marchin” Rove.

  5. For the record:
    Moe Lane, the blog’s VRWC Rep (kinda like a union rep, but with fewer benefits) disagrees with the site’s other two bloggers: lefty Katherine and me (a free market left-of-center libertarian* with a heart of gold). Moe, sadly, can’t post here during working hours. But he did leave the following at Tacitus, which I reprint for your consideration.

    Hate to disagree with you, my other coblogger and James Casey, von, but the only reason that the legal case still appears be kicking is because Plame’s axe is still embedded in its nervous system (stole that line from the Extended DVD of Two Towers, I did). Chatterbox pretty much nailed it when he said that this’ll give Justice whatever excuse they need to drop the whole thing – and since I remain quite irrationally convinced that this whole mess was just the outward manifestation of an internal power struggle among the GOP (which must be now dropped before it interferes with the election) anyway, color me unsurprised if it all goes away. I’m mostly resentful of how cheap Plame is; I would’ve held out for at least a three book deal, CBS miniseries and a nice cushy think-tank sinecure.

    So there ya go.
    *I have no idea what this means.

  6. I like Glenn, but I disagreed with his take on this. Sure, it’s hard to feel sorry for them given the whole Vanity Fair thing, but IRL enforcement of the law isn’t done out of pity. It’s done because…it’s the law. As has been noted above, BOTH Plames may in fact be limelight-seeking trailer-trash and it still changes not one thing about the purported wrongdoing.
    Now, whether a crime has in fact been committed is, as far as I can see, still TBD. Hopefully we’ll see an update on this in the near future.
    Salutations, etc.
    Slartibartfast
    Imperial Fjord Designer and
    Designated Mouse Envoy

  7. von, thanks for the heads-up of Moe’s post over at Cornelius Tacitus dot org.
    Moe – I have to agree with anyone who says that the whole Vanity Fair thing was a really stupid move, but, out of curiosity – or lack of memory – whether or not this allows the case to seep away, do you think that there was something really quite badly wrong about the outing of Agent XXX?
    Surely any compromising of any intelligence agent is intrinsically bad?
    I don’t live in the States, so I don’t know how the legal case is doing, so I’ve no way of knowing whether von and Katherine are right; but I do know it’s out of the public eye right now. Which is a shame, I think – I don’t know that it should have been an issue to topple the President, but it was very wrong, and a very bad abuse of power.

  8. Oh, and Moe – regarding Point No. 1 of your post, it sucks something rotten (as in, ‘in the state of Denmark’). Crank calls of any nature are bad. Knew a girl at University who was getting them all the time.
    Furthermore, and this is why, even if one loves Atrios, one shouldn’t read the comments on that site, when there was a post recently about some sailor saying anti-war protestors should be killed, someone in the comments section posted contact details for the sailor.
    Totally. Indefensible. Move.
    I utterly disagree with said sailor, for obvious reasons (like wanting to save my skin), but no one should publish someone’s contact details on the Web, id est the public domain, unless it’s clearly acceptable to said individual (for example the details are published elsewhere).
    Invasion of privacy is really wrong.

  9. Slartibartfast
    Imperial Fjord Designer and
    Designated Mouse Envoy
    And intriguing blog-writer. Best of luck with the ‘caines.

  10. So I go to Slart’s blog, since he’s in the evil-rightie-but-probably-worth-paying-some-attention-to category, see Somebody Else’s Problem, and no blog.
    Hmm. Is this a reference to Douglas Adams’s way of making things invisible – IIRC slap a coat of purple and green paint on it and put a sign on it saying S.E.P.?

  11. Actually, I think the Vanity Fair piece is highly appropriate, because it reinforces the fact that Wilson and Plame are REALLY IMPORTANT PEOPLE. On the other hand, any foreign sources who may have been compromised when Rockefeller and bunch divulged classified material don’t matter. After all, they live in civilized lands where they will probably just be tortured and put to death, along with their wives and children. No big deal. Just a bunch of ragheads. Not REALLY IMPORTANT PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR PHOTOGRAPHS IN VANITY FAIR.
    By the way, it took me a little while, but I finally realized why there was no great offical reaction over that (Rockefeller’s) little breach of security. It’s more than likely because the damage potential is significant; hence the less attention and the quicker out of public view, the better. Which, conversely, tells me something about (legality/illegality aside) the relative importance of the Plame affair.

  15. Oh. See, the bad spelling threw me. Hurricanes, ya know.
    I’m picky that way. It’s just about the only area in life that I’m obsessive. All else is sloth.
    But hey, at least someone’s reading me.

Comments are closed.