Tuesday, April 25, 2006

The Revealers

Question: How many revealers have been awarded Pulitzers for reporting US secrets?

Answer: Bush lied.

Irrational, you say? Um, yeah. But the spirit of Pulitzer lives on -- yellow (by which I mean cowardly) journalism, muckraking up controversy for its own sake, saying anything to muckrake in the extra penny that extra sale would bring.

So the latest Hero of the Revolution is Mary McCarthy -- formerly the special assistant to bill clinton and senior director of intelligence to his White House, formerly a Kerry partisan, recently a CIA apparatchik. Ms. McCarthy thought it expedient to leak classified material to a Washington Post revealer about secret CIA prisons in NATO countries. Not illegal torture camps (as an EU investigation has shown), not Black Holes of Calcutta, not Mexican prisons -- just secret. Um, formerly secret. And the revealers at the Post deemed it, somehow, adventagious to whatever it is they owe loyalty, to publish the fact of this secrecy, so that the world might stand in awe of … of, um, the Washington Post.

Two NY Times revealers also advanced their careers by sharing the highly sensitive secret that US intel agencies can and do intercept emails and phone calls between US citizens (and no doubt, um, immigrants) and Islamists. I can’t think of anything sarcastic enough to say about this ... did you ever dream such a thing could be possible? Oh, I know: those fuckers! True, that’s more abusive than sarcastic, but it conveys the sentiment.

Whistle-blowing is a public act. It calls attention to wrongful action. It is the act of a strong conscience. Whether it’s the rape-whistle that calls for help, or the referee’s whistle that calls a rule-violation, it is designed to stop malfeasance.

Ms. McCarthy’s blowing was not an act of conscience. Her job -- one of supreme trust -- involved an understanding of the fact and need of secrecy. Secret is not bad, in itself -- it is necessary, sometimes. It was not her place, to unilaterally decide what the greatest good might be in this case. Her position was one of subordination, and effectively one of military discipline -- since American soldiers will die because of her fat mouth and stupid brain. Act of conscience? No, rather, her act was a partisan ploy, a cowardly, skulking, secret betrayal of whatever integrity one might otherwise have imputed to her -- done for the sake of bringing disapprobation upon an Administration she works against.

As for the collaborators in the media, there are no words sufficient to convey the contempt they deserve. Traitor, treachery, seditious, saboteur -- these are only words and do not evoke the glee with which the actions of the revealers are met by the enemy. It would be impossible and unthinkable that anyone these scum would love might be in the military, and thus placed at even greater risk by their irresponsibility. We might only hope that they themselves suffer the pain they undoubtedly hope befalls our young men – as their actions ensure.

I’m starting a garage band. Wanna join? Fifth Columnists of the Fourth Estate. Groovy name, huh? Maybe we’ll get famous and rich.



Vandy said...

Unthinking - Thoughtless - Without Thought - An inability to think through the possible ramifications of a decision to reveal that which is kept secret, or to think through the possible ramifications of ANY decision.

This is the "label" I would give to many, or most, liberal lefties, including Ms. McCarthy. I want to stand in front of her and ask, "What the hell were you thinking!?" Oh, wait, thats right, she wasn't thinking.

Honestly, I'm ashamed of myself for applying that label. I want to keep an open mind and be challenged in my beliefs, but its damn near impossible to do.

Jack, I have followed links from here to liberal blogs where you attempt to engage in thoughtful debate. Almost without fail there is no clear thought to be found.

And not only there, I see it on the news, I read it in the paper (though I rarely bother with a "news" paper).

I listen to the radio as Dennis Prager attempts to get a clear, thoughtful, straight answer from John Dean, it would be laughable if it were not so frightening. Its as if he holds certain beliefs just because he wants to, no other rhyme or reason.

I wish I could be more like you Jack, and believe that the other side still has something worthwhile to offer. How do you do it?

Jack H said...

There are honorable lefties, as there are dishonorable conservatives. Of course. As I've said in various places, it's actions that count. Betraying vital secrets is the action of neither a true liberal or a conservative. It's the action of scum -- a tribe all its own. It's as easy to be a biggot on the right as on the left. Liberalism at its best is a good thing -- compassion, generosity, tolerance within the bounds of common sense. I would hope that I'm that sort of liberal. But because the term is so poisoned by perversion and treachery, there's no room in it, for me.

I suppose the problem is that when a liberal acts as a liberal does act, it inevitably involves what would shame an innocent conscience. If a conservative acts as he should act, it embodies loyalty. A biased view, I know. But I am biased toward honor.


Vandy said...

I meant to add how utterly pissed off I get when I read about things like what Ms. McCarthy did.

My son is 18 and will graduate from Army basic training on Oct 13th. There is every possibility that he will see Irag or Afghanastan, or Iran even.

I guess I WANT to think that those stupid moves are done due to a lack of clear thought, because the alternative is that they do indeed think, but don't give a damn.

Jack H said...

I once heard a PBS lefty radio interviewer ask a lesbian why conservatives were the way they were. It was a valuable lesson. Kind of reminded me not to worry about motives. They're hardly ever my business. Wrong is wrong. I don't even need to feel an emotion about it.

At the moment I'm not sure where my son is. Maybe Baghdad.