Tinfoil Hats Are Soooo In Fashion Nowadays . . .
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Elections — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Responding to my post from yesterday, Kevin Drum reveals that he has forgotten the first rule of holes.
When in one, stop digging.
Continuing his utterly unsupportable argument from the day before, Kevin maintains that the hearings being planned by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts "are designed mainly to ridicule the CIA for overusing the label "covert" as it pertains to, say, agents like Valerie Plame." Referencing my post, Kevin finds my defense of Roberts and my assertion that he is engaged--at best--at mind-reading since he has absolutely no evidence to back up his claim "touching."
Well, I'm touched that Kevin is touched. But I'd rather that Kevin come to his senses than claim to be "touched" by any defense I may have constructed. Instead, the Political Animal lurches wildly from making charges that are merely unsupportable and without evidence, to making charges that are bizarre and otherworldly. I do wish that Movable Type had a function to inform us when a blogger is writing a post with a straight face, but alas it does not. So I am left to wonder whether Kevin writes his latest commentary only to perpetrate a goof on the rest of us, or whether he actually means to argue what can only be described--if one wishes to be kind--as fatuous nonsense.
Clearly desperate for something--anything--to back up his charges that Senator Roberts is out to gut protections for covert operatives, Kevin links to--wait for it!--Christopher Hitchens as proof that "conservatives are at war with the CIA" and that we want to get rid of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--or at least use arguments to get rid of it to muddy the waters. Yes. You read that right. Christopher Hitchens has now been dressed up in an elephant costume by Kevin Drum and pointed to as the standard-bearer, spokesman and matinee idol for "the modern Republican Party."
Now, I'll be the first to say that Christopher Hitchens has written a thing or two with which I agree. Then again, Kevin Drum wrote at least one thing with which I agree as well. Does that mean that one can take Kevin Drum and make him a spokesman for "the modern Republican Party"? I doubt Kevin wants any part of that. And after reading his latest, I know I don't.
So why is Hitchens cited as somehow being representative of Republican desires? Because there is no "there" there for Kevin and instead of doing the responsible thing and backing down from his earlier ridiculous contentions, he just makes the hole deeper for himself. He grabs Hitchens's comments, says that they are representative of conservatives (note: I have yet to find an actual conservative who argues that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act ought to be repealed and just because others might find one or two, that doesn't necessarily make them representative of conservative thought--a point we might need to make for the benefit of the always-two-steps-behind "reality-based community") and throws them out as red meat for his audience. If Genghis Khan, Alcibiades, Cyrus the Great, Nur Jahan, Karl Marx or Friedrich Engels were alive and made critical comments of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, I would not be surprised to see that Kevin would have held them up as exemplars of Republican thinking. And in condemning the spread of the supposed meme that Republicans and conservatives want to downplay the issue of potential national security violations--a claim I don't exactly recall conservatives making about Democrats when Sandy Berger was busy stuffing his pants--Kevin decides to keep riding his own, old, dead meme.
If all of this is not bad enough--and believe you me, it is but why stop at a Code Red disaster of an argument when you can push the envelope?--Kevin ignores the more sober commentary of people like Von who politely point out that the Washington Monthly's descent into lame imitations of mind-reading fast rob it of any credibility. Von points out this article, which is quite valuable because it allows us to rely on something more trustworthy than Kevin Drum's extrasensory perception--such as it is. To wit:
The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee acknowledged yesterday that the controversy surrounding a possible White House role in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative had raised important issues, and said his panel would hold hearings on leaks of classified information."The time has come for a comprehensive law that will make it easier for the government to prosecute wrongdoers and increase the penalties, which hopefully will act as a deterrent for people thinking about disclosing information," Pete Hoekstra said at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think-tank.
Did y'all note the word "easier" in Chairman Hoekstra's statement? As in "easier for the government to prosecute wrongdoers and increase the penalties, which hopefully will act as a deterrent for people thinking about disclosing information"? Because I think that language may be kinda important in determining the object of the hearings that will be held on the protection afforded to coverts. Just a hunch. Now, this is the comment of the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. One cannot help but wonder why his comment is not held up by Kevin Drum as an exemplar of Republican thinking regarding the protection of covert operatives--instead of goofy speculations about what Pat Roberts is really thinking deep in his neural recesses and goofy speculations about the comments of supposed über-Republican (WTF? Seriously, WTF?) Christopher Hitchens. And one cannot help but wonder whether Chairman Hoekstra might have cleared or synchronized his comment with that of Chairman Roberts. I think he might have. Again, just a hunch. But it seems to be a sound one--as opposed to the Carnac The Magnificent imitation that Kevin Drum tries to pull. Your mileage may vary, of course, but others may politely point out that you are driving an Edsel of an argument, so you run something of a risk there.
The truly hilarious thing--and yes, I know there is plenty of hilarity up above, but bear with me since this comedy routine appears to have a lot of life left in it--is that all of the people waxing furious over the fact that THERE WILL BE HEARINGS INTO THE PROTECTION OFFERED TO COVERT OPERATIVES and that the true purpose of the hearings is to "PREEMPTIVELY [DEFEND] ROVE BY IMPLYING THAT PERHAPS THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT THE CIA OVERUSES CLANDESTINE COVER FOR ITS AGENTS" don't seem to realize that the hearings will be a gift for them. Maybe I shouldn't disclose this on a Republican blog and maybe Josh Trevino and/or Mike Krempasky will descend from Olympus, pelt me with thunderbolts, chain me to a rock and let a vulture gnaw at me, but has it ever occurred to Kool Kevin and the Gang that maybe Democrats could use the hearings to go after Rove and the Bush White House in public? Score some partisan points! Maybe repeat "Bush Lied! People Died!" a few times in public with Free TV all too willing to film it for our viewing pleasure?
