Redstate

It's a good point, and one that deserves debate.

My problem is this:

Yes, CIA has been in a shooting war with the White House for years. Yes, the pardon is an unchecked right of the Executive.

But we are better than the Democrats.

More importantly, we are better than Bill Clinton.

If bad things were done, punishment is appropriate.

I have to agree with Mike, we're better than the Dems.  If a crime has in fact been committed, someone should face the consequences.  I know if we were at the mercy of President Kerry right now, with the shoe on the other foot, we would all want some heads to roll.  After all, it was H.W. Bush that made the outing of a CIA agent a crime.      

And a caller suggested that Bush pre-emptively pardon everyone.  Rush's response was almost exactly this:

"But we are better than the Democrats.

More importantly, we are better than Bill Clinton."

Seriously, that's a little creepy, if mildly encouraging.

Pity the man if he starts thinking like me, rather than the other way around.

For the reasons already eloquently stated.

But the thing about this entire pseudo-scandal that has me torqued is the fact that the CIA has been engaged in politicking at once cynical (CYA) and partisan.

And if that doesn't stop, then CIA ops should be subject to all of the hazards and pitfalls of political life.  CIA hacks ought not be able to engage in political action and then seek shelter behind the Espionage Act or other related laws, for a host of reasons too obvious to require mention.  In other words, it may have been a crime, but Plame and Wilson received at least something of what their low, dishonest actions merited.

Yes, by all means, issue blanket pardons. Let's see how that plays in 2006, shall we?

What with comparing Miers to a horse and suggesting MoveOn is making money from soldiers dying in Iraq, I'm beginning to think RS picked up a Moby here. Making popcorn...

the CIA has not forgiven the White House for leaving them out to dry on the WMD stuff.  I think that the entire organization felt betrayed by the President over that.

Have you ever actually seen the two of them together?

He's better looking and smarter than I am.

I'm thinner. Even now.

But it was their own shoddy intel, and they cannot reasonably expect the President to twist in the wind when the intel virtually everyone possessed turned out to be bogus.  Seriously.  The President is supposed to carry the cross of a CIA failure all by himself?

would you expect the President to start blaming specific military units or even the Army on the whole for failures during a war?

He is the Commander-in-Chief.  When it's all said and done it was HIS decision to go into Iraq.  The CIA may have provided bad intel but I suspect that many of them don't feel that means that the CIA should have been thrown to the political wolves.

I'm not looking for a discussion on who made the right or bad choices.  I am merely pointing out that the CIA probably felt betrayed by THEIR Commander in Chief.  

Normally, I'd agree.  But this is not a normal situation.

• Joe Wilson was lying to advance John F. Kerry's presidential campaign.  That is something that has been discovered already.
• At a minimum, Valerie Plame (and possibly others in the Counterproliferation Division at CIA) violated the law - not only in terms of nepotism, but by failing to properly document Ambassador Wilson's trip to Niger (he never filed a written report, did he?).
• We also have a good case to be made that these CIA were trying to affect domestic politics.  This is serious stuff, and it crosses a much bigger line than Libby or Rove have even been accused of crossing.

The CIA is charged to protect our national security.  It is not supposed to be engaging in domestic politics, and when it does so, it creates distrust between it and the President.  Valerie Plame and those who might do as she did need to be reminded that their job is to implement the policies set forth by elected officials, not to engage in domestic politics.

If it takes pardons, so be it.

you do realize the substance of this all, the end result, no?  YOU DO REALIZE, that the very evidence wilson was sent to investigate, the EXACT SAME evidence this amdmin. used in their reasoning for immediate action, was PROVEN FALSE.  thats right people, WILSON WAS RIGHT.  this admin. falsly propagated incorrect intelligence.  how can you miss the big picture here people??  let me break it down...

this admin. makes claims citing certain intelligence that iraq seeked uranium from niger.  the cia sends mr. wilson down there to investigate, as it has doubts to its authenticity.  it finds the evidence suspect.  minutes later, mr. wilsons wives career is shot and life put in danger.  AND YOU SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS???

You're so behind in your Known Facts, man.

Do you want to participate or do you want to stay stuck in the version of this argument the real world left behind a year and a half ago? Because there are other sites for that. Hint.

as are your dem talking points.

Is it your point to offend?  We don't take too kindly to people that simply exist to pee all over our carpet.

Hopefully, your 15 minutes of fame are soon over.

First, how they feel should not matter one way or the other, as far as the policies are concerned.  They are not charged with the responsibility of formulating and implementing policy, which is to say that they should be subordinate to the executive.  If they don't like something, they can either quit, or shut up, take it, and do what they're told.

Second, they cannot reasonably expect the President to fall on the sword for them; they serve the executive, and not the executive them.  It is exceedingly, well, petulent and puerile for them to expect someone else to assume responsibility for their failures; it's not encouraging to witness an intel agency behaving like a spoiled rich kid.  Now, that is not to say that the fallout of, oh, virtually every first-rate intel agency in the world being wrong on Iraqi weapons could not have been finessed a bit better.  It is to say that the producers of finished intel products are responsible for the veracity of those products, and not those who consume or rely upon those products, just as Audi will be responsible if a badly engineered or poorly manufactured component in the suspension system of my car causes me to wreck.

I fail to see how pardoning Marc Rich (whose lawyer, btw, was a guy named Scooter Libby) at the request of the Isreali pm would somehow be in the same

league as pre-emptively pardoning member(s) of your own administration to thwart a serious national security investigation that might lead to the President himself.  Care to elaborate?

And no, I'm not talking about the theoretical possibility of this Bush issuing a pre-emptive blanket pardon. I'm referring to the actual pardon that the last Bush did issue to keep a sitting Cabinet member from going to trial or cutting a deal to give up the President.

Can we please can the "better than" talk while the walls are so in need of windex?

would be President Bush I pardoning a bunch of Reagan admin guys?

The better example would be me booting you for returning when banned.

So sad, Jo-Jo.

the POTUS said:

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

And now a pardon?

I would like to believe that we have standards here...