politics
Selective Outrage
Ben hits the real point of the NYT leaking of the KSM interrogator:
Some Democrats will be quick to point out that people like me defended the Bush Administration in the Joe Wilson / Valerie Plame / Robert Novak / Scooter Libby / Richard Armitage / Peter Fitzgerald witch hunt. Fair. We’ve argued about that in circles on my other site many a time. Assuming they were right (for arguments sake only), then this obviously must upset those same people and outrage them. This seems about 65x worse to me. You wanted Bush and Cheney to go to Guantanamo over that? How about the author of this article Scott Shane and his bosses at the Times? Just to do it, the NYT published sensitive information that they really didn’t need to. An alias would have worked fine. But no. Then for an extra poke in the eye, they told you just where this person works now and in what capacity. Pretty shocking when you think about it. Really.
For the Plame leaking (remember, it was Armitage, and no one else) at least we had a reason, even though it was a crass one. Plame and her husband had gotten themselves into a pissing contest with the administration. And what’s the reason here?
Discussion
3 comments for “Selective Outrage”
Post a comment
Why isn’t Sulzburger and the NYT editorial board swinging at the end of a rope already?
The only reason I can think of is that they did it just because they could. I just dont get how they could really sit around and decide it would be okay to print that name.
[...] the New York Times outed a CIA interrogator (accordingly, no linky-dink for them; HT The Point via NixGuy) for no other defensible reason besides the fact that they could. What will they do if someone [...]