The ‘Plame Platoon’

Max Boot has a good piece today in the LA Times about the ‘Plame Platoon’ (heh – I like that) and how they’ve gone mysteriously silent on ‘leaks which harm our national security’ in light of the recent NYTimes story about the President authorizing ‘eavesdropping’ in the aftermath of 9-11.

Boot knows what I and so many others do regarding the real motivations behind most (not all, but most) of those who were so ‘concerned’ about the Plame ‘leak’ – it’s not really about national security, it’s about nailing the President to the wall on something … anything that will stick.

Even if it harms the very national security they want you to think they are so concerned about.

20 Responses to "The ‘Plame Platoon’"

tommy in nyc says:

December 21, 2005 at 9:19 am

Well the right tried to impeach Clinton just for stepping out on his wife. Then youse turn around saying that the left is harming nay’l security with the investigation of an outing by a CIA officer. please
PCD says:

December 21, 2005 at 9:39 am

Tommy,

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You wanted Karl Rove and others removed for lying to a grand jury. You want to admit to being a hypocrite now?
tommy in nyc says:

December 21, 2005 at 9:48 am

PCD the right tried to impeach Clinton based on statements he made on a civil-cort case about a sex-harassment case. That could hardly be considered high-crimes and misdemeanors. The left may try to impeach 43 but I don’t think they’ll be able to make it stick.
PCD says:

December 21, 2005 at 9:57 am

tommy, Clinton committed perjury and lied to a sitting Federal judge while under oath. He deserved to be impeached for that.

Also, how hypocritical of you to condone sexual harassment by Clinton, but demand Sen. Packwood, other policicians and Businessmen lose their jobs for the same thing.
Lorica says:

December 21, 2005 at 10:08 am

Tommy hardly high crimes and misdemeanors?? It was lying to a court we like to call that little Felony perjury, NO MATTER what it was about. In which he lost his law license for, hardly a small crime. Again I go back to how easily you Dems excuse Clinton’s illegalities, but yet scream to high heaven when Bush sneezes. I think we spell that word as Hypocrite. – Lorica
steve says:

December 21, 2005 at 10:13 am

Edited for being completely off topic. — ST
PCD says:

December 21, 2005 at 10:14 am

Also, tommy, a little blast from your past. During the Impeachment, all you Dems kept screaming about was the GOP attempt to overturn the election. It didn’t matter that if Clinton was removed from office that Al Gore would be President. No overturning of the election. BUT, you Democrats have been trying to overturn Bush’s election since the polls closed in Florida in 2000. This is just the latest tactic in your war of sabotage.
tommy in nyc says:

December 21, 2005 at 10:24 am

yOU MEAN bush 43’s SELECTION as president. He didn’t get elected in 2000
Sister Toldjah says:

December 21, 2005 at 10:27 am

Ya’ll, let’s PLEASE not rehash the 2000 elections in this thread!
PCD says:

December 21, 2005 at 10:31 am

tommy, thank you for providing proof you don’t know jack except for talking points from the loony left.
Pam says:

December 21, 2005 at 10:42 am

So Tommy in NYC-yOU MEAN bush 43’s SELECTION as president. He didn’t get elected in 2000 If he wasn’t elected, then there is nothing stopping him from running in 08′! He would have my vote!

If I follow SJ here, what she is getting at is that the left screamed from the rafters when Plames cover was blown. It breached National Security the cried! Now we have an instance where the NYT’s and some leakers have also breached National Security and the only thing the left is screaming is, We were dupped, the POTUS broke the law…
Tommy do you see where that is going? You went as far back as 2000 to somehow justify the reaction. But I think, although I would bet it wasn’t your intention, you nailed the problem on the head. That election of 2000 created such hatred that people don’t think clearly about what it is we are really talking about.

I never want to see another city in this coutry being attacked. I don’t want that feeling of helplessness and anger and despair. I want to make sure we do everything in our power to assure that the citizens are safe.
PCD says:

December 21, 2005 at 12:29 pm

Pam, This bothers me, too. Not only the Plame Platoon, but lefties here are not decrying the leaks and demanding the leaker’s job like they did about Plame.