No. Of course it didn't. If it did, maybe Kool Kevin and the Gang would win elections from time to freaking time. And maybe they could pass a history test in Scandal 101 if they remembered that while Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski pursued investigations into the Nixon White House during the Watergate affair, Democrats organized--you guessed it!--congressional hearings investigating Watergate on a parallel track. Of course, back then, there were no complaints that Democrats might have been "interfering" (to use the useless verbiage of some) with the investigation of a special or independent counsel. Nor should there have been--hearings such as the ones that were held during the Watergate investigation were entirely within the accepted scope of Congress's oversight functions. Why aren't they here? Because Republicans are doing it? Because Kevin Drum somehow got it in his head that despite all of the evidence to the contrary--evidence quoted in abundance here--Republicans are out to weaken the protections afforded to coverts? Because he thinks that Chris Hitchens speaks for "the modern Republican Party" in arguing against the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? Because he thinks that the timing of the Hitchens article was "coincidental"--which in Drumese means "Karl Rove--or perhaps even that "touching" but evil Yousefzadeh--put Hitch up to it"?
There is nothing to back up any of the arguments in any of Kevin Drum's two posts. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to be shown against his contentions. Kevin ignored that evidence. Twice. And that's hackish. None of this will matter to Kevin's admiring commenters, or to those who believe that he doesn't go far enough with his condemnations (I tell you, Engels will be used as a poster boy for Young Republicans. The peer pressure will be unbelievable in the Political Animal comments box.). It matters to the rest of us. And by "us," I mean a group of people who aren't so full of ourselves that we regularly advertise ourselves as the "reality-based community" to anyone and their pet canaries, but who apparently have a better grasp on reality than those who advertise ad nauseam.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | Hillary Changes Course. Will Enough Democrats Follow? — Comments (43) »
Tinfoil Hats Are Soooo In Fashion Nowadays . . . 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Maybe they'll bring in some (former) covert CIA operatives, and ask them if they typically worked at a desk at CIA headquarters ... every day ... or encouraged their spouses to start up a war of words with the President of the United States, in the New York Times, and on ABC's Nightline.
See if those are things that helped them blend into the background, and maintain their super-secret cover story....
I don't think they'd need to go through the trouble of bringing in any more (former) covert CIA operatives, and asking them what is typical work and behavior for their fellow covert agents.
They already have their answer. From the CIA itself. Who has affirmed she was a covert agent. A spokesman for the CIA, Mr. Harlow, has given testimony to the Special Prosecutor to that affect.
Now, you can take issue with other aspects of this case (or speculate along with the rest of us since no one actually knows what's going besides Fitzerald), but it seems that the question of whether she was covert or not has been resolved.
She was. No spin. No interpretation. No parsing. She was covert.
You're welcome to continue efforts, from a layman's perspective, to question whether she was covert. But the experts in the area of covert operatives - the CIA - have already resolved that question.
Nobody denies that she was covert. The evidence however is that she finished her overseas covert activity six years before the so-called outing. The function of desk analyst does not require covert status, and the bureaucratic inirtia and/or status-seeking which leaves it in place is not productive.
You don't think congressional hearings will start just about the time Fitzgerald wraps up the investigation and hands down indictments or a report? You don't think this might avoid the ever-present conflict between seeking truth through the courts vs. truth through hearings under immunity which could interfere with prosecution efforts to uncover admissable evidence? You don't think they've thought about this, and, horrors, coordinated it in some way?
What does Mr. Drum want, prosecutions, hearings and legislation, a functioning CIA? It recalls the old saw about how you can get it good or get it fast, but not good and fast.
... as Drum starts his premise from the viewpoint: "Those Republicans are soooo evil, they'd do anything."
If there's anything I hate in this world, it's that. It leads the brain on incredible flights of fancy. It's a temptation that both sides could do a better job of resisting.
I suggest you send a memo, as soon as possible, to CIA Spokesman, Bill Harlow, and let him know that when he "checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative" right after his call with Novak in July 2003 he was in error.
The "evidence" you have turned up, presumably based on your deep knowledge of the inner workings of the intelligence community, strikes me as crucial. If Harlow, speaking on behalf of the CIA, was giving false testimony to the grand jury - claiming that she was covert when she was not - he is in a heap of trouble.
Moreover, I suggest you CC the CIA at large about your findings, and let them know that when they submitted this case to the DOJ based on their view that Plame was covert as of July 2003, they too were in error.
Lastly, will you kindly tell those other CIA operatives who trained and worked with Plame and insist she was covert to knock it off. Just because they know her, trained with her, and worked with her should not give them the right to insist that she was covert when, as you point out, she clearly was not.
Someone needs to step up and clarify the record. We can't just let the CIA, their spokesman go around testifying that one of their operatives is covert when they are not.
Think you're really onto something here.
Actually, 36 major media news organizations and reporters' groups argue that Plame was not a covert agent in their motion to file an amicus brief with the district court in the investigation. The motion was drafted by Victoria Toensing, who had a hand in drafting the IIPA.
Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career, also disputes it.
So I think it would be incorrect to suggest that the issue is settled. People citing the CIA, or some of the redacted papers from the investigation should remember that it's an investigation, so it's not as though the allegations have been put to any serious test as of yet.
that I often have while watching Tom Maguire go after Paul Krugman -
Why isn't the ref stopping this fight? Can't he see the guy can't even keep his hands up any more?