While our lefties are not apart of the Plame Platoon, they are willing tools and their ethics and character could be called into question.
Kenwg says:

December 21, 2005 at 4:26 pm

I think a lot of us percieve a difference in the nature of the Plame leaks vs the secret prisons, the intel, etc. In Plame’s case the intent of the leak was (in my view) character assasination and/or retribution. The more recent leaks are more on the order of “whistleblower” leaks, or exposes, about unethical or illegal conduct.

In other words, the motivation of the leaker is of critical importance. If the leak stops an alleged illegal or unethical activity, the leaker was in the right. If it in itself perptuates or advances an alleged illegal or unethical agenda, the leaker is in the wrong.

It’s all subjective, of course. Public Opinion (and the courts) will be the final arbiter.

Ken G.
Iowa Voice says:

December 21, 2005 at 4:39 pm

LA Times Op-Ed: ‘Plame Platoon’ Is AWOL

Max Boot has an op-ed in the LA Times, asking where’s all that outrage now?

IT SEEMS like only yesterday that every high-minded politician, pundit and professional activist was in high dudgeon about the threat posed to national security by the reve…
Kevin says:

December 21, 2005 at 6:01 pm

That’s a good point Ken, but I wonder how far we can go down that road. Are we sure the motivation for the plame leak was intentional, and not just motivated by a desire to get the truth about who sent Wilson to Niger?

Are we sure that the guy who leaked about the NSA program’s motivation wasn’t, “I don’t care about America, I just really want to assasinate Bush’s character”?

What if the motivation for the leak was indeed a noble attempt to stop illegal activity, and the activity turned out to be legal?

Further, what if the terrorist’s newfound knowledge of the activity allows them to get away with a plot to destroy Seattle with a nuke, whereas they would have been caught if the information would have been kept secret?

Of course this is just hypothetical. We cannot know the motivation until we find the leaker, and ask him, and then decide whether to believe him based on what we know about him. And we probably cannot know the effect of the leak ever. These are the main reasons why we have to treat all leaks of classified information the same: as illegal. Maybe later it will be found that it was good that a leak occurred, and be lenient. Maybe not.
Kenwg says:

December 21, 2005 at 8:39 pm

Kevin,

All good points. A decision to leak classified information is fraught with ethical conflict and personal and national danger.

One doing so better be damn sure of his motives and the likely effect – and it shouldn’t be condoned easily.

Ken G
Pam says:

December 21, 2005 at 8:51 pm

Kevin- good response. I wonder if in light of Schmidt’s acknowledgement of Clinton’s exact same actions, that this wan’t a case of gotcha. A whistleblower has the ability to go to people other than the press. Linda Tripp did!
andrew says:

December 26, 2005 at 8:34 pm

” Are we sure the motivation for the plame leak was intentional, and not just motivated by a desire to get the truth about who sent Wilson to Niger”

The CIA? or are people still thinking that his wife had decisionmaking authority there?
JI says:

January 10, 2006 at 4:43 pm

I just wanted to remind Tommy that Clinton was impeached for lying to a Grand Jury and not for “stepping out on his wife”. The left’s job of spinning the whole thing into a “stepping out on his wife thing” has got be respected since so many still didn’t understand his grand jury testimony.
JI says:

January 10, 2006 at 4:48 pm

The left is trying to impeach 43. First they started yelping about “twisted intel”, then Plame, now Hillary is crying about troops not wearing enough body armor. Luckily the public is not buying. Being former soldier and still in contact with current soldiers, Hillary’s claim is silly. Almost all soldiers hate the current basic flak jacket as it slows you down, thus making you a better target, and this lefty idiot is saying we need to wear more and is calling for an investigation. I hope there is an investigation so she’ll find out that we wear plenty of armor now. I wonder what advisor told her to go this route. Whoever it is, he/she is not a veteran.

Comments are closed